Performance Based Seismic Design of Structure: A Review: Research Article ISSN 0976 - 4399

INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 1, No 4, 2011
© Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services
Research article ISSN 0976 – 4399
Performance based seismic design of structure: A review
Dalal Sejal P 1 , Vasanwala S A 2 , Desai A K 3
1 Research Scholar, Applied Mechanics Department, SVNIT, Surat, Gujarat, India.
2 Associate Professor, Applied Mechanics Department, SVNIT, Surat, Gujarat, India
3 Head, Applied Mechanics Department, SVNIT, Surat, Gujarat, India
sejal_purvang@yahoo.co.in
ABSTRACT
Presented in this paper is an updated literature review of the Performancebased Seismic
design (PBSD) method. Performance based Seismic design is an elastic design methodology
done on the probable performance of the building under different ground motions. The
derivative of the PBSD method, known as the Performancebased Plastic design (PBPD)
method that has been widely recognized as an ideal method for use in the future practice of
seismic design has also been reviewed and discussed. Performancebased Plastic design
method is a direct design method starting from the prequantified performance objectives, in
which plastic design is performed to detail the frame members and connections in order to
achieve the intended yield mechanism and behavior. The findings show that a huge scope of
research work is needed for development of PBPD method for other type of structures.
Keywords: Performance Based Seismic Design, Performance Based Plastic Design,

Performance objectives, Seismic Evaluation.
1 Introduction
In the recent major earthquakes, it is noticed that the seismic risk in urban areas is increasing
and the infrastructure facility is far from socioeconomically acceptable levels. There is an
urgent need to reverse this situation and it is believed that one of the most promising ways of
doing this is through the PerformanceBased Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) in which the
structural design is based on the predicted performance of the structure during an earthquake.
The PerformanceBased Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) also known as the Performance
Based Seismic Engineering (PBSE) is a rapidly growing idea that is present in all guidelines
that were recently published: Vision 2000 (SEAOC, 1995), ATC40 (ATC, 1996), FEMA
273 (FEMA, 1997), and SAC/FEMA350 (FEMA, 2000a).
PBEE implies design, evaluation, construction, monitoring the function and maintenance of
engineered facilities whose performance under seismic loads responds to the diverse needs
and objectives of owners, users and society. In loose terms, it requires that a building be
designed to meet specific performance objectives under the action of the frequent or the rarer
seismic events that it may experience in its lifetime. So, a building with a lifetime of 50 years
may be required to sustain no damages under a frequent, “50% in 50 years” event, e.g., one
that has a probability of 50% of being exceeded in the next 50 years. At the same time it
should be able to remain repairable, despite sustaining some damage, during a “10% in 50
years” event and remain stable and lifesafe for rare events of “2% in 50 years”, although,
subsequently, it may have to be demolished. Obviously such performance objectives can be
better tailored to a building’s function, e.g., being stricter for a hospital that needs to remain
operational even after severe events, while being more relaxed for less critical facilities,
flexible and able to suit each building owner’s needs (respecting a minimum of safety of
795
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
course). A general methodology was formulated in an effort to involve all the variables that
may affect the performance, such as seismic hazard, damage measures, collapse, financial
losses or length of downtime due to damage, engineering demands such as story drifts, floor
accelerations, etc., (Krawinkler and Miranda, 2004). The performance evaluation of a
structure is carried out by using complex probabilistic formulas and the design work proceeds
by going through several iterations of this process (Hamburger, 2004).
The term PerformanceBased Seismic Design (PBSD) has been widely used by the
engineering and research community since the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, perhaps the most
costly earthquake in U.S. history, and other major earthquakes around the world which
occurred at the end of the 20th century. This PBSD of buildings has been practiced since
early in the twentieth century, England, New Zealand, and Australia had performancebased
building codes in place for decades. The International Code Council (ICC) in the United
States had a performance code available for voluntary adoption since 2001 (ICC, 2001). The
InterJurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee (IRCC) is an international group
representing the lead building regulatory organizations of 10 countries formed to facilitate
international discussion of performancebased regulatory systems with a focus on identifying
public policies, regulatory infrastructure, education, and technology issues related to
implementing and managing these systems.
In 1989, the FEMAfunded project was launched to develop formal engineering guidelines
for retrofit of existing buildings started, ATC, 1989), it was recommended that the rules and
guidelines be sufficiently flexible to accommodate a much wider variety of local or even
buildingspecific seismic risk reduction policies than has been traditional for new building
construction. The initial design document, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Existing Buildings, FEMA 273, therefore contained a range of formal performance
objectives that corresponded to specified levels of seismic shaking. The performance levels
were generalized with descriptions of overall damage states with titles of Operational,
Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, and Collapse Prevention. These levels were intended to
identify limiting performance states important to a broad range of stakeholders by measuring:
the ability to use the building after the event; the traditional protection of life safety provided
by building codes; and, in the worst case, the avoidance of collapse. Following the
Northridge event, the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC, 1995)
developed a PBSD process, known as Vision 2000, which was more generalized than that
contained in FEMA 273 but used similarly defined performance objectives.
Over the 10year period after publication of FEMA 273, its procedures were reviewed and
refined and eventually published in 2006 as an American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
national standard Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE 41. Although
intended for rehabilitation of existing buildings, the performance objectives and
accompanying technical data in ASCE 41 responded to the general interest in PBSD and have
been used for the design of new buildings to achieve higher or more reliable performance
objectives than perceived available from prescriptive code provisions. ASCE 41 is considered
to represent the first generation of performancebased seismic design procedures.
796
2. Applications and advantages of the PBSD method
In contrast to prescriptive design approaches, performancebased design provides a

systematic methodology for assessing the performance capability of a building. It can be used
to verify the equivalent performance of alternatives, deliver standard performance at a
reduced cost, or confirm higher performance needed for critical facilities. It also establishes a
vocabulary that facilitates meaningful discussion between stakeholders and design
professionals on the development and selection of design options. It provides a framework for
determining what level of safety and what level of property protection, at what cost, are
acceptable to stakeholders based upon the specific needs of a project. Performancebased
seismic design can be used to:
· Design individual buildings with a higher level of confidence that the performance
intended by present building codes will be achieved.
· Design individual buildings that are capable of meeting the performance intended by
present building codes, but with lower construction costs.
· Design individual buildings to achieve higher performance (and lower potential
losses) than intended by present building codes.
· Assess the potential seismic performance of existing structures and estimate potential
losses in the event of a seismic event.
· Assess the potential performance of current prescriptive code requirements for new
buildings, and serve as the basis for improvements to codebased seismic design
criteria so that future buildings can perform more consistently and reliably.
Performancebased seismic design is both efficient and effective to avoid future earthquake
losses. Further, the technology used to implement performancebased seismic design is
transferable, and can be adapted for use in performancebased design for other extreme
hazards including fire, wind, flood, snow, blast, and terrorist attack.
The advantages of PBSD over the methodologies used in the current seismic design code are
summarized as below
1. Multilevel seismic hazards are considered with an emphasis on the transparency of
performance objectives.
2. Building performance is guaranteed through limited inelastic deformation in addition to
strength and ductility.
3. Seismic design is oriented by performance objectives interpreted by engineering
parameters as performance criteria.
4. An analytical method through which the structural behavior, particularly the nonlinear
behavior is rationally obtained.
5. The building will meet the prescribed performance objectives reliably with accepted
confidence.
6. The design will ensure the minimum lifecycle cost.
3. Design procedure of the PBSD method and evolution of the PBPD method
Performancebased design begins with the selection of design criteria stated in the form of
one or more performance objectives. Once the performance objectives are set, a series of
797
simulations (analyses of building response to loading) are performed to estimate the probable
performance of the building under various design events. In the case of extreme loading, as
would be imparted by a severe earthquake, simulations may be performed using nonlinear
analysis techniques. If the simulated performance meets or exceeds the performance
objectives, the design is complete. If not, the design is revised in an iterative process until the
performance objectives are met. In some cases it may not be possible to meet the stated
objective at reasonable cost, in which case, some relaxation of the original objectives may be
appropriate.
After the conceptual design phase is completed, the numerical design phase is proceeded to
determine the structural detailing, which satisfy the prequantified performance objectives.
Preliminary design can be conducted through two different approaches:
1. Traditional forcebased design method followed by the check of performance
objectives and
2. Direct design method starting from the prequantified performance objectives.
The results obtained by the direct design method are believed to be closer to the final design
and require less computational effort. Thus, this finding leads to evolution of the Performance
Based Plastic Design (PBPD) method which is a direct design method that uses preselected
target drift and yield mechanisms as key performance objectives that determine the degree
and distribution of expected structural damage. It is based on the formulations derived from
the capacityspectrum method using Newmark– Hall reduction factors (Newmark and Hall,
1982 ) for the inelastic demand spectrum.
Target Drift
Capacity Curve
A
Demand Curve
D
Figure 1: Procurement of the Target Drift
The design base shear for a specified hazard level is calculated by equating the work needed
to push the structure monotonically up to the target drift to the energy required by an
equivalent EPSDOF to achieve the same state. Also, a new distribution of lateral design
forces is used that is based on relative distribution of maximum storey shears consistent with
798
inelastic dynamic response results (Chao et al., 2007 ). Plastic design is performed to detail
the frame members and connections in order to achieve the intended yield mechanism and
behavior. This target drift is obtained by intersecting the demand diagram and the capacity
diagram of the structure as shown in figure 1. And the Yield mechanism is chosen to be a
plastic hinge formation in the beams and at the base column as shown in figure 2.
• • • •
• • • •
• • • •
Figure 2: The Formation of Plastic Hinges for the yield mechanism
Results of extensive inelastic static and dynamic analyses have proven the validity of the
method (Goel and Leelataviwat, 2008). The method Comparisons of responses with
corresponding baseline frames designed by current practice have consistently shown
superiority of the proposed methodology in terms of achieving the desired behavior. The
method is especially advantageous for tall frames, where cumbersome and lengthy iterative
design work in current practice can be completely eliminated, while leading to excellent
performance as targeted.
Since the numerical phase of performancebased design is an iterative procedure between
design and verification, in order to save computational effort, it is suggested to select fewer
performance objectives in the preliminary design and check all performance objectives in the
final design. The decision as to how many and which performance objectives need to be
selected depends on if that performance objective is the main concern of the users and owners
and if quantification of the performance acceptable limit is reliable.
PBPD design has been successfully applied to Steel Moment Resisting Frame (Lee and Goel ,
2001) , buckling restrained braced frame, Eccentrically Braced Frame (Chao and Goel ,2006),
Special Truss Moment Frame (Chao and Goel , 2008), concentric braced frames(Chao and
Goel , 2006) and composite buckling restrained braced frame (Dasgupta et al, 2004). In all
cases, the frames developed the desired strong column–weak beam yield mechanisms as
intended, and the storey drifts/ductility demands were within the selected design values, thus
meeting the selected performance objectives(Goel et al , 2010). A draft code for Taiwan has
also been recently developed by Xue (Xue et al, 2008) based on the PBPD method of design
for implementation.
PBPD design has also been applied to Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Structures by
Liao (Liao and Goel, 2010).Development of the PBPD methodology for Reinforced Concrete
799
structures with degrading hysteretic behavior is currently in progress. Seismic design of
Reinforced Concrete structures to achieve targeted response presents special challenge
mainly due to their complex hysteretic behavior. This study is primarily analytical in nature
and focuses on Reinforced Concrete moment frames. It is expected that findings from this
study will be incorporated in the next generation of performancebased design codes and
practice.
4. Summary and Discussion
Several approaches for the PBSD method proposed by researchers have been briefly
reviewed in this paper and it is observed that more research work is needed especially for
development of PBPD method for various other different types of structures. It is important
to note that in the PBPD method, control of drift and yielding is built into the design process
from the very start, eliminating or minimizing the need for lengthy iterations to arrive at the
final design. Other advantages include the fact that innovative structural schemes can be
developed by selecting suitable yielding members and/or devices and placing them at
strategic locations, while the designated nonyielding members can be detailed for no or
minimum ductility capacity. All of these would translate into enhanced performance, safety
and economy in lifecycle costs. As the PBPD accepts damage in seismic events, and proves
to be the most economical solution, and the performance can be quantified and confirmed to
the owner‘s desires, it is quite possible that it can be misused by the owner for personal
profits.
List of Abbreviations
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ATC Applied Technology Council
EPSDOF Elasto Plastic Single Degree of Freedom
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
ICBO International Conference of Building Officials
ICC International Code Council
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Programme
PBEE PerformanceBased Earthquake Engineering
PBPD Performance Based Plastic Design
PBSD Performancebased Seismic design
SEAOC Structural Engineers Association of California
UBC Uniform Building Code
References
1. ASCE, 1998, “Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings, a Prestandard”,
FEMA 310 Report, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
2. ASCE, 2000, “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings”, FEMA 356 Report, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
800
3. ASCE, 2002, “Standard Methodology for Seismic Evaluation of Buildings”. Standard
No. ASCE31. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
4. ATC, 1997a, “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”,
FEMA 273 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Building
Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.
5. ATC, 1997b, “NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings”, FEMA 274 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council, for
the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
6. ATC, 2006, “NextGeneration PerformanceBased Seismic Design Guidelines:

Program Plan for New and Existing Buildings”, FEMA 445, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
7. Chao SH, Goel SC, Lee SS. : 2007. “A seismic design lateral force distribution
based on inelastic state of structures”. Earthquake Spectra Vol 23: 3, 547–569.
8. Chao SH, Goel SC. : 2006a. “Performancebased design of eccentrically braced
frames using target drift and yield mechanism.” AISC Engineering Journal Third
quarter: 173–2006.
9. Chao SH, Goel SC. : 2006b. “A seismic design method for steel concentric braced
frames (CBF) for enhanced performance.” In Proceedings of Fourth International
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, 12–13 October, Paper No.
227.
10. Chao SH, Goel SC. : 2008. “Performancebased plastic design of seismic resistant
special truss moment frames.”, AISC Engineering Journal Second quarter ,pp 127–
150.
11. Dasgupta P, Goel SC, ParraMontesinos G. 2004. “Performancebased seismic design
and behavior of a composite buckling restrained braced frame (BRBF)”. In
Proceedings of Thirteenth World Conference on EarthquakeEngineering, Vancouver,
Canada, 1–6 August 2004, Paper No. 497.
12. Goel, S. C., Leelataviwat, S., Lee, S.S., and Chao, S.H. 2008, “Theoretical
Justification of PerformanceBased Plastic Design and Evaluation Method for
EarthquakeResistant Structures,” Earthquake Spectra (under review).
13. Goel, S. C., Lioa, W.C.,Chao S. H, Bayat, M.R., ,2010,“Performancebased plastic
design (pbpd) Method for earthquakeresistant structures: An overview” ,The
structural design of tall and special buildings ,Wiley Interscience , Vol. 19 pp 115
137.
14. Hamburger, R. O. 2004, “Development of NextGeneration PerformanceBased

Seismic Design Guidelines, PerformanceBased Seismic Design Concepts and
801
Implementation”, Proceedings of The International Workshop, Bled, Slovenia, 28

June1 July, 2004 and PEER Report 2004/05, pp. 89100.
15. ICBO 1997. “Uniform Building Code 1997 Edition, Vol. 2: Structural Engineering
Design Provisions”, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier,
California, U.S.A.
16. ICC, 2001, “International Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities”,
International Code Council, Whittier, California.
17. Krawinkler, H., and Miranda, E.2004, “PerformanceBased Earthquake Engineering :
from Engineering Seismology to PerformanceBased Engineering”, Edited by
Bozorgnia, Y. and Bertero, V. V., CRC Press.
18. Lee, S.S., and Goel, S. C.2001, “PerformanceBased Design of Steel Moment
Frames Using Target Drift and Yield Mechanism,” Report No. UMCEE 0117,
Department of Civil and Environmental ngineering, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI.
19. Lee, S.S., Goel, S. C., and Chao, S.H.2004, “PerformanceBased Design of Steel
Moment Frames Using Target Drift and Yield Mechanism,” Proceedings, 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 266, Vancouver, B. C., Canada.
20. Leelataviwat, S., Goel, S. C., and Stojadinović, B 1999., “Toward PerformanceBased
Seismic Design of Structures,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 435 461.
21. Leelataviwat, S., Saewon, W., and Goel, S.C.,2007 “An Energy Based Method for
Seismic Evaluation of Structures.” Proceedings of Structural Engineers Association of
California Convention SEAOC, Lake Tahoe, California, 2131.
22. Liao, W.C. and Goel S. C. 2010, “PerformanceBased Plastic Design (PBPD) of
Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frame Structures”, The 3rd Congress of the
International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), Washington DC, 2010a
23. NEHRP, 2009, “Research Required to Support Full Implementation of Performance
Based Seismic Design”, prepared by The Building Seismic Safety Council of The
National Institute of Building Sciences Washington, D.C.
24. Newmark NM, Hall WJ: 1982. “Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria,
Structural Design, and Strong Motion Records”, Earthquake Spectra and Design, Vol
3, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
25. SEAOC, 1995, “Vision 2000: PerformanceBased Seismic Engineering of Buildings”,
Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.
26. SEAOC, 1999, “Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary”,

Structural Engineers Association of CaliforniaSeismology Committee.
27. Xue Qiuang et al, :2008,“The draft code for performancebased seismic design of
802
buildings in Taiwan”, Engineering Structures, Elsevier publications , pp 15351547.
28. Agrawal and Shrikhande,: ”Earthquake Resistant design of Structures ”, Eastern
Economy Edition, New Delhi.
29. Chopra, A.K. : “Dynamics of Structures”, Prentice Hall India, New Delhi.
30. Goel and Chao.: “Performance Based Plastic Design – Earthquake Resistant Steel
Structures”,NCSEA Publication Committee and International Code Council.
803

Performance Based Seismic Design of Structure: A Review: Research Article ISSN 0976 - 4399

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Based Seismic Design of Structure: A Review: Research Article ISSN 0976 - 4399

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL

Keywords: Performance Based Seismic Design, Performance Based Plastic Design,

In contrast to prescriptive design approaches, performancebased design provides a

6. ATC, 2006, “NextGeneration PerformanceBased Seismic Design Guidelines:

14. Hamburger, R. O. 2004, “Development of NextGeneration PerformanceBased

Implementation”, Proceedings of The International Workshop, Bled, Slovenia, 28

26. SEAOC, 1999, “Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary”,

You might also like

Performance Based Seismic Design of Structure: A Review: Research Article ISSN 0976 - 4399

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Based Seismic Design of Structure: A Review: Research Article ISSN 0976 - 4399

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL

Keywords: Performance Based Seismic Design, Performance Based Plastic Design,

In contrast to prescriptive design approaches, performance­based design provides a

6. ATC, 2006, “Next­Generation Performance­Based Seismic Design Guidelines:

14. Hamburger, R. O. 2004, “Development of Next­Generation Performance­Based

Implementation”, Proceedings of The International Workshop, Bled, Slovenia, 28

26. SEAOC, 1999, “Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary”,

You might also like

In contrast to prescriptive design approaches, performancebased design provides a

6. ATC, 2006, “NextGeneration PerformanceBased Seismic Design Guidelines:

14. Hamburger, R. O. 2004, “Development of NextGeneration PerformanceBased