Based on the occurrence of risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) shaking,

ASCE 7-10 establishes expected performance in the form of permissible collapse probabilities.
Table 1 lists these objectives.

Performance goals in ASCE/SEI 7-10 (Table C.1.3.1b)

Risk category Ground Tolerable probability Tolerable probability
motion level of total or partial of individual life
structural collapse endangerment

I or II MCER 10% 25
III MCER 6% 15
IV MCER 3% 10

but those goals are assumed to be met if the building response is analyzed according to Chapter
16 requirements and is found to fulfill the acceptance criteria. Where possible, acceptance
criteria were calibrated to be consistent with the fundamental collapse goals of Table
The performance expectations for buildings and other structures designed per ASCE/SEI 7-05,
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE, 2006), are a function of
Occupancy Category. For structures belonging to Occupancy Categories I and II, the
expectations are the following: (1) a low probability of collapse in maximum considered
earthquake (MCE) shaking with a return period of 2475 years subject to a deterministic cap; (2) a
low probability of damage sufficient to cause life loss for shaking with an intensity equal to 67%
of MCE shaking; and (3) a high probability that components and systems essential to protecting
life safety, including fire sprinklers, emergency lighting and exit lighting, would be functional
after shaking with an intensity of 67% of MCE shaking. For structures belonging to Occupancy
Category III, the performance expectations of collapse and life loss require lower probabilities
than Occupancy Category I and II structures, and higher probability for functionality of life-
safety systems than structures in Occupancy Categories I and II. For Occupancy Category IV
structures, the performance expectations are a very low probability of collapse for MCE shaking,
a low probability of life-safety risk for MCE shaking, and a high probability of functionality
following shaking lower than MCE. The probability is not quantified in any of these cases.
Models typically account for, at a minimum, monotonic response (failure deformation and post-
failure behavior) and cyclic strength and stiffness deterioration. The loading and unloading
behavior of the element (e.g. pinching) is also important in some cases but is generally less so
than capturing the monotonic behavior and deterioration due to cyclic loading.

Cyclic deterioration can be represented using one of several methods. Ideally the mathematical
model will explicitly account for cyclic deterioration at the component level, and modify the
hysteretic response based on the deformation history. Alternatively, the cyclic deterioration can
be incorporated into the force-displacement “backbone” curve (either by factoring the monotonic
load-displacement curve, or by using a cyclic envelope curve) with deterioration implicitly,
rather than explicitly, considered in the model. Finally, deterioration can be conservatively
accounted for by modeling a full loss of component capacity at a deformation level consistent
with the onset of cyclic deterioration.

“unacceptable response” under any single ground motion as dynamic instability, collapse, non-
convergence, response significantly exceeding the valid range of modeling, or force demand that
exceeds the mean strength of a critical force-controlled component.

When the variability is suppressed in the ground motion selection and scaling, lower record-to-
record variability values are expected, so Table A2 presents comparable results for βCOL,RTR =
0.25. This table shows that, for a building meeting the P[C|MCER] = 10% performance goal, the
likelihood of observing a collapse response is very low. If spectral matching methods, or other
selection-based methods, are used to suppress the record-to-record variability, then the
observance of even a single unacceptable response is strongly suggestive of the building not
meeting the P[C|MCER] = 10% performance goal.

Acceptance criteria:

Acceptance criteria are intended to provide confidence that the structure’s response is stable and
within a range predictable by analysis and substantiated by testing.

Some of the acceptance criteria have, however, been specifically developed based on the
collapse performance targets (e.g. criteria for strength of brittle components) while others are
more historically-based (e.g. story drift criteria).
Limiting residual drifts is an important consideration for post-earthquake operability and for
limiting financial losses.

primary acceptance criteria are the story drift and element-level criteria

Element-level acceptance criteria are dependent on a two-tier classification system. The first tier
is classifying each action as either force- or deformation-controlled. Note that this is done for
each element action, rather than for each element. For the example of a reinforced concrete
column, the flexural behavior may be classified as a deformation-controlled action whereas the
shear behavior may be classified as a force-controlled action.