FEDERAL EMERGENCY MdANAGEVENT AGENCY 

FEDERAL MANAGEMENT 

g l 

l l

I ACTION PLAN a 

FOR 

PERFORMANCE BASED 

I SEISMIC DESIGN

1k 

Prepared for the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

By the 

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute 

_FEM~A-349IAoril FEMA-349!Anril 2000 2000
FORWARD 

One of the primary goals of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the 

prevention, or mitigation, of this country's losses from natural hazards. To achieve this 

goal, we as a nation need to ask what level of performance do we expect from our 

buildings during an event such as an earthquake. Inorder to answer this question, FEMA 

is exploring the possible development of "performance-based seismic design" criteria. 

Such criteria could be voluntarily used by this nation's engineers and designers to improve 

the performance of critical classes of buildings that are currently only designed to a 

"lifesafety" level to avoid collapse, but would infact probably still suffer significant damage 

in a design event. 

FEMA contracted with the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) (contract 

number EMW-92-K-3955, Task 13) to solicit the input of the nation's leading seismic 

professionals in developing an action plan that could be used to develop performancebased seismic design criteria. This project and the resulting action plan have gone a long 

way in identifying key issues that will need to be addressed in this process. 

This action plan builds upon a similar effort that FEMA funded in 1993 with the Earthquake 

Engineering Research Center, now the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center 

(PEER). The end product of that study was a similar plan, "Performance Based Seismic 

Design of Buildings" (FEMA-283), published by FEMA in September 1996. The material in 

that plan had an emphasis on the research that would be required, and has in fact been 

used by PEER inthe last several years as the basis for their research work inthis arena. 

While this action plan does an excellent job of describing the requirements that would be 

needed to successfully develop performance based seismic design criteria, FEMA does 

has some concerns, such as the proposed budget, which exceeds what FEMA is capable 

of devoting within the recomended time frame. FEMA is planning to identify some of the 

key elements of the plan and to begin to address them through a series of projects under 

its Problem Focused Studies program. However, without additional specific funding for 

this plan, it will be very difficult to accomplish the entire plan. To avoid further delay, 

FEMA has decided to publish this document as a "final draft for informational purposes 

only. Publication of this document in no way obligates this or any other Federal agency to 

any portion of plan contained herein. The information and opinions contained inthis 

document are solely those of EERI and the project participants and do not necessarily 

represent the views of FEMA. 

In closing, FEMA sincerely wishes to express its, gratitude to all who were involved in this 

project. The results of their hard work will play an important role as this country moves 

forward towards performance-based seismic design and reducing the losses suffered by 

this nation's citizens after the next earthquake. 

Cover Art: Part of a presentation developed by Ronald 0. Hamburger, EE International 
I ACTION PLAN 

FOR 

PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN


Executive Summary 

Prepare 

Federal 

By the 

Earthqu 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Table of Contents 

The Need for Changes in Current Seismic Design Practice ................... i 

What is Performance Based Seismic Design? ....................................... v


Products Necessary to Implement 

Performance Based Seismic Design ................................
 Vi 

Schedule and Budget ................... VI


Conclusion ....................................................................... EE..E...ix

References ...........................................................................................

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

The Need for Changes in 

Current Seismic Design 

I 

-

R ecent decades have seen a dramatic rise in insured and uninsured 

earthquake related losses. In the past ten 

years estimated losses were twenty times 

larger than in the previous 30 years 

combined. FEMAs expenditures related to 

earthquake losses have become an 

increasing percentage of its disaster 

assistance budget.' Predictions are that 

future single earthquakes, which will 

inevitably occur, may result in losses of 

$50-100 billion each.' 

Losses are rising due to several factors. 

These include: a denser population of 

buildings being located in seismically 

active regions. an aging building stock and 

the increasing cost of business FEMA Disaster Assistance interruption. Nonstructural and contents 1988-1997 damage are also large contributors to loss, 

especially in regions with high-technology 

manufacturing and health-care industries. 

It is this increase in losses from all hazards 

that has led FEMA to support actions to reduce future losses. One of these is Project 

Impact, an initiative to encourage loss reduction activities through partnerships at 

the local community level. One of the key 

components of Project Impact is the community's adoption and enforcement of an 

adequate building code 

Historically, building codes have required I: * 4

that buildings be built to a minimum level of I** I

, 

OEarthquakes safety. Specifically, structures designed to mother I I 

the Uniform Building Code are expected to 

"resist a minor level of earthquake ... 

without damage, ...a moderate level.. with 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

some nonstructural damage, [and] a major 

level of earthquake.. without collapse."3 

Deaths in recent California earthquakes 

have been few, showing that the intent of 

the code has been met. However, there is 

a major misperception on the part of many 

owners, insurers, lending institutions and 

government agencies about the expected 

performance of a code conforming 

building. This has led to losses that were 

unexpected and in many cases financially 

ruinous. Building stakeholders--those with 

a financial or social interest in the built 

environment--who expect that their 

buildings are "earthquake proof" because 

they meet the code, have often been very 

disappointed. It must be said, too, that 

none of these recent events has been of 

an intensity that would typically be 

considered catastrophic. Catastrophic 

temblors with a magnitude similar to the 

1812 New Madrid or 1906 San Francisco 

earthquakes will now likely result in losses 

several times larger than anything 

previously experienced if they occur in a 

densely populated area. 

Many building owners are unaware of the 

tradeoffs they face when using the current 

state of design practice. Interestingly, 

people make similar tradeoffs with more 

everyday choices. For example, the 

number of highway fatalities could be 

dramatically reduced if everyone drove 

tanks. Yet most people are unwilling or 

cannot afford to do so, and instead accept 

the increased risk of driving a car. 

Consciously or not, car buyers perform 

cost-benefit analyses when weighing the 

risk of an accident against a car's cost. A 

careful consumer may decide to spend 

more to buy a safer car or he may opt to 

spend the same amount of money, but 

research much more closely the safety 

records of similarly priced cars. This 

consumer is reducing risk either by 

increasing his investment or by reducing 

his uncertainty. 

Current codes clearly serve an essential 

and effective role in protecting building 

occupants. The design basis of the code is 

intended to provide a basic level of safety 

and a relatively economical means by 

which to construct buildings. However, 

using current code methods to design and 

build to a higher level of performance may 

add significantly to a project's cost. 

Stakeholders, however, have become 

painfully aware of the financial and social 

consequences of earthquakes and are 

demanding that practical and cost-effective 

means be developed to address the issues 

of damage control and loss reduction. 

The community of design 

professionals needs to be able to 

respond to this demand with the 

development of design and 

evaluation methodologies that 

look at a broad range of building 

performance and construction 

techniques. 

Current codes represent an evolution of 

prescriptive rules that have changed every 

three years as more is learned about 

building behavior. The expected 

performance of new code designed 

buildings is poorly understood, and 

probably inconsistent among building 

types. It is currently difficult for rational 

advanced design techniques and 

innovative systems to be fit into the code 

framework. It is also difficult to apply 

building codes for new buildings to 

evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. 

Special guidelines have been developed 

for these purposes, potentially creating a 

double standard. 

Performance Based Seismic Design 

(PBSD) is a methodology that provides a 

means to more reliably predict seismic risk 

in all buildings in terms more useful to 

building users. It permits owners to: 

ii 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

> Make an efficient use of their design 

and construction budgets, resulting in 

more reliable performance for the 

money spent. 

> Consider spending more money to 

achieve quantifiably higher 

performance than provided for in the 

code, thereby reducing risk and 

potential losses. 

PBSD will benefit nearly all building users. 

The PBSD methodology will be used by 

code writers to develop building codes that 

more accurately and consistently reflect 

the minimum standards desired by the 

community. A performance based design 

option in the code will facilitate design of 

buildings to higher standards and will allow 

rapid implementation of innovative 

technology. When performance levels are 

tied to probable losses in a reliability 

framework, the building design process 

can be tied into owner's long-term capital 

planning strategies, as well as numerical 

life cycle cost models. 

PBSD is not limited to the design of new 

buildings. With it, existing facilities can be 

evaluated and/or retrofitted to reliable 

performance objectives. Sharing the 

common framework of PBSD, existing 

buildings and new buildings can be 

compared equitably. It is expected that a 

rating system will develop to replace the 

currently used ProbableMaximum Loss 

(PML) system. Such a system is highly 

desirable to owners, tenants, insurers, 

lenders, and others involved with building 

financial transactions. Despite its 

inconsistency and lack of transparency, the 

PML system is widely used and a poor 

rating often creates the financial incentive 

needed for retrofit decisions. 

PBSD will provide a common base for 

design of new buildings, evaluation of 

existing buildings, and prediction of future 

damages. This will enable the results of 

regional loss estimates to be directly 

interpreted in terms of building code and 

retrofit strategies. PSD will thus support 

and encourage efficient mitigation on both 

an individual and a regional scale, resulting 

in safer and economically stronger 

communities. 

The availability and use of PBSD will also 

allow building owners and a local community to determine the performance level of 

buildings within their jurisdiction. This is 

especially true for structures that are critical to the continued function and livability 

of a community. For this reason, PBSD 

can play a significant role in meeting the 

intent and goals of FEMVIA's Project Impact 

initiative to reduce future losses. 

This Action Planpresents a rational and 

cost effective approach by which building 

stakeholders: owners, financial institutions, 

engineers, architects, contractors, 

researchers, the public and governing 

agencies, will be able to move to a 

performance based design and evaluation 

system. 

The Plan recognizes that there is a strong 

demand from stakeholder groups for more 

reliable, quantifiable and practical means 

to control building damage. It also 

recognizes that there is not a focused 

understanding among these groups as to 

how these goals can be obtained. This 

Plan describes how performance based 

seismic design guidelines can be 

developed and used to achieve these 

goals. Itwill be a vehicle to bring together 

the diverse sets of demands from within 

the stakeholder groups and distill them into 

cohesive and practical guidelines. It 

engages each of the groups in the 

development these guidelines, by which 

future building design will become more 

efficient and reliable. 

iii 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

What is Performance 

Based Seismic Design 

(PBSD)? 

T based seismic design is 

he basic concept of performance 

to provide 

engineers with the capability to design 

buildings that have a predictable and 

reliable performance in earthquake^.^ 

Further, it permits owners and other 

stakeholders to quantify financially or 

otherwise the expected risks to their 

buildings and to select a level of 

performance that meets their needs while 

maintaining a basic level of safety. 

PBSD employs the concept of performance 

objectives. A performance objective is the 

specification of an acceptable level of 

damage to a building if it experiences an 

earthquake of a given ~everity.~ This 

creates a “sliding scale” whereby a building 

can be designed to perform in a manner 

that meets the owner’s economic and 

safety goals. A single performance 

objective that requires buildings remain 

operational even in the largest events, will 

result in extraordinarily high costs. 

Conversely, a design where life safety is 

the only consideration may not adequately 

protect the economic interests of building 

stakeholders. 

A key to knowing how a building will 

perform in a given earthquake is having the 

ability to estimate the damage it will sustain 

and the consequences of that damage. 

Current codes do not evaluate a building’s 

performance after the onset of damage. 

Instead, they obtain compliance with a 

minimum safety standard by specifying a 

design which historically has protected life 

safety in earthquakes. In some cases, the 

code may actually be unconservative. if a 

building’s irregularities are very substantial, 

or if a higher performance level such as 

damage control is the desired. 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

PBSD differs from current codes in that it 

focuses on a building's individuai 

pedormance. It provides a road map that 

permits design professionals, owners and 

other stakeholders to learn more about a 

building's performance in different 

earthquakes, and implement a design that 

optimizes design and construction costs 

with respect to life-cycle performance. In 

its broadest sense, PBSD creates global 

planning opportunities for reducing 

economic and social losses to whole 

communities, regions and states. 

To implement PBSD several issues must 

be resolved. PBSD will change the way 

stakeholders look at the built environment. 

It will require a comprehensive effort to 

bring the various interested parties to a 

consensus. Six challenges to adoption 

exist. They are: 

i Increasing the current knowledge base 

of building behavior. This fundamental 

issue will require that broader and more 

accurate information be developed and 

collected on structural and 

nonstructural performance. 

i Raising awareness among 

stakeholders about how PBSD can 

address many of the problems they 

already perceive with current design 

practice. 

i Developing PBSD to be compatible the 

stakeholders' economic interests. 

i Communicating the complex concepts 

and information in a way that IS 

understandabie to all stakeholders. 

i Reducing uncertainty about how PBSD 

will effect stakeholders, in terms of cost 

and possible changes in liability 

exposures. 

i Implementing incremental changes in 

the current standards, to create a 

continuum of design improvement 

rather than a perceived radical change. 

This Action Plan identifies the specific 

tasks required to develop a cohesive set of 

products and guidelines that will meet 

these challenges. These products will be 

more than just technical documents. The 

Plan calls for going beyond earlier and 

more purely analytical performance based 

efforts by creating education and 

implementation programs to bring all 

stakeholders on board 

This Plan is to be used by the teams 

developing the guidelines. It will provide a 

mechanism to ensure that the goals of 

PBSD are being tracked. It encourages 

creativity while capturing the required 

elements of a successful program. For 

each of the products, a proposed budget 

and schedule are presented. A priority is 

assigned to individual tasks so that the 

program can be tailored to an overall 

funding level. 

A Successful Use of 

er, were unac 

ethodologybThe re$ 

ner'sminimum equ 

fding representeda 

1 to the next most needy facilities. ." , ._A 
I 

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Products Necessary to 

Implement Performance 

Based Seismic Design - I 

S ix "products" are needed to create a

S PBSD standard that is 

comprehensive and acceptable to 

stakeholders. They are: 

1. A Planning and Management 

Program. Currently there is a demand 

within the stakeholder community for 

more reliable ways to predict and 

control building performance. These 

demands, however, are not clearly 

articulated and are often conflicting. 

Clearly, though, there is increasing 

recognition that problems exist with 

current design practice. The greatest 

challenge to creating a successful 

PBSD program is distilling the most 

important needs within these demands 

and synthesizing from them a cohesive 

guideline for performance based 

design. A significant effort will be 

required to ensure that the PBSD 

guidelines respond to these needs 

fairly, are accepted by stakeholders 

and are implemented effectively. The 

Action Plan must be a vehicle to 

communicate these needs to the entire 

community, so that the solutions are 

appropriate and widely acceptable. A 

formal program will be necessary to 

educate people about how PBSD can 

respond to many of their current 

demands for more reliable and cost 

effective performance. The Planning 

and Management Program will consist 

of the following components: 

> A steering committee to shepherd 

and promote the development of the 

Guidelines. This group will be 

responsible for insuring that the efforts 

by the various working groups are 

tracking towards the goals laid down in 

this Action Plan. It will work 

collaboratively with the stakeholders to 

create an effective coalition of interests. 

It will question stakeholders directly in a 

series of forums about what they see 

as concerns and benefits. This group 

needs to function as facilitators and 

encouragers to promote adoption. 

An education strategy to facilitate the 

use of the Guidelines. This will require 

a concentrated effort including 

conferences, workshops and 

publications to raise awareness and 

assist stakeholders in using the 

guidelines. Integration of the guidelines 

into codes and practice, and adoption 

by local and state jurisdictions needs to 

be accomplished in an incremental way 

yet with a defined timetable and 

strategy. 

2. Structural Performance Products 

(SPP) The SPP will form the core 

reference material for the guidelines. 

They will consist of technical 

documents that quantify performance 

levels, define how to evaluate a 

building's performance, and develop 

methods for designing a structure to 

meet a performance level with defined 

reliability. They will present the 

necessary analytical information 

needed by engineers. A goal is to 

address new and existing buildings so 

that the guidelines will be appropriate 

for new design as well as retrofit. The 

creation of these products will require 

major technical research in order to 

vi 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

produce a comprehensive framework 

for structural design. 

3. Nonstructural Performance Products 

(NPP)The NPP function similarly to the 

SPP but focus on the nonstructural 

components of a building: partitions, 

piping, equipment, contents, etc... In 

the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, 

several prominent buildings had 

significant losses not because of 

structural damage, but because of 

nonstructural damage such as broken 

sprinkler pipes. To truly achieve a 

desired performance, design of 

nonstructural components is as critical 

as the design of the structure itself. 

Engineers from many disciplines, 

architects and manufacturers who 

design and supply a building's 

nonstructural components will develop 

these products. Like the SPP, the NPP 

will require significant research, 

especially in the areas of equipment 

testing and certification. Also like the 

SPP, the NPP must include research 

focused on existing building stock. 

4. Risk Management Products (RMVP) 

The RMIP are the key to bringing 

owners, financial institutions and 

governing agencies into the PBSD 

process. These documents will be 

financially oriented and will develop 

methodologies for calculating the 

benefits of designing to various 

performance objectives and for 

selecting appropriate design bases for 

individual and classes of buildings. 

The goal will be to provide a basis for 

stakeholders to make rational 

economic choices about the level of 

performance and the comparative costs 

to reach those levels. 

5. The PBSD Guidelines. The PBSD 

Guidelines will be the actual document 

used by design professionals, building 

officials, material suppliers and 

equipment manufacturers to implement 

performance based design. Itwill distill 

and synthesize information from the 

SPP, NPP and RMP into one document 

that is usable by each of the groups. It 

is intended that this document will be 

published as a FEMVIA guideline and will 

serve as a basis for codes and practice 

thereafter. The guidelines will contain a 

technical commentary for reference It 

will address new design as well as 

retrofit and it will serve as a basis for 

development of building rating" 

systems, to provide financial guidance 

to stakeholders. 

'6. A Stakeholders' Guide. This 

document will function as a nontechnical commentary to the 

Guidelines, explaining PBSD and 

providing instruction to the nontechnical audience. PBSD will require 

a shift in the role owners, lending 

institutions and others play within the 

design process. These stakeholders 

will now be a fundamental part of 

developing the design strategy. The 

Stakeholders' Guide will help these 

groups choose objectives that best 

meet their cost and performance goals. 

Viii 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Scthedule and Budget: 

iven adequate funding, 

implementation of the Action Plan 

can occur over a ten-year period. This is 

an ambitious schedule, as the products 

require major research and consensus 

building efforts. The steering committee will 

be a constant throughout the process, to 

facilitate and coordinate the various 

products. The products will be developed 

somewhat concurrently, with the Structural 

and Nonstructural Performance Products 

and the Risk Management Product leading 

the Guidelines and the Stakeholders' 

Guide. At milestones throughout the 

project, drafts of the Guidelines and 

Stakeholders' Guide will be prepared using 

information from the technical products. 

The provisions will be verified through 

example applications and stakeholder 

review, resulting in refinement or 

modification of the research efforts. In this 

way, the project will remain on track and 

under the scrutiny of the involved 

stakeholders. Throughout the project, the 

Planning and Management Program must 

Cost Product Year Year 

1 2 

be developed and employed, in order to 

gain acceptance from the stakeholders. 

In order to achieve wide acceptance of 

PBSD, it is imperative that participation be 

sought from a diverse group of 

stakeholders in broad geographical 

regions, and from both small and large 

businesses and municipalities. The 

participants must have the skills needed to 

develop each product, and represent as 

many points of view as possible. 

The costs shown below are given as a 

range, the lower number representing the 

minimum essential funding level required 

to obtain a basic framework for PBSD, and 

the higher number representing the optimal 

level needed for full and effective 

implementation. Within the Action Plan a 

more detailed breakdown of the costs is 

presented, describing the specific tasks 

associated with each product, along with a 

flowchart describing the relationships 

between the six products. Priorities are 

attached to each task so that funding 

decisions can be made more easily. 

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 

3 4 5 6 7 Q I n 

Amounts shown are in 1998 dollars 

viii 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

ew lives have been lost in major F seismic events, in buildings 

designed under modern codes. The 

economic losses in recent earthquakes, 

however, have put a strain on 

communities, owners, lenders, insurers, 

governments and building users. The 

process of building design and 

construction must undergo a significant 

change in order to reduce future losses 

to these stakeholders. Current codes 

simply are not sophisticated or robust 

enough to allow designs to be refined to 

the extent that loss prediction and 

reduction are reliable. 

Performance based seismic design has 

been in development for several years 

and represents a necessary strategy for 

reducing earthquake losses. It focuses 

on the economic and social goals of 

building stakeholders and integrates 

financial modeling with the latest 

engineering research. The various 

efforts within PBSD, however, have yet 

to be fully developed and synthesized 

into a comprehensive workable 

guideline. This major step is key to 

fulfilling the promise of PBSD and 

reaping its benefits. 

This Action Plan lays out a rational, 

cost-effective and ac h ievabIe program 

for establishing and implementing PBSD 

in a manner that will benefit each of the 

groups with a stake in the built 

environment. On an individual building 

basis and on community, county and 

statewide levels, PBSD offers 

opportunities to more reliably predict 

building performance and to reduce the 

social and economic impacts of 

earthquakes. 

PBSD -A RegionaE Perspective 

Stanford University is a microcosm of many large, 

,communities. tt comprises 

masonry, concrete, steel, 

on a campus-wide 

build new facilities 

has evolved from an 

it of hazardous 

in terms of occupancy 

investing where the 

losses is mosl productive. 

s what to expect when it 

d recovery planning for 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

References 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Testimony of James L. Witt, Director, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency Before the Subcommittee on House Water Resources 

and Environmental Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 1998. 

2 Kunreuther, Howard, Role of Mitigation in Managing Catastrophic Risks, Wharton Risk 

Management and Decision Processes Center, 1997 

3 SEAOC 1996, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural 

Engineers Association of California, 1996. 

4 Hamburger, Ronald, An Overview of Performance Based Design, 1997. 

5 Hamburger, R.O. and Holmes, W.T., Vision Statement EERI/FEMA Performance Based 

Seismic Engineering Project, 1997. 

See Action Plan for additional references 

* 72~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 
ACTION PLAN


FOR 

PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN


Action Plan 

Prepare 

Federal 

By the 

Earthqu 

Deceml: 
I Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

!Project Participants 

_i 

FEMA Project Advisor - Michael Mahoney, FEMA 

FEMA Technical Advisor - Robert D. Hanson, Universityof Michigan/FEMA 

Project Manager - John Theiss, EQE International 

Steering Committee - Donald Anderson, CH2M Hill 

Alfredo Ang, Universityof California 

Michael Bocchicchio, University of California 

Frederick Herman, city of PaloAlto 

William Holmes, RutherfordandChekene 

John Hooper, Skilfing, Ward, Magnusson, Berkshire 

Helmut Krawinkler, Stanford University 

Andrew Merovich, A. T. Merovich Associates 

Jack Moehle, PacificEarthquake EngineeringResearch 

Center 

Maryann Phipps, Degenkoib Engineers 

EERI Board Liaison - Ronald Hamburger, ECE International 

EERI Ex-officio Member - Susan Tubbesing, EER 

Action Plan Author - Evan Reis, Comartin-Reis 

Issue Paper Authors - Dan Alesch, Universityof Wisconsin 

Alf redo Ang, University of California 

Tony Court, Curry, Price, Court Structural& Civif 

Engineers 

Greg Deierlein, Stanford University 

John Gillengerten, JohnA. Martin & Associates 

Gerald Jones, Engineer 

Farzad Naeim, John A. Martin & Associates 

Robert Reitherman, CUREe 

Additional PBSD Workshop Participants ­

Daniel Abrams S. Ahmad Christopher Arnold Deborah Beck 

Vitelmo Bertero Lawrence Brugger Jacques Cattan Craig Cornartin 

C. Allin Cornell Chuck Davis Bruce Ellingwood Jeffrey Gee 

S. K. Ghosh Michael Hagerty Gary Hart Perry Haviland 

Wilfred Iwan James Jirsa Laurence Kornfield George Lee 

H. S. Lew Hank Martin Vilas Mujumdar Paul Murray 

Hidlemi Nakashima Chris Poland Maurice Power Mike Riley 

Dan Rogers Ronald Sack Phillip Samblanet Sheila Selkregg 

Paul Somerville Stephen Toth Fred Turner Bill Tryon 

David Tyree Nabih Youssef 

I 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

i I .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Project Participants .. 
 I 

Table of Contents.. 2 

Introduction .. 
 3 

Product Summary ..
 5 

Summary Budget and Schedule ..........................
 7....................
 7 

Layout of Product Sections ..
 11 

Product I - Planning and Management Program . .
 13 

Product 2 - Structural Performance Products . .20

Product 3 - Nonstructural Performance Products .. 
 28 

Product 4 - Risk Management Products . .36

Product 5 - PBSD Guidelines ..
 43 

Product 6 - Stakeholders' Guide ..
 50 

Interrelation of Products . .f..................... 55 

Conclusion .58

References .59

Performance based Design Workshop Participant List .61

2 
I 

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Introduction 

T his Action Planprovides as its 

T primary goal: 

A strategy, definable tasks, a 

budget and a schedule for the 

development and implementation 

of usable and widely-acceptable 

performance based seismic design 

(PBSD) guidelines. 

The Plan can function as a road map for 

the teams of people who will eventually 

create and implement these guidelines. 

The guidelines will provide a means for 

moving from the current practice of 

building design and construction 

intended primarily to protect life safety, 

to a system that also addresses the 

protection of the economic welfare of 

the public. It is not intended that this 

Plan limit the creativity of the 

development teams. Rather, it should 

serve as a means to track progress 

toward the project's goals, and offer 

guidance about the major challenges 

along the way. Infact, the Plan 

encourages innovation in the design and 

analysis of building systems, and in the 

way we view the relationships between 

members of the building development 

community. 

The current state of the art contains 

valuable and practical information that 

has been implemented on some 

individual projects. A goal is to use this 

information where possible, filling in the 

gaps with new research and evaluation 

methods. References are included at 

the end of the document which describe 

the historical issues surrounding PBSD. 

This document is, as its name implies, 

an actionplan, focusing on the specific 

tasks that must be accomplished to 

implement PBSID broadly. The Plan 

centers about development of six 

"products," which are considered 

necessary for the full, effective adoption 

and implementation of PBSD. Each 

contributes to meeting a specific portion 

of the primary goal. The term "product" 

does not refer exclusively to written 

documents, but implies any means by 

which information is delivered to the 

intended audience. The products may 

also include presentations, workshops, 

audiolvisual material, ad-hoc 

committees, teaching materials, etc. 

An important challenge to implementing 

PBSID is overcoming the perception that 

it is only of benefit and interest to 

structural engineers and always adds 

cost to a project. To be successful, 

PBSD must come from and be 

embraced by the full spectrum of 

"stakeholders" within the building 

development community. The term 

"stakeholder' refers to owners, 

engineers, architects, researchers, 

financial institutions, materials suppliers, 

contractors, building officials, 

government agencies, and the building 

occupants: in essence, society at large. 

This obviously is a large group, but buy 

in from each is vital if PBSD is to work. 

3 
Action Plan for Performance 

In fact, many of these groups are 

already calling for changes to the 

current state of design practice, and 

asking for more reliable ways to predict 

and control building performance. The 

Action Plan, therefore, solicits the 

involvement of each group. The Plan 

holds as a basic philosophy that the 

development of the products should not 

be dominated by one group. Clearly, 

each will have areas of expertise, but at 

all levels, an equal measure of respect 

is important in obtaining broad 

Based Seismic Design 

acceptance. PBSD, in its broadest 

sense, should be used as a global 

planning tool for large businesses, 

cities, counties and states. 

At its heart, PBSD requires 

stakeholders to look differently at 

the built environment. By 

definition, it implies 

multidisciplinary collaboration to 

insure that buildings are built 

more efficiently, reliably and with 

predictable performance. 

4 
I 

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

1Product Summary 

ach of the six products and the design and evaluation 

E tasks and budget associated with methodologies for both new and 

its development is presented in a existing buildings. A focus of the 

separate section. It is important to research will be to increase reliability 

understand how each will come together in the design and analysis process, 

to build a working framework for PlBSD. thereby reducing uncertainties. Effort 

will be made to address existing as 

The six products are described below. well as new construction. Early in 

The first product tracks through the the development of this product, an 

entire project, shepherding the effort will be made to address the 

development of the other products and current state of the art and inherent 

obtaining stakeholder support. uncertainties and gaps therein, and 

from that identify research needs 

>Planning and Management and goals appropriate to reducing 

Program. A formal program will be these uncertainties and gaps. 

developed to educate stakeholders 

about PBSD. The Planning and > Nonstructural Performance 

Management Program will be Products (NPP). The NPP function 

implemented by a steering similar to the SPP but focus on the 

committee to shepherd and nonstructural components of a 

promote the development of the building: partitions, piping, 

Guidelines and an education equipment, contents, etc. The NPP 

strategy to facilitate their use and should address new components 

adoption. The goal will be to ensure and components already in place 

that the project accomplishes its within existing buildings. 

purpose and that it is accessible and Development of guidelines for 

relevant to the stakeholders. component testing and certification 

will be part of these products. The 

The next three products form the core goals and scope of separately 

technical basis for the guidelines. They funded programs to collect 

will require substantial research, information on performance in past 

analysis, verification and possibly and future earthquakes and to test 

testing. equipment will also be developed. 

Similar to the SPP, an initial effort 

> Structural Performance Products will be made to assess the state of 

(SPP). The SPP will quantify the art and develop a research plan. 

methods for predicting structural 

performance for various levels of 

seismic hazard. They will contain 

5 
Action Plan for Performance 

Risk Management Products 

(RMP). The RMP will be financially 

oriented and will develop 

methodologies for calculating the 

costs and benefits of implementing 

PBSD. A major effort will be to 

combine various levels of risk, 

performance and hazard to allow a 

wide range of design objectives to 

be evaluated as potential bases for 

new procedures. Research will 

include studies on reliability, costbenefit modeling, loss reduction, 

capital planning, etc. A focus will be 

to provide owners with tools that can 

reliably be used to select appropriate 

performance objectives for projects. 

The information produced in the 

RMP should also serve as the basis 

for the development of a building 

rating system. 

The last two products-comprise the end 

use documents, which are distilled and 

synthesized from the technical reference 

products. 

Based Seismic Design 

The PBSD Guidelines. The 

Guidelines will be the actual 

document containing the 

performance based design 

procedures. It is intended that this 

document will be published as a 

FEMA guideline and can be 

incorporated into future codes and 

practice. It will form the technical 

basis for design and analysis and be 

written to bring consistency 

throughout the industry. It will be 

usable for both new design and 

existing building retrofit. It will also 

contain a technical commentary to 

the Guidelines. 

A Stakeholders' Guide. This 

document will function as a 

reference and planning guide for 

owners, financial interests and other 

non-technical stakeholders. It will 

include financial tools that permit 

owners to make funding decisions 

about buildings using performance 

based design concepts. The guide 

will be written for a non-technical 

audience and contain graphic aids 

and example applications. 

6 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

iISummary Budget and 

Schedule 

i~~ -

T his section summarizes the overall 

T funding request for the 

development of the PBSD products, and 

a schedule for completion within ten 

years. Detailed breakdowns of the cost 

and duration of each product are 

contained in the following sections. 

The ten-year timeframe for completing 

the six products is ambitious. Itwill 

require that teams work concurrently 

where possible to reduce the overall 

schedule. This will mean that the 

number of people involved with the 

project will be large. While this creates 

an administrative challenge, it is 

consistent with the desire to obtain 

broad ownership of the resulting 

guidelines. 

Each product contains "essential" and 

"optimal' funding levels. Material that is 

essential is required to create a basic 

framework for PBSD. Without this 

material, fundamental gaps will be left. 

These gaps may significantly reduce the 

likelihood that PBSD will be widely 

adopted. The optimal material is very 

important if PBSD is to be truly 

effective. The momentum established 

with the framework development should 

be continued, by implementing the 

optimal tasks. This lesson has been 

learned through previous efforts at 

,developing guidelines. In each product 

section, tasks are identified as either 

essential or optimal, and from these the 

summary numbers are drawn. 

Several tasks consist of supporting 

programs of research, testing or 

information gathering. 

The funding requests for these 

tasks represent the costs to set 

up the programs and to identify 

an ongoing source of funding 

for their implementation. 

Several outside sources will be tapped 

for these efforts, including owners' 

groups, materials and equipment 

manufacturers, and government 

agencies. 

The budget also provides a general 

funding breakdown by year. As one of 

its first tasks, the project steering 

committee will refine these allocations 

based on the establishment of the 

working teams. Because work on all six 

products is done somewhat in parallel, 

the steering committee may reschedule 

tasks and funding as the project 

progresses. 

The funding request is shown in 

1998 dollars and will need to be 

escalated over the duration of 

the project. 

Following the budget is a flowchart 

showing the relationships between the 

products. This is a very important part of 

PBSD development. Rather than a 

linear process, where the technical 

documents are developed and the end 

use documents are prepared following, 

the flowchart describes a more parallel 

7 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

process. At milestones during the 

technical research, information is 

gathered and fed into a framework for 

the Guidelines and Stakeholders' Guide. 

The Guidelines are then reviewed and 

verified, and as necessary the direction 

of the technical work is refined-or 

changed. In similar past projects of this 

scale, this has allowed a regular review 

of the material being developed by the 

stakeholders. The steering committee 

will have an important responsibility in 

managing this process. The Planning 

and Management Program continues 

throughout the project to ensure proper 

coordination. The schedule of tasks and 

subtasks within each product should 

generally follow the descriptions within 

the flowchart, but may be revised by the 

steering committee based on 

stakeholder review. 

The goal of this schedule is not 

to rigidly define the process, 

but to identify the relationships 

between the products and their 

tasks. 

8 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

FUNDING REQUEST: SUMMARY TABLE 

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS) 

~19 Cost Product | Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Product £1A AcAI 

Range represents essential and essential + optimal tasks 

Values are rounded 

Amounts shown are in 1998 dollars 

9 
_ _ _ _ 

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

PMP PBSD Guidelines SPP/NPP RMP Stakeholder Guide 

YEAR 1 

YEAR 2 tt 5.1: ~, performance, p--rformance, I' Dl 

Guidelines Format 0 Inte rim Poet EQ rorta ~~G - - I~~~~program 0

7 i 7 

YEAR 3 2.2, 2.3, 2 .1, 32, 3., 

luantify Quantify 6.1: 

rmance and, performanc 4.1: 4.5 Iuide conter 

ird, Repor , Report and Quar 

N N irforman 

YEAR 4 E \ I

"I/ nhieativea :, 

E Guideline outline, & 2, 2.3, 2.4, 2 Report 

02 Veri ication, ix. 3.2, 3.4: ...... y / nIti~ 

_ rmance pertorman ' 

-M- hazard estingProf YEAR 5 0 E g a * 6.2, 6.6: 

tport : Repert 2,4.4, Financial tools, 

4.5 Verification, 25% ~0 litfy los -0- finan ,

YEAR 6 a 0. 

o w

a Provisions, /3.2, tools, ID leg 3\ 3.3, 3.4:\ issues,Report a Iv Ir1 netls /009a. 9 .l0 0 9 , .in- -n.A

0 .ig and analysis methods, \ sis methods, T esting rot( a- YEAR 7 ability tools, define 6.2, 6.5, 6.6: 

E Report ' responsibil Financial tools, PC a ~0 I> Report maintenance, 

Jmlwok Verification, 50% 

a2 >, r m, r r

YEAR 8 E: I /~ " ~. I A A A 

0 \ 1 \ - (00

oM / \ / :4 7 3 .s 3 4- \ Devel.".I 

E na Provisions, Lr~ilo/7 7 7 9 7 4 7 fi / ' fiads,\ , Reporcte _I )esign nd-. \|nalsis methods,| ..eot............ 
 n9 s ( sis methods, Testing protr UdU 6.3, 6.4, 6.6: YEAR 9 ability tools, define Examples,Design Report responsibil CCI construction

I 

ix 

»'xM'wrI Report process, 

Verification, 75% 

YEAR 10 2. fi \ 'a 3 4 A \

Verification, 11 Final n-e V Pot-o \ 0.0D : . 1 

Revision process assessment assessment and Revision process

100% progrm i aive dl he 100% 

FLOWCHART SHOWING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRODUCTS AND TASKS 

10 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Layout of Product 

Sections 

T he following sections are devoted 

T to the six products described 

above. Each begins with a general 

description of the product. The 

description mentions the core material 

that will be included; however, as 

development occurs additional or 

alternative approaches may be 

desirable. Inorder to provide some 

flexibility in project funding, the Plan 

describes the material as either 

essential or optimal, as described inthe 

previous section. 

A list of tasks follows the product 

description. A list of primary team 

members involved with the task and a 

preliminary budget is shown. Other 

stakeholders with a more indirect 

interest are shown in parenthesis. The 

budget assumes a rate of $130 per 

person-hour (this includes a markup for 

support staff expenses and funding for 

workshops, travel, etc. as required). 

Task duration is listed as well. Most of 

the tasks continue over several years, 

so that the duration is better considered 

using the flowchart in the previous 

section. It is not expected that effort will 

be continuous over the entire duration of 

a task. The task budgets are based on 

teams working at about one-quarter 

time. Some tasks will require that the 

teams be larger or smaller or that the 

effort steps up at some period then 

relaxes during review cycles. Where 

this is the case, the budget has been 

modified accordingly. Itwill be up to the 

steering committee to monitor this 

carefully. 

Several tasks include the 

identification of additional 

funding sources for the full 

implementation of post 

earthquake data collection, 

instrumentation, component 

testing, future revisions to the 

Guidelines, ongoing education 

efforts, etc. The budget figure 

shown for each of these tasks 

includes the team's effort to 

identify these funding sources 

and to set up the protocols and 

goals for these programs. The 

funds necessary to actually 

implement the programs may 

be high (more than $1 million 

each) and are not part of this 

Action Plan. Sources of 

funding may include 

government agencies, research 

consortia, equipment 

manufacturers, material 

suppliers, professional 

societies, building owner 

groups, etc. 

Many complex issues must be 

researched and resolved when 

developing each of the products. 

Several authors have written issue 

papers in preparation for the 

development of this Action Plan. The 

papers describe some of these issues 

as well as potential paths of resolution. 

As a reference, they are included in an 

11 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

appendix to the Plan. Following the Performance levels and damage 

description of each of the products, a state definition and quantification 

brief discussion of the main challenges > Acceptability evaluation 

is presented. The product teams will procedures and criteria 

need to devote a special effort to > Reliability quantification and 

meeting them. The challenges can be assessment 

grouped topically as follows: Funding 

> Administration 

Analysis and modeling > Education and Incentives 

approaches > Data Acquisition 

> Ground motion characterization 

- i % 

12 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

PRODUCT I - Planning and 

Management Program 

urrently there is a demand within C the stakeholder community for 

more reliable ways to predict and control 

building performance. These demands, 

however, are not clearly articulated and 

are often conflicting. Clearly, though, 

there is increasing recognition that 

problems exist with current design 

practice. The greatest challenge to 

creating a successful PBSD program is 

distilling the most important needs within 

these demands and synthesizing from 

them a cohesive guideline for 

performance based design. A significant 

effort will be required to ensure that the 

PBSD guidelines respond to these 

needs fairly, are accepted by 

stakeholders and are implemented 

effectively. The Action Planmust be a 

vehicle to communicate these needs to 

the entire community, so that the 

solutions are appropriate and widely 

acceptable. A formal program will be 

necessary to educate people about how 

PBSD can respond to many of their 

current demands for more reliable and 

cost effective performance. The 

Planning and Management Program will 

consist of the following components: 

>An administrativesteering 

committee to shepherdand promote 

the development of the Guidefines. 

The steering committee will create 

the teams that are responsible for 

developing the various products 

described in the preceding sections. 

It will establish the overall schedule 

for the project and insure that the 

efforts by the various working groups 

are tracking towards the goals laid 

down in this Action Plan. 

The committee will work 

collaboratively with the stakeholders 

to create an effective coalition of 

interests. It will question 

stakeholders directly in a series of 

forums about what they see as 

concerns and benefits. The 

committee needs to function as 

facilitator, encourager and promoter 

to insure adoption. 

The steering committee will not 

serve as the program manager. It is 

intended that the funding agency will 

either directly assume this effort or 

will assign it to a third party. The 

committee will work closely with the 

program manager to ensure good 

coordination of the project. 

Stakeholdermeetings to gain 

supportfrom the broadrange of 

participantswithin the built 

environment 

PBSD will have a much greater 

chance of success if,rather than 

being "sold" to an unreceptive 

audience, it is developed from within 

the audience itself. A major goal of 

13 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

this project is to create an end workshops and publications to raise 

product in which all stakeholders awareness and gain acceptance of 

take ownership. To this end, the 

Planning and Management Program 

will establish and facilitate forums 

the guidelines. Integration of the 

guidelines into codes and adoption 

by local jurisdictions needs to be 

where stakeholders are queried accomplished in an incremental way 

about their specific needs and asked yet with a defined timetable and 

to participate in the development of strategy. The steering committee, 

each of the products. stakeholders involved with the 

development of the guidelines and 

: An education strategy to facilitate professional educators will lead 

the use of the Guidelines. seminars, write articles and assist 

with the implementation of the 

The education strategy will require a guidelines nationwide. 

concentrated effort of conferences, 

14 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 1.1 - Team development 

FM 

Task 1.1.1 - Create a steering 

committee 

Description: 

The first major task is for a steering 

committee to be created. This group will 

remain together for the duration of the 

project. The goal of the group will be to 

shepherd the development of the PBSD 

Guidelines. The committee will include a 

broad spectrum of people from all 

stakeholder groups. It is important that 

the group not be seen as too heavily 

weighted with any one group. Key to 

successful implementation of PBSD is 

input from all users. The group will 

layout the basic outline for each of the 

product development teams, and will 

select the team members and 

reviewers. These teams will consist of 

experts on the product material, 

although diversity will still be important 

to include different points of view. The 

steering committee will be responsible 

for overall project coordination, ensuring 

that work by each team is produced in a 

timely manner and has been reviewed 

for both technical accuracy and for 

usefulness. The group will develop 

status report formats for each team to 

use on a regular basis. It will act as a 

liaison with other concurrent research 

projects, to facilitate the free exchange 

of ideas. It will hold regular meetings to 

discuss progress of the project and 

resolve any conflicts. It will serve as a 

means to transfer information between 

teams, ensuring that the efforts are 

complimentary and supplementary. 

The committee will coordinate their 

efforts with the program management 

structure established by the funding 

agency. 

The committee will review management 

models for other development projects 

(SAC, NEHRP Guidelines, FEMA 273, 

HAZUS, etc.) and assist FEMA in 

developing the most appropriate model 

for this effort. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, 

'Contractors, Material 

suppliers, Financial 

interests, Owners, 

Building officials, 

Government agencies 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $1,500,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Task .12- Establish product 

development teams 

Description: 

The steering committee will provide 

oversight for the selection of teams to 

develop each of the products and 

perform each of the tasks described in 

this Action Plan. The group will 

establish a means to fill the teams with a 

wide range of talented individuals expert 

in their fields. The group will establish 

terms of compensation and job 

responsibilities. The group will review 

the status and progress of the teams on 

a regular basis. Itwill make changes to 

their composition as necessary to 

maintain effective progress that meets 

budget and scheduling constraints. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, 

15 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Contractors, Material consensus about the style of 

suppliers, Financial presentation. 

interests, Owners, 

Building officials, Personnel: Design professionals, 

Government agencies Researchers, Material 

suppliers, Architects, 

Priority: Essential Contractors, Financial 

Budget: $100,000 (budget for the and insurance interests, 

product development Owners, Building officials, 

teams themselves are Government agencies 

included within 

associated tasks) Priority: Essential 

Duration: Throughout the project Budget: $200,000 

Duration: 2 years 

Task 1.2 - Set goals with i Task 1.3 -Assess project 

: I- stakeholders progress with stakeholders' 

f groups _ :~~ ~ X-:u S n :
 ~ : 2 . 

Description: Description: 

The steering committee will convene a The steering committee will identify 

series of workshops with stakeholder interested parties from all the 

representatives through which several stakeholder communities and bring 

issues will be resolved. These include them into the PBSD development 

identifying the most important concerns process. The team will establish regular 

owners and other financial stakeholders lines of communication and 

have when managing risk, and the dissemination of information. It may tap 

benefits that these stakeholders expect from these parties, people to serve on 

from PBSD (reducing construction other task teams. 

costs, optimizing overall life-cycle costs, 

developing a building rating system, The steering committee will hold a 

minimizing down-time, etc.). The team series of meetings with the 

will also identify the positive and stakeholders' groups throughout the 

negative aspects of current codes and project to gauge and review the 

design standards from design, cost and progress of the project. The goals will 

usability points of view. The workshops be to present the status of the project to 

will also focus on establishing levels of the stakeholders, to insure that the 

analysis and design complexity. This project continues to address their needs 

will require that a broad section of the and to give them a voice in refining the 

stakeholder communities be involved. A project's direction. To achieve the most 

goal is to be able to quantify the level of efficiency, the meetings should be 

effort that will be required of the conducted by professional facilitators. 

designers in terms of cost, time and The team will establish recording 

sophistication, so as to be as flexible as procedures and formats for agendas, 

possible. The team will reach a presentations, minutes, etc. The team 

16 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

will collect and disseminate the 

information developed in the meetings. 

The steering committee will make a 

special effort to remain in contact with 

the stakeholders' groups throughout the 

project with correspondence, ad hoc 

meetings, etc. so that at no point does 

the project disconnect itself from their 

input. Gaining broad acceptance of 

PBSD will only be possible through 

continual interaction with the people 

who will be using it. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Financial 

interests. Owners, 

Contractors, Material 

suppliers, Building 

officials, Government 

agencies 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $600,000 

Duration: On a regular basis 

throughout the project. 

Task 1.4- Develop education 

and incentive programs 

Task 1.4.1 - Develop an 

education program 

Description: 

The steering committee will disseminate 

information about PBSD to users. This 

will be accomplished with a variety of 

teaching tools including, publications, 

tutorials, seminars, workshops, 

continuing education classes, 

multimedia tools, etc. The team will 

make a concerted effort to reach those 

outside the engineering community, 

including architects, contractors, 

owners, financial interests and material 

suppliers. Italso must reach users in all 

regions of the country. 

The steering committee will develop 

core teaching materials and identify 

funding sources to provide ongoing 

educational efforts. Training materials 

should be professionally developed and 

be of the highest quality. The team will 

identify and train teachers from a broad 

range of backgrounds to present the 

material. The team will be composed of 

experts with specialization in outreach, 

dissemination, and education. Itwill 

receive input from the design 

professionals, researchers and others 

who have developed the technical and 

end-use products. 

The steering committee must also reach 

indirect stakeholders such as building 

occupants, regulatory agencies and the 

public at large. Material should utilize 

various media to clearly explain PBSD. 

The team will identify funding sources to 

permit an ongoing outreach effort 

beyond the ten-year duration set forth in 

this Action Plan. 

Personnel: Outside experts with 

specialization in 

outreach, dissemination, 

and education. (Design 

professionals, 

Researchers, 

Contractors, Material 

suppliers, Financial 

interests, Owners, 

Building officials, 

Government agencies) 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $1,300,000 

Duration: 6 years 

17 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 1.4.2 - Develop an 

Incentive program for using 

PBSD 

Description: 

The steering committee will establish a 

collaborative program by which the 

benefits of using PBSD will be spread 

among all the stakeholders involved. It 

will identify funding sources, both private 

and public, which will offer incentives for 

using PBSD, especially in the.short term 

when it is still seen as an emerging 

technology. 

The steering committee will establish 

cooperative relationships between 

buyers, sellers and installers, to develop 

better performing nonstructural 

components. Among these three groups 

sources will be identified to create a 

fund for developing innovative designs. 

Personnel: Outside experts, Design 

professionals, 

Researchers, 

Contractors, Material 

suppliers, Financial 

interests, Owners, 

Building officials, 

Government agencies 

Priority:: Optimal 

Budget: $300,000 

Duration: 3 years 

Task 1.5 - Clarify 

responsibilities between 

stakeholders 

Description: 

The steering committee will write a plan 

for the division of responsibility between 

designers, contractors, manufacturers, 

installers and owners so that at all 

:-stages of a building's life, responsibility 

for the seismic performance of the 

structural and nonstructural components 

is maintained. It will identify the effects 

that this division will have on these 

groups, practically, financially and with 

respect to liability. The team will develop 

a "hand-off" program so that information 

is smoothly passed between groups. A 

goal of this task will be to find ways for 

each of these groups to work 

collaboratively toward the same ends. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Contractors, Material 

suppliers, Owners, 

Building officials, 

Government agencies 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $200,000 

Duration: 2 years 

18 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Challenges 

0S 

>Funding part of the process. The steering 

committee must insure that each 

The government cannot and should group is heard and its needs 

not fund all of the research and accounted for. 

support all of the incentive programs 

that will be necessary to implement Understanding changes in liability 

PBSD. Many stakeholders will will be a major challenge, as groups 

benefit from PBSD and should share become responsible for different 

inthese costs. It will be a challenge things during the entire life of a 

to identify sources of funding for building. The legal ramifications of 

these projects from within the other these changes may affect how 

stakeholder communities. widely PBSD is used. The steering 

Stakeholders will need to be committee must address these 

convinced that spending money on concerns early on and with 

research will be in their long-term compromises that satisfy each group 

financial interests. but do not reduce PBSD to an 

ineffective tool. The group will need 

Administration to bring in legal expertise to help 

resolve this issue. 

The aggressive schedule and need 

for consensus building require that > Education andIncentives 

many people be involved with the 

project. Management of these Overcoming long held beliefs about 

teams and their interests will the nature and importance of design 

perhaps be the most difficult and about its relation to other 

challenge. The steering committee aspects of financing, construction 

will need to be diverse and must be and maintaining a building will be 

able to reach consensus on major difficult. The steering committee and 

issues. Substantial energy should be education groups must be 

devoted to building strong teams 

and developing relationships within 

supporters of the process and its 

expected benefits. 

them. These groups will be together 

for many years, so they need to Many potential PBSD users will be 

work well together. A strong overwhelmed by the changes 

management structure and project required of them. Itwill be important 

manager will be essential to insure to allow for an incremental infusion 

that this Plan is implemented of the guidelines into general use 

properly and remains on schedule and into building codes. The 

and on budget. steering committee will face the 

challenge of bringing PBSD online 

Issues of equity and responsibility quickly yet in ways which are not 

will be important challenges. Each threatening to users. 

of the stakeholders needs to see 

PBSD as a "win" for them. 

Compromise will be an inevitable 

19 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

PRODUCT 2- Structural 

Performance Products: 

T hese products will form the core 

T reference material of the PBSD 

Guidelines. They will include three main 

areas of focus: 

Methodologies for quantifiably and 

reliably defining structural 

performance and acceptability 

criteria on a building and component 

basis. 

This effort will define performance 

levels in terms of drift, damage, 

ductility or other parameters for each 

building type. The work will-, 

synthesize the results of analytical 

and experimental data. It will 

consider the variability and 

uncertainties involved, with the goal 

of obtaining reliable estimates of 

material, component and system 

performance. 

> Analytical and design procedures by 

which engineers can predict a 

building's expected performance 

with well defined reliability. 

Performance engines will need to be 

developed to permit structural 

evaluation by the entire engineering 

community. It is important that they 

be sophisticated, but broadly usable. 

Methodologies need to be 

developed for design of new and 

retrofit of existing buildings. 

Techniques need to account for 

current computer technology that is 

widely available and that which can 

be expected in the future. 

> Tools that can more reliably predict 

and appropriately quantify expected 

ground motions. 

These tools will characterize the 

seismic demand requirements for 

linear and nonlinear analyses, using 

response spectra and time-histories. 

Ground motion parameters that 

correlate to performance will be 

identified and quantified. Simplified 

representations of these parameters 

into static base shear and lateral 

force distribution formulas will also 

need to be developed. Issues of 

reliability, uncertainty and 

confidence levels need to be 

incorporated into the determination 

and effects of ground motion. The 

information will have to be flexible 

enough to be used by a wide 

audience. A procedure for data 

collection through instrumentation 

will be developed. 

It will be highly desirable to identify other 

sources of funding to promote basic 

research in the areas defined by the 

tasks. These sources may include 

government agencies, the materials 

industry, and others. The budget 

amounts shown for each will likely be 

sufficient to achieve a working 

framework for PBSD, but expanded 

research will broaden its scope and 

usefulness. 

20 
Action Plan or Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 2.1 - Identify current 

PBSD information and 

additional research needs 

Task 2.1.1 - Assess the state of 

the art in structural 

performance and analysis 

Description: 

The team will gather existing information 

on structural analysis and design 

methods and identify gaps in current 

knowledge. A strong effort will be made 

to use available information so that 

research funding can be most efficiently 

spent. The current state of the art 

should not define the scope of this 

project or limit the direction research 

might take, but rather allow researchers 

to avoid unnecessary duplication of 

effort. The team will also assess the 

usefulness of available information on 

material performance, component 

acceptability, geotechnical parameters 

and hazard quantification. An effort will 

be made to characterize the reliability of 

existing procedures and information. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $150,000 

Duration: 1 year 

Task 2.1.2- Develop a research 

plan to advance the state of the 

art 

Description: 

Once gaps in existing knowledge have 

been identified, the group will develop a 

research plan to fill them. The goal will 

be to develop a road map of research by 

which the tasks within this Action Plan 

can be accomplished. The plan will be 

detailed enough to be used by 

stakeholders, laying out tasks and 

schedules. An effort will be made to 

identify outside sources of funding to 

augment the budgets assigned to each 

task within the Plan, considering public 

and private resources. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $150,000 

Duration: 1 year 

Task 2.2 - Develop means by 

which tocharacterize, quantify 

-and predict performance 

i
_ 

Task 2.2.1 - Develop 

performance characterization 

Description: 

The team will reach consensus on the 

definitions of performance to be used as 

the basis for PBSD. These 

characterizations will be quantified in a 

later task. The goal in this task is to 

agree on concepts such as life safety, 

immediate occupancy, etc. The team 

21 
Action Plan for Performance 

will decide what these terms mean in 

relation to casualties, capital loss, down 

time, and other important parameters. 

Reaching a firm decision on 

performance definitions is critical to the 

rest of the project. It therefore must 

incorporate the opinions of all 

stakeholders. Meetings among 

stakeholder groups will be held to 

determine which measures of 

performance are considered the most 

important and how they relate to 

analytically predictable behavior. These 

performance measures will later be 

coupled with hazard information from 

Task 2.3, to obtain performance and 

overall design criteria. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Owners, 

Buildina officials. 

Governmen t agencies, 

Financial ini:erests 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $250,000 

Duration: 2 years 

Task 2.2.2 - Develop bui Iding 

and component acceptal rice 

criteria 

Description: 

The team will gather and r'eview existing 

information on acceptance criteria, and 

identify gaps in current knc)wledge. 

Research will be targeted,to fill in these 

gaps and will include both analytical and 

empirical processes. Collaboration with 

testing programs will be irriportant to 

obtain useful information oin component 

behavior. 

Results of this task should be verified 

with current knowledge about material 

behavior. 

Based Seismic Design 

A strong effort will be dedicated to 

extrapolating component behavior, 

which is more clearly known, to building 

behavior, which currently contains more 

uncertainty. A goal will be to identify and 

quantify in practical terms criteria for 

overall building performance. 

Personnel: Engineers, Researchers, 

Material suppliers 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $1,000,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Task 2.2.3 - Develop 

geotechnical predictors of 

building performance. 

Description: 

The team will gather and review existing 

information on the effects on building 

performance of subsurface conditions. 

These will include the effects of soils, 

soil-structure interaction, and 

foundations. The team will identify gaps 

in current knowledge. Research will be 

targeted to fill in these gaps and will 

include both analytical and empirical 

processes. A strong effort will be 

dedicated to identifying ways to reduce 

uncertainties related to geotechnical and 

substructure analysis and design. 

Personnel: Engineers, Researchers, 

Material suppliers 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $650,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

-
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 2.2.4 - Quantify 

performance levels. 

Description: 

Using the definitions developed in Tasks 

2.2.1 and 2.2.2, ths team will quantify 

performance levels using appropriate 

parameters (drift, damage, loss, 

business interruption, casualties, etc.). 

The goal in this task is to set the 

performance parameters so that the 

evaluation and design methodologies 

developed inthe PBSD Guidelines 

product can be targeted to definitive 

numerical quantities. 

Personnel. Engineers, Researchers, 

Government agencies, 

Building officials, 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $450,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Task 22.5 - Develop analytic 

methodologies for achieving 

performance levels 

Description: 

The team will fill in the gaps in existing 

knowledge identified in Task 2.1.1. 

Research will consist primarily of 

analytical efforts and development of 

practical tools. The team will identify 

promising new techniques and devote 

research to making them usable within 

the PBSD framework. A forum will be 

held, bringing together engineers and 

building officials to discuss design and 

analysis methodologies. The purpose of 

this activity is to understand the broad 

range of engineering styles used 

throughout the country. 

Following this, the team will develop 

design and analysis methodologies, 

which will be usable by the entire design 

community. A focus will be on 

developing comprehensive and accurate 

methods that can be refined and made 

more practical within the Guidelines 

product. The methods will include 

consideration of geotechnical conditions 

and design of foundations as well as 

methods for practical assessment of 

reliability and safety. Modeling 

strategies will also be developed in this 

task. The team will keep in mind the 

limitations of computer applications 

currently available and anticipated in the 

future. Itwill account for the financial 

investments the design community is 

able to make in obtaining modeling 

technology. It will also consider 

architectural interests inthe design 

process and the engineering limitations 

that may result. 

Personnel: Engineers, Researchers 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $1,100,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Task 2.2.6 - Develop analytical 

predictors of existing building 

performance 

Description: 

This effort will proceed in a similar 

manner to Task 2.2.5, but will focus on 

existing buildings. The team will 

research successful examples of retrofit 

and identify features that should be 

employed typically. It will quantify 

uncertainties within the existing built 

environment. 

Personnel: Engineers, Researchers 

(Material suppliers) 

23 
Action Plan for Performance 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $650,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Task 2.3 - Develop hazard 

quantification and prediction 

methodologies 

Description: 

The team will develop processes to 

obtain ground motion information for use 

in PBSD. It will identify and describe in 

measurable terms the parameters of 

ground motion which have the most 

important effects on buildings. The 

team will create a standard for 

characterizing ground motion and will 

include issues of damping, nonlinearity, 

duration effects, etc. The team will 

develop rules for applying ground 

motion information, to create uniformity 

of use. Working with members of the 

earth sciences community, the team will 

put substantial effort into understanding, 

quantifying and building a consensus on 

the effects of edges and basins, soft 

soils, soil-structure interaction and nearfault ground motion. Similarly, methods 

to quantify the amount of and 

consequences of permanent ground 

displacement will be developed. 

Personnel: Engineers, Researchers 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $650,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Based Seismic Design 

Task 2.4 - Identify uncertainties 

and develop practical means to 

assess and increase 

performance reliability 

= 

Task 2.4.1 - Develop means to 

check and increase reliability 

Description: 

The team will identify and quantify 

uncertainties in quantifying seismic 

hazards, building response and the 

variability of construction quality. This 

information will be developed in 

conjunction with the Risk Management 

Products, which will focus on the cost 

implications of these uncertainties. The 

team will research existing reliability 

techniques, identifying usable 

information and gaps. The team will use 

reliability theory to select and refine the 

design events and material 

acceptability. The team will develop 

simplified methods of reliability analysis, 

or identify software needs, 

understandable and usable by 

engineers. These may include 

equations, fragility curves for building 

classes and performance levels, and 

other tools to help the engineer prepare 

a design with a defined level of reliability 

and confidence. The team will also 

evaluate and reach consensus on 

appropriate target levels of reliability for 

specific performance levels (such as life 

safety or immediate occupancy) and for 

various building classes and uses. 

Personnel: Researchers, Financial 

interests 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $650,000 

Duration: 6 years 

24 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 2.4.2 - Identify methods 

that optimize constructability, 

repairability and OAIQC 

Description: 

The team will evaluate design 

methodologies focusing on 

constructability and repairability. The 

goal will be to identify structural systems 

that have predictable building 

performance and can be well controlled 

in terms of quality. The team will also 

make a strong effort to identify structural 

systems that minimize repairability costs 

following a major event, the goal being 

to reduce an owners overall life-cycle 

costs and downtime. 

The team will identify design processes 

and construction techniques that reduce 

quality or increase uncertainty in 

building performance to discourage their 

use. Itwill develop specifications and 

aids to assist designers, owners and 

contractors in controlling quality during 

construction. Itwill develop sample 

QA/QC programs using existing 

information where possible. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Owners, 

Building officials, 

Contractors 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $500,000 

Duration: 6 years 

Task 2.4.3 - Establish a 

separately funded effort for 

materials and component 

testing 

Description: 

The team will identify separate sources 

of funding, focusing on materials 

suppliers, to perform materials testing to 

fill in gaps in the current state of 

knowledge. The effort will include 

evaluating and investigating component 

performance in terms of quantifiable 

parameters such as stress, strain, 

ductility, methods of preparation, etc. 

The goal is to establish measures of 

performance that can be used in the 

analysis and design methodologies 

described in previous tasks. The team 

will develop testing protocols for 

obtaining and cataloguing information. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Materials 

suppliers 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $400,000 (does not 

include testing) 

Duration: 3 years 

25 
X 

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 2.5 - Establish a program Task 2.6 - Prepare documents 

for post earthquake damage AX and reports for use in PBSD- -­

assessment : Ik: ; i 0Guidelines i _ X :~ff.iC \:qQ\ ? A: E-Eb .1\i.a 

Description: Description: 

The team will establish a program by This task will occur at milestones within 

which information can be obtained from the research plan developed in Task 

existing databases of structural 2.1.2 and in preparation for each of the 

performance. The team will extract Guidelines development phases. The 

relevant information and incorporate it team will gather the technical 

into the study of component and system information and prepare reports and 

acceptability criteria. The program will documents for the writers of the 

be suitable to extend to future Guidelines. Coordination with the RMP 

earthquakes, so that current information and NPP will occur to insure that 

can continually be updated. The team information is presented in a consistent 

will research existing building manner. Once the Guidelines teams 

instrumentation efforts and identify have reviewed the work and identified 

knowledge bases that can be accessed changes or refinements to the research 

to retrieve information. An effort will be plan, this team will work with the 

made to identify means by which research team for Task 2.1.2 to set out 

important ground motion information can the goals for the next phase of research. 

be extracted from existing and future 

earthquake records. Personnel: Engineers, Researchers, 

Material suppliers, 

Personnel: Design professionals, Building officials, 

Government agencies, Government agencies 

Researchers, Earth 

sciences community Priority: Essential 

Budget: $500,000 

Priority: Optimal Duration: Throughout the project 

Budget: $300,000 

Duration: 2 years 

26 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Challenges 

-

The following list of issues will certainly 

not encompass all the challenges 

surrounding the development of the 

SPP, but they should be made a special 

focus of the development teams. 

> Analysis and modeling 

it will be important to identify 

techniques for analysis that can be 

applied by a broad spectrum of 

engineering offices. Different 

methods will need to be calibrated 

so that results are consistent. 

Modeling procedures, especially 

nonlinear methods, will require that 

software be developed that most 

designers can obtain and use with 

reliability and consistency. 

Academic research has to be 

translated into formats that can meet 

the budget and scheduling 

constraints of design professionals. 

It may be advisable to collaborate 

with software houses to develop 

programs or algorithms based on the 

procedures. 

Developing consistent approaches 

for new and existing buildings will 

also be a challenge. 

> Groundmotion 

Engineers must be able to obtain 

reliable ground motion information to 

reduce uncertainty in PBSD design. 

Error in ground motion assumptions, 

common in current practice, can 

quickly overshadow the increased 

accuracy of the design 

methodologies. Nonlinear time 

history analysis has the potential to 

play a significant role in PBSD. 

Therefore, procedures for obtaining 

a robust suite of records suitable for 

individual sites will be an important 

part of the overall effort. 

Understanding the interaction of 

earthquake sources, travel paths, 

the site and the structure will also be 

a difficult challenge. 

Performancelevels and damage 

states, Acceptabilty 

Developing performance indices that 

are valuable to building stakeholders 

will be a crucial first step. Engineers 

may face the challenge of having to 

develop very specific performance 

levels and damage states to meet 

owners' needs. 

Translating elemental damage into 

global damage will require review of 

past efforts, research and perhaps 

significant modeling studies. 

Reliability 

Quantifying reliability and uncertainty 

in component behavior will be a 

challenge due to the relatively small 

amount of data from past 

earthquakes and testing. It will also 

be a challenge to develop reliability 

methods that can be adopted and 

applied by design professionals. 

DataAcquisition 

Developing a program for extracting 

performance data from past and 

future earthquakes will be a logistical 

and financial challenge. It will take 

discipline to maintain the program 

that is established and to make use 

of the data that are obtained. 

27 
I 

: Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

: PRODUCT 3 - Nonstructural 

: Performance Products 0 

I i 

T hese products will form an broad enough to account for the 

T important reference component of placement of equipment and 

the PBSD guidelines. They will include contents in different areas within 

information similar to that developed in various building types. It will also 

the Structural Performance Products, need to allow certification of 

but relating to nonstructural building equipment and contents bracing for 

components. They will also include the an expected performance objective. 

following concentrations: 

> Post-earthquake data acquisition 

> Prediction of the demands on and analysis. 

nonstructural components and the 

evaluation of their performance A detailed plan is needed for 

under these demands. acquiring and analyzing 

performance data from future 

Just as forces on a structure are earthquakes. The nature of this data 

developed due to ground shaking needs to be defined. Following a 

and are affected by the interaction major earthquake, the data will be 

between the soil and the structure, processed and compared to the 

nonstructural component demands Guideline provisions. The Guidelines 

are developed due to the building will be modified in future editions by shaking and are affected by the using lessons learned from 

interaction between the structure performance of nonstructural 

and the components. It will be components. This program is 

necessary to study and develop considered optimal for the effective 

methods by which these demands development of PBSD. 

can be predicted. It will also be 

important to develop techniques for > Evaluation of nonstructural 

evaluating the performance of the components in existing buildings 

components under these demands. 

In addition to developing procedures 

> Testing and certification programs to for the installation of nonstructural 

bring uniformity to the design of elements in new buildings, it will be 

manufactured components. important to devise methods for 

assessing and increasing the 

More so than buildings, modeling of performance of components already 

nonstructural performance is difficult installed within existing buildings. 

at best and needs to be 

supplemented with testing. The The nonstructural performance products 

testing program will have to be will be developed by a team of design 

28 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

professionals, scientists, equipment 

manufacturers and researches expert in 

the behavior of nonstructural 

components. Testing agencies will be 

employed as part of the certification 

program. User groups will be brought in 

to develop goals and strategies and to 

assist in the verification process. 

Successful development of the NPP will 

require outside funding of testing. A 

comprehensive program will cost 

millions of dollars and will be an ongoing 

effort. Funding identified herein must be 

augmented by research dollars provided 

by industries-and manufacturers which 

have a stake in the performance of 

nonstructural systems. 

29 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 3.1 Identify initial 

parameters' and currentl'' 

state of the art _~ 

Task 3.1.1 - Identify 

nonstructural components and 

their impacts on performance 

Description: 

The team will identify the various types 

of nonstructural components and 

systems that are vulnerable to loss. It 

will utilize existing efforts in this area. In 

addition to looking at individual 

components, a goal will be to 

understand how the components fit 

together into systems (i.e. pumps and 

fans are parts of a chiller system), and 

what the effects of damage to one 

component means to the system. 

Identifying weak links in systems is 

important. The team will then identify 

what systems are typically present in 

various building types, and what the 

weak links are when considering overall 

building performance. 

Another focus of this task will be to 

identify the scope of the Nonstructural 

Performance Products. The team will 

determine the detail with which issues of 

design, installation and maintenance of 

nonstructural components will be 

Task 3.1.2 - Evaluate effectiveness of current nonstructural 

and contents installation 

standards and practice, 

Description: 

With the list of components and systems 

from task 3.1.1, the team will identify 

information on performance in past 

earthquakes. It will catalogue and 

quantify performance of components 

and systems by themselves and in 

relation to overall building performance, 

in terms of capital and contents loss and 

down time. The team will compare the 

effectiveness of different designs of the 

same components. Issues which play 

the greatest role in performance will be 

prioritized (i.e. anchorage design vs. 

installation quality, equipment 

ruggedness, etc.). A goal will be to 

assess the current state of the art and 

identify gaps in existing knowledge. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Material suppliers 

(Researchers, Owners) 

Priority: Essential 

Budget $300,000 

Duration: 2 years 

evaluated. 

Personnel: 

Priority: 

Budget: 

Duration: 

Design professionals, 

Material suppliers, 

Owners 

Essential 

$250,000 

2 years 

30 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 3.1.3 - Develop a research 

plan to advance the state-of-the 

art 

Description: 

Once gaps in existing knowledge have 

been identified, the group will develop a 

research plan to fill them. The goal will 

be to develop a road map by which the 

tasks within this Action Plancan be 

accomplished. The plan will be detailed 

enough to be used by stakeholders, 

laying out tasks and schedules. An 

effort will be made to identify outside 

sources of funding to augment the 

budgets assigned to each task with the 

Plan, considering public and private 

resources. 

Personnel: Researchers, Design 

professionals, Material 

suppliers 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $150,000 

Duration: 1 year 

Task 3.2 - Develop analysis 

and design methodologies 

Task 3.2.1 - Quantify 

nonstructural performance 

levels 

Description: 

Working With the performance 

definitions developed in the SPP, the 

team will quantify nonstructural 

performance levels using appropriate 

parameters (drift, damage, loss, 

business interruption, casualties, etc.). 

The goal in this task is to set the 

performance parameters so that the 

evaluation and design methodologies 

developed in later tasks can be targeted 

to definitive numerical quantities. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Material 

suppliers (Government 

agencies) 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $350,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Task 3.2.2 - Develop demand 

prediction methodologies 

Description: 

The team will develop processes to 

calculate the demands on nonstructural 

components based on their location 

within various building types. Itwill 

identify and describe in measurable 

terms the parameters that have the 

most important effects on these 

demands (height above grade, building 

stiffness, anchorage, etc.). The goal is 

to be able to extrapolate from the basic 

building acceleration, velocity and 

displacement characteristics, the effects 

on nonstructural components. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Material suppliers, 

Researchers 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: S450,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

31 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 3.2.3 - Develop analytic 

methodologies for achieving 

performance levels 

Description: 

The team will fill in the gaps in existing 

knowledge identified in earlier tasks. 

Research will consist primarily of 

analytical efforts. The team will identify 

promising new techniques and devote 

research to making them applicable to 

the PBSD framework. A forum will be 

held, bringing together design 

professionals and manufacturers to 

discuss design and analysis 

methodologies. 

Following this, a strong effort will be 

made to develop design and analysis 

methodologies, consistent with the 

efforts in the SPP. 

A focus will be on developing modeling 

or other techniques to lend consistency 

to design and analysis. Modeling will 

account for the range of computer 

applications currently available and 

anticipated in the future. It will also 

account for the financial investments 

various design engineers are able to 

make in obtaining modeling technology. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Material 

suppliers (Government 

agencies) 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $850,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Task 3.2.4 - Coordinate 

design and analysis methods 

with SPP 

Description: 

The team will compare the design and 

analysis methods of the SPP and NPP 

to ensure that they are compatible and 

that they lead to the same measures 

and prediction of performance. The 

team should check that the level of 

reliability is similar between the two and 

that structural and nonstructural 

performance measures can be 

combined to form overall performance 

goals for buildings. The team will also 

make a focused effort to describe the 

functions of the SPP and NPP in relation 

to the overall goal of PBSD and of the 

guidelines. A task will be to describe 

building behavior from both points of 

view in technical and financial terms and 

identify where structure and 

nonstructure overlap or come in conflict. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Material 

suppliers 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $150,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

32 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 3.3 - Establish separately 

funded testing and data 

collection programs - 0--

Task 3.3.1 - Establish 

comprehensive testing and 

certification protocols 

Description: 

The team will catalogue all relevant 

testing information to date. Itwill 

identify gaps inthis knowledge with 

respect to nonstructural component 

effects on building performance. 

Research programs will be developed 

and established to fill these gaps. 

A distinction will be made between 

component "ruggedness:" the ability of 

the piece of equipment to stay together 

in a functional black box, and 

"anchorage:" the ability of the equipment 

to remain where it was installed. 

The team will identify sources of funding 

for extensive testing. These sources will 

include equipment manufacturers, 

owners, insurers, government agencies, 

etc. This may include developing 

collaborative efforts between equipment 

buyers and equipment manufacturers, 

for example. The team will develop a 

consensus on the technical description 

of testing protocols. The team will 

develop a means of obtaining 

certification of tested equipment for 

various seismic regions, building types 

and usage, and locations within 

buildings. Iffinancially feasible, some 

testing should be conducted within this 

task to calibrate certification parameters. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Material 

suppliers, Building 

officials, Government 

agencies 

Priority: Optimal (does not include 

funds for extensive 

testing) 

Budget: $1,000,000 

Duration: 5 years 

Task 3.3.2 - Establish a postearthquake data collection 

and analysis program 

Description: 

The team will establish a program for 

collecting nonstructural performance 

information after an earthquake. This 

will be coordinated with the efforts inthe 

SPP. Existing earthquake performance 

data will be reviewed for its usefulness 

and as appropriate will be assembled 

and catalogued into a database. The 

team will develop ways to distill and use 

this information and identify where gaps 

remain. A workshop will be held to 

identify the types of information that are 

the most valuable. The team will 

develop data collection forms, binders, 

instructions and databases in 

preparation for use. Itwill establish a 

methodology for creating and 

maintaining a team of inspectors and 

will hold seminars on a regular basis to 

train them. A focus will be to identify 

how the collected information will be 

used within the development and 

refinement of the PBSD Guidelines. The 

team will identify sources of funding for 

post-earthquake data collection, so that 

these groups may be approached in a 

timely fashion after a damaging event. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Material 

suppliers, Building 

officials, Government 

agencies 

33 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $300,000 

Duration: 2 years 

Task 3.3.3 - Establish a 

program for developing 

innovative nonstructural 

design 

Description: 

The team will establish a program for 

encouraging manufacturer's to develop 

innovative nonstructural designs that 

take advantage of the performancebased criteria developed within this 

project. The team will identify sources 

of funding to implement this program. 

Implementation will include offering 

incentives for use, marketing the 

program and tracking its success. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Material suppliers, 

Owners, (Government 

agencies) I 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $300,000 (includes only 

the establishment of the 

program framework) 

Duration: 1 year 

Task 3.4 - Develop documents 

and reports for use in PBSD 

Guidelines a
-

Description: 

This task will occur at milestones within 

the research plan developed in Task 

3.1.3 and in preparation for each of the 

Guidelines development phases. The 

team will gather the technical 

information and prepare reports and 

documents for the writers of the 

Guidelines. Coordination with the RMP 

and SPP will occur to insure that 

information is presented in a consistent 

manner. The team will coordinate 

verification studies to be run on the 

analysis and design methodologies. 

Once the Guidelines teams have 

reviewed the work and identified 

changes or refinements to the research 

plan, this team will work with the 

research team of Task 3.1.3 to set out 

the goals for the next phase of research. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Material 

suppliers, Building 

officials, Government 

agencies 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $500,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

34 
l 

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Challenges 

Analysis and modeling require a major effort to write 

provisions for their use and to 

Developing modeling and analysis educate and train them on the 

techniques for nonstructural systems subject. 

will be a very challenging effort. The 

complexity of these systems may > EducationandIncentives, Cost 

overwhelm the capacity of most 

office computer systems. Reliable Full scale testing of equipment will 

methods for estimating the prove to be a monumental and very performance of these elements, expensive effort that will require however, is vital to reaching higher funding from multiple sources. 

levels of overall building Convincing owners and 

performance. As with the SPP, manufacturers to pay for this testing software engineers may need to be will be a challenge. consulted and retained to develop 

programs which can model piping, With the idea of certification of 

equipment, ducts, and other equipment will come issues of 

elements which have the potential to liability for performance. Itwill be 

cause significant loss. difficult to convince manufacturers to 

warrant their equipment and 

> Performanceleve/s and damage contractors to be responsible for 

states installation. Owners may be able to 

provide incentives to convince these 

Understanding a component's stakeholders that certification is in 

anchorage to the structure is only their best interests. 

one half of the challenge of 

nonstructural systems. Being able 

to reliably estimate the "ruggedness" > DataAcquisition 

of the piece of equipment is also 

important. A major effort will be As with the SPP, similar challenges 

required of design professionals and will be faced in obtaining useful 

equipment manufacturers to find information and maintaining the data 

ways to define equipment fragility collection program. 

and to test for and design 

ruggedness into equipment. 

> Administration 

Peer review and plan check of 

equipment anchorage is a novel 

concept and will need acceptance 

from building officials. This will 

35 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

: PRODUCT 4- Risk:f.. ....:. 

Management Products 

I 

I 

T hese products will provide in the SPP and NPP. Ways need to 

T financial information for the be found to minimize these sources 

Stakeholders' Guide and the PBSD of inaccuracy. Risk associated with 

Guidelines. The goal will be to identify building performance should be 

cost-benefit and other models by which quantified in relation to other 

PBSD can deliver the most benefit to activities (such as fire, building 

the users. The products will have three maintenance, revenue, etc.). 

main areas of focus: Methods for more accurately 

identifying risk and reaching 

Methodologies for quantifiably acceptable risk levels need to be 

defining performance objectives in developed. 

terms of expected loss, risk and 

stakeholder tolerance. Developing cost/benefit and other 

financial analysis models. 

The work will utilize the efforts of the 

SPP and NPP. It will consider issues The philosophy behind PBSD 

of damage costs, loss of operation, centers on being able to choose 

risk tolerance, etc., with the from a range of performance 

expectation of obtaining realistic objectives, to reliably meet the 

design goals for stakeholders. financial goals and risk tolerance of 

the stakeholders. Techniques for 

Minimum performance objectives will determining and optimizing costbe established, considering the benefit ratios and other financial 

broader social and economic drivers representations of construction are 

that affect planning, design and important to achieving 

construction decisions. An effort will implementation. Non-engineering 

be made to consider the effects on groups need to have a complete 

building performance of elements understanding of PBSD and its 

outside the building envelope, such benefits. It is also important for 

as infrastructure, utilities and other design professionals to understand 

lifelines. the concepts of risk management. 

> Identifying and minimizing An effort will be made to emphasize 

uncertainties in the PBSD process. the broader global planning 

opportunities that PBSD presents for 

A key to obtaining wide use of PBSD reducing economic and social losses 

is developing more reliable and to communities, regions and states. 

accurate analysis and design The RMP should provide the basis 

methodologies. Uncertainties, error for economic and social rating 

and randomness must be related systems for buildings. 

numerically through reliability 

measures to the methods developed 

36 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 4.1 - Quantify 

performance objectives 

R
_ 

Task 4.1.1 - Match performance 

levels with hazards to develop 

performance objectives 

Description: 

The team will take the performance 

levels and hazards developed in the 

SPP, NPP and RMP and combine them 

in order to understand expected 

performance over measurable and 

meaningful tirnespans (building life, a 

typical mortgage, careers, etc.). The 

team will select performance objectives 

for various building types, occupancies, 

construction eras, etc, and develop 

performance expectations for these 

buildings cover their lifetimes. A focus 

will be to define the goals that owners 

and design professionals can utilize for 

capital planning and design purposes. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Owners, 

Financial interests 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $350,000 

Duration: 1 year 

Task 4.1.2 ­ Develop minimum 

performance objectives 

considering social and 

economic drivers 

Description: 

The team will identify the various social 

and economic drivers that affect 

decisions about designing to a particular 

performance objective. The team will 

evaluate issues of cost, safety, 

construction duration, building function, 

etc. and will consider how each affect 

the various stakeholders. The goal will 

be to establish a set of minimum 

performance goals that protect the 

interests of all the parties involved in the 

building environment and provide for the 

protection of the public welfare. The 

team will discuss minimum performance 

standards for external elements that 

affect building performance, such as 

infrastructure, utilities and lifelines. 

Personnel: 

Priority: 

Budget: 

Duration: 

Design professionals, 

Researchers, Financial 

interests, Owners, 

Building officials, 

Government agencies 

Essential 

$350,'000 

1 year 

Task 4.1.3 - Quantify 

performance in terms of loss 

and risk 

Description: 

The team will develop a set of 

acceptable risk levels quantified in terms 

of loss (capital, lives, down time, etc.), 

considering building type, usage, age or 

other parameters. It will link 

performance objectives with these 

acceptable risk levels. Risk will be 

defined in agreed upon terninology with 

varying levels of reliability. The team will 

define a set of maximum loss thresholds 

for each performance objective. The 

Stakeholders' groups will be tapped to 

provide input. A methodology will be 

developed to convert loss into financial 

terminology. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Priority: 

Budget: 

Duration: 

Researchers, Financial 

interests, Owners, (Other 

stakeholders) 

Essential 

$400,000 

4 years 

37 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 4.2 - Develop financial: 

modeling tools 

rMW_ 

Task 4.2.1 - Develop a 

research plan to advance 

current risk evaluation 

methods 

Description: 

The team will gather existing information 

on risk analysis and financial modeling 

methods and identify gaps in current 

knowledge. A strong effort will be made 

to use available information so that 

future research funding can be most 

efficiently spent. The current state of the 

art should not define the scope of this 

project or limit the direction research 

might take, but rather allow researchers 

to avoid unnecessary duplication of 

effort. 

Once gaps in existing knowledge have 

been identified, the group will develop a 

research plan to fill them. The goal will 

be to develop a road map by which the 

tasks within this Action Plan can be 

accomplished. The plan will be detailed 

enough to be used by stakeholders, 

laying out tasks and schedules. An 

effort will be made to identify outside 

sources of funding to augment the 

budgets assigned to each task with the 

Plan, considering public and private 

resources. 

Personnel: Financial interests, 

Researchers (Design 

professionals, Owners) 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $150,000 

Duration: 1 year 

Task 4.2.2 - Develop financial 

life cycle and damage cost 

models 

Description: 

The team will use the structural and 

nonstructural performance acceptability 

criteria in the SPP and NPP to calculate 

life-cycle and annualized losses relative 

to each performance objective. 

Combinations of performance objectives 

will be evaluated to help users minimize 

overall life-cycle and damage costs. The 

team will extrapolate costs for individual 

buildings, to look at classes of buildings 

and regional implications for cities, 

states and the federal government. 

Costs of repair, business interruption 

and casualties will also be developed. 

The goal is to quantify expected losses 

in a manner that stakeholders can use 

in long term capital planning. Example 

applications will be developed. The 

information developed within this and 

other tasks should also form the basis 

for building rating systems, which will 

integrate structural and nonstructural 

quality with financial and social 

performance measures. 

Personnel: Researchers, Financial 

interests, Owners, 

Government agencies 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $650,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

38 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 4.2.3 - Define costbenefit relationships for 

improving performance 

Description: 

The team will develop tools by which the 

costs of different retrofit measures 

(existing buildings) or design criteria 

(new buildings) can be weighed against 

the expected reduction in loss and lifecycle costs. A comparison of individual 

components will be necessary (such as 

bolting down a wood building vs. bracing 

sprinkler pipes). The combination of 

components into design systems will 

also be considered. Cost-benefit 

relationships need to be developed in 

ways that can be calculated by design 

professionals and are meaningful to 

owners and financial interests. Costbenefit ratios should be applicable to 

individual buildings or portfolios. The 

goal should be to provide owners with 

methods for performing economic loss 

management of their facilities. Efforts 

will be made to look at how this can be 

expanded to a regional basis. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Financial 

interests, Owners, 

Government agencies 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $500,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Task 4.2.4 - Calibrate financial 

models 

Description: 

The team will develop a series of 

example applications and will calibrate 

and compare them against current 

design techniques. Calibration 

parameters will include cost, duration, 

responsibility, liability, etc. The team will 

establish subgroups to carry out these 

studies, and will develop a standard 

reporting method by which the results 

can be quantitatively compared. Ifthe 

team decides that the results diverge 

too significantly from existing 

methodologies, revisions to the 

procedures will be made, or a schedule 

for incremental application of the 

procedures will be developed. The team 

will develop methodologies to project 

costs and other data into the future. In 

this way, the information can function as 

a capital planning tool. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Financial 

interests 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $500,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

39 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 4.2.5 - Develop costeffective design strategies 

Description: 

With information from previous tasks the 

SPP and the NPP, the team will develop 

strategies to improve performance 

based on building class, usage, location, 

etc. The team will consider components 

and systems, identifying which 

individually and which combinations 

typically will provide the minimum 

expected life-cycle cost involving 

tradeoffs between the initial cost and 

potential damage costs. The 

information will be presented in a 

manner that is usable by engineers for 

design and will give owners and 

financial interests a numerical valuation 

of the money spent. The team may use 

information obtained in past 

earthquakes, coupled with testing 

research previously done. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Financial 

interests, Owners 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $500,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Task 4.3 - Educate users about 

0risk management concepts 

Description: 

The team will establish a program to 

teach stakeholders about risk 

management. Representatives of 

lending agencies, insurance and 

financial institutions and researchers will 

write papers and create tools to apply 

the concepts developed in the above 

tasks. The team will hold workshops 

and seminars to discuss this 

information. The goals for design 

professionals, contractors, material 

suppliers and building officials are to 

recognize that PBSD involves choices 

about risk, and to be able to use the risk 

management tools provided in the 

Guidelines. For building owners, the 

goal is to bring awareness of how these 

tools fit in with current risk management 

techniques they use when purchasing 

space, making renovations, considering 

deferred maintenance, etc. A strong 

effort will be made to identify ways to 

coordinate current risk analysis 

techniques used by owners and 

financial institutions (probable maximum 

loss, ratings, etc.) with these new tools. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, 

Contractors, Material 

suppliers, Financial 

interests, Owners, 

Building officials, 

Government agencies 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $500,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Task 4.4 - Identify legal 

implications of PBSD 

Description: 

The team will contract with attorneys to 

address the legal implications of moving 

towards PBSD oriented building codes. 

The team will develop a list of issues 

that need to be evaluated, including: 

liability in the event of unexpected 

performance, cost allocation, long-term 

responsibility for the building or 

components, definitions of terms such 

as "significant," "reliable," etc. The goal 

will be to develop strategies to make 

40 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

PBSD more attractive to stakeholders 

from a legal standpoint. 

Personnel: Attorneys, Design 

professionals, Financial 

interests, Owners, 

Building officials, 

Government agencies 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $250,000 

Duration: 2 years 

Task 4.5- Develop documents 

and reports for use in 

PBSD Guidelines and 

Stakeholders' Guide 

Description: 

This task will occur at milestones within 

the research plan developed in Task 

4.2.1 and in preparation for each of the 

Guidelines development phases. The 

team will gather the technical 

information and prepare reports and 

documents for the writers of the 

Guidelines. Coordination with the SPP 

and NPP will occur to insure that 

information is presented in a consistent 

manner. The team will coordinate 

verification studies to be run on the 

analysis and design methodologies. 

Once the Guidelines teams have 

reviewed the work and identified 

changes or refinements to the research 

plan, this team will work with the 

research team for Task 4.2.1 to set out 

the goals for the next phase of research. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Financial 

interests, Owners, 

(Government agencies) 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $400,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

41 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

I 

| :Challenges U : 7 AL:A :; ad4 :X:X; 

I f k Q 0 ? | S0:f:00!t 0 iffy 7 7 7 V : r V 7 r V 0 Ej - V V 

. _ 

I : : : 

Analysis and modeling emergency food supplies after a 

damaging event -- will complicate 

A major effort will be required to the consideration of minimum 

develop financial tools relating costs performance objectives and liability. 

to structural and nonstructural 

performance. This will require close Data Acquisition 

collaboration between design 

professionals and Financial A challenge will be to obtain useful 

interests. information on performance versus 

loss and performance versus design 

> Acceptability and construction costs. A major 

effort may be warranted to cost 

It will be important to define estimate example designs using the 

acceptable risk. The challenge will 

be in quantifying stakeholders' 

PBSD procedures. This information 

will be needed to calibrate cost 

tendencies to be either risk adverse models. 

or risk tolerant. A key to successful 

implementation of PBSD is the > Reliability 

ability to match a design with the 

owners' risk tolerance. Identifying uncertainties in 

Considering broader social and 

quantifying costs, damage, hazard 

and risk will be a major challenge. 

economic factors affecting a building New methods for integrating 

-- such as a hospital remaining engineering design and analysis with 

functional to treat injuries within the financial and social modeling will 

community, or even of a grocery need to be developed and tested. 

store being able to provide 

42 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

i PRODUCT 5 - PB;D 

G:uidelines;::XX:::: : : :::: 

T he Guidelines form the most These will need to be defined and 

T* important product resulting from incorporated into the performance 

this project. They distill the information objectives. They should be based on 

developed in the SPP, the NPP and the considerations of acceptable risk 

RMVIP into the application document used and should be based on input from 

by design professionals, manufacturers, multiple stakeholders. Inaddition, 

government agencies and building the desired reliability level in 

officials in design and construction. achieving these objectives needs to 

These guidelines can form the basis for be specified. 

the next generation of building codes 

and earthquake resistant design > Characterizingperformance and 

practice. When implemented, these hazard levels consistent with the 

guidelines should permit economical objectivedesign that can reliably attain desired 

seismic performance. The performance objectives must be 

quantified in engineering terms. 

The Guidelines Will have to be broad in This includes defining specific 

scope yet deep in level of detail. They acceptable 'damage levels for 

need to be usable by a wide range of various elements, both structural 

design professionals. They will focus on: and nonstructural as well as 

permissible global behavior of the 

> Selecting and quantifying structure itself. Characterization of 

performanceobjectives, including ground motion will also, be important. 

cost performance. 

> Performanceprediction and 

A set of consistent performance evaluation methods. 

levels for new and existing buildings 

is essential. To be useful and The methods in the guidelines will 

reliable, predictors of structural and facilitate design of structures of any 

nonstructural performance must be configuration for any desired 

characterized in a manner that can performance and can be used to 

be understood by building owners. calibrate building codes for new 

buildings or develop new codes. 

> Defining minimum and standard Methodologies used for evaluation 

performanceobjectives. and retrofit of existing buildings can 

also be calibrated. Lastly, the 

Although the concept of financial industry can use the 

performance based design permits guidelines as a basis to develop 

owners to specify custom objectives methods of ranking the design 

for each building, presumably codes performance of buildings for 

will need to have a single set of underwriting purposes. 

minimum and standard objectives 

used for enforcement purposes. 

43 
Action Plan for Performance 

Means of verification. 

The various analytical procedures 

used to evaluate performance and 

demonstrate acceptability, together 

with suitable modeling rules and 

prescriptive requirements on 

configuration and detailing must be 

verified. The uncertainty inherent in 

each of these procedures for 

buildings of different sizes, types, 

and configurations, and for different 

performance levels must be 

quantified. While a minimum level 

review is essential, a broad program 

of verification will be optimal. 

Procedures for installing and 

maintaining nonstructural 

components and contents in 

buildings. 

This information will focus on the 

issues related to installation and 

maintenance of nonstructural 

components. Not least among these 

is the division of responsibilities and 

liability between the component 

manufacturer and installer. As the 

design engineer observes building 

construction, equipment installation 

should also be observed for 

compliance to the manufacturer's 

specifications. 

> A technical commentary serving as 

backup for the Guidelines. 

No matter how well stated in the 

PBSD Guidelines, the rationale and 

history behind the provisions will be 

subject to the interpretation of the 

Based Seismic Design 

engineers and building officials 

employing them. A comprehensive 

commentary is necessary to give 

these users a fuller picture of PBSD 

and direction when implementing it. 

The commentary should also include 

a series of example applications of 

the guidelines. 

The Guidelines will involve major 

participation from all stakeholders, 

including design professionals, 

researchers, manufacturers, owners, 

financial institutions, building officials 

and governing agencies. A 

comprehensive program of verification 

will require input and involvement from a 

broad range of users. Technical writers 

and code officials will also be employed 

to produce the highest quality 

document. 

The guidelines will be developed in 

phases. The first, or the 25% phase, 

will include a basic framework for the 

Guidelines, to be filled in with research 

and tools from the SPP, NPP and RMP. 

Review by the Guidelines teams at this 

stage will focus on refining or changing 

the direction of the technical research 

efforts for these products. The next 

phases at 50% and 75% will continue to 

take information from the technical 

products and flesh out the Guidelines, 

again returning comments to refine the 

research. The 100% phase will consist 

of final review, formatting, wordsmithing 

and publication. An important task within 

the Guidelines product is to develop this 

phasing further and to coordinate overall 

efforts with the steering committee. 

44 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 5.1 - Reach consensus on 

Guidelines format and 

development process 

Description: 

The main goal of this effort will be to 

reach a consensus on the format of the 

Guidelines, and to develop a conceptual 

framework. The team will also establish 

a procedure for taking the information 

from the SPP, NPP and RMP and 

writing the guideline provisions. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Priority: 

Budget 

Duration: 

Task 5.2 ­

Researchers, Material 

suppliers, Contractors, 

Financial interests, 

Owners, Building officials, 

Government agencies 

Essential 

$150,000 

1 year 

Develop design and 

analysis provisions 

social drivers developed in the RMP. A 

focus will be on developing modeling 

guidelines to lend consistency to the i design and analysis process. The team 

will work closely with the verification 

team in Task 5.3, to ensure that the 

provisions are tested and are 

acceptable. This team will be 

responsible for suggesting refinements 

or changes to the technical product 

research as necessary to accommodate 

the provisions. A goal should be to 

minimize this as much as possible, to 

maintain the schedule and budget. The 

committees will write the provisions 

using consistent and appropriate 

language, figures, equation styles, 

procedures for implementation, etc. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Material 

suppliers, Building 

officials, Government 

agencies, (Financial 

interests) 

Priority: 

Budget: 

Duration: 

Essential 

'$1,200,000 

Throughout the project 

Task 5.2.1 - Develop 

systematic design and 

analysis processes 

Description: 

Using the analysis and design 

methodologies defined in the SPP and 

NPP, the team will create design and 

analysis processes that take a building 

through concepts into final design, 

identifying major steps along the way. 

Procedures will be developed for new 

and retrofit conditions. The team will 

develop minimum performance 

objectives to be included in the 

standards based on the economic and 

Task 5.2.2 - Write a technical 

commentary to support the 

'Guidelines 

Description: 

The team will write a technical 

commentary to support the information 

in the PBSD Guidelines. Itwill develop 

the format of the commentary to track 

the outline of the Guidelines. The goal 

of the commentary is to give specific 

background on the development of the 

procedures within the Guidelines and to 

explain the concepts in technical terms. 

It should also contain many references 

to allow users to obtain additional 

guidance. The team will consider the 

45 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

advantages of discussing the broader. 

implications of decisions that were made 

in the Guidelines (financial, political, 

based on reliability, etc.). The team will 

have the commentary reviewed for 

accuracy by a panel of experts set up by 

the Steering Committee. This panel will 

include members of the SPP, NPP and 

RMP teams. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $500,000 

Duration: 2 years 

Task 5.2.3 - Develop 

administrative guidelines for 

building officials 

Description: 

The team will establish administrative 

provisions for the use of PBSD by 

building officials. It will detail the proceSs 

by which buildings, including structural 

and nonstructural components, are 

reviewed, plan checked and field 

inspected. The team will also develop 

tools for building officials to ease the 

burden of reviewing PBSD design. The 

team will consider the benefits of third 

party plan check and peer review and 

other means of streamlining the proces3s 

while maintaining quality 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Owners, Building officials, 

Government agencies 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $200,000 

Duration: 1 year 

Task 5.3 - Implement a 

verification program 

- 0--

Task 5.3.1 - Run examples to 

check accuracy of provisions 

Description: 

The team will establish subgroups to 

verify the accuracy of the design and 

analysis procedures. The subgroups will 

create and test a series of parametric 

examples. The team will set up a means 

by which the results of the testing can 

be checked for accuracy and 

acceptability. The team will identify and 

make necessary changes in the 

procedures in cooperation with the 

technical product teams. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Building 

officials, 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $600,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Task 5.3.2 - Compare resulting 

designs and costs against 

current methodologies 

Description: 

The team will evaluate the effects of the 

resulting guidelines on each of the major 

stakeholders, looking at costs, level of 

effort and responsibility. A series of 

example applications will be developed 

and compared against current design 

techniques. The various methods that 

are developed will be calibrated against 

each other. Calibration will consider at 

least: the effort to implement, resulting 

46 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

performance and expected construction 

costs. Information from the RMP will be 

incorporated into the calibration study. 

The team will establish subgroups to 

carry out these studies, and will develop 

a standard reporting method by which 

the results can be quantitatively 

compared. Ifthe team decides that the 

results diverge too significantly from 

existing methodologies, revisions to the 

procedures will be made, or a schedule 

for incremental application of the 

procedures will be developed. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Financial 

interests 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $400,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Task 5.4 - Develop procedures 

for quality control during 

construction rE 

I 

Description: 

The team will write a set of guidelines 

for maintaining quality during 

construction. Information on reliability 

and uncertainty developed in the SPP 

and NPP will be used to evaluate the 

various stages of construction. The 

team will address such issues as 

material fabrication and inspection, 

installation, testing, uniformity in 

construction practices, field changes, 

etc. The goal is to provide a clear 

statement about the need for a high 

level of construction quality, and to 

provide standard procedures to attain 

this quality. It may be desirable to 

permit different levels of quality control 

based on expected performance or on 

building usage, etc. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Contractors, Material 

Suppliers, Owners, 

Building officials 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $300,000 

Duration: 2 years 

Task 5.5 - Develop a plan for 

verifying nonstructural 

component design and 

installation 

Description: 

The team will develop a standard format 

for checking the adequacy of 

nonstructural component and system 

design, manufacture and installation. 

Much like peer review and inspection 

procedures for the structure, this system 

will be designed to track nonstructural 

elements through a similar process. 

The team will establish a system for 

identifying and training qualified 

inspectors and reviewers. The team will 

use the information developed in the 

NPP to make easier reevaluation of 

existing components and determine 

expected performance. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Contractors, Material 

suppliers, Building 

officials 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $300,000 

Duration: 2 years 

47 

I 
Action Plan for Performance 

Task 5.6 - Publish guidelines 

and create an adoption process 

R
_ 

Description: 

The team will set up milestone 

deliverables at 25%, 50%, 75% and 

100% and will describe the content to be 

included in each. It will establish and 

implement a final review and adoption 

process. A peer review procedure will 

be established at each milestone. A 

technical writing team will be created 

and a consensus reached on the style 

and voice of the guidelines. The 

Guidelines will be written and reviewed. 

A small team of reviewers will focus on 

the presentation of the information, both 

graphically and textually. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Material 

suppliers, Financial 

interests, Owners, 

Building officials, 

Government agencies 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $600,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Based Seismic Design 

Task 5.7 _ Develop a means for 

' future revisions f 

Description: 

After the guidelines are completed, the 

team will assess the project and identify 

future goals, research efforts, etc. that 

will build upon the work completed. The 

team will write a framework for the next 

generation of PBSD related projects. 

The goal of the task is to provide a plan 

for the continuing evolution of PBSD. 

The team will establish a procedure for 

updating the guidelines 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, 

Government agencies 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $150,000 

Duration: 1 year 

48 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Challenges 

> Analysis and modeling be a challenge. Design 

professionals will need to begin to 

Developing general methods for think in terms of probability, 

design and performance prediction uncertainty and risk. Quantifying 

will be a challenge when considering these terms in relation to traditional 

varying performance objectives. structural engineering concepts will 

The procedures must be relatively be difficult but important. 

easy to implement yet still provide 

higher reliability than current design > Administration 

methodologies and be reasonably 

economical. As with any adoption process, 

acceptance from the stakehoiders 

Procedures for nonstructural design will be one of the most difficult 

and analysis will have to be greatly challenges. Itwill require political 

expanded from current standards. and diplomatic skill to bring each of 

This will require a major effort on the the parties into enthusiastic 

part of the product team. agreement. The teams should 

consider using professional 

Because modeling will play a more facilitators and negotiators to build a 

significant role in PBSD design than strong consensus about the PBSD 

it currently does, standards for Guidelines and their use. 

computer aided design will be 

necessary. These standards need > Example applications 

to insure consistency while allowing 

creative flexibility. Itwill be a challenge to develop 

realistic, understandable examples 

> Reliability of the application of the guidelines 

that will achieve sellable conclusions 

The incorporation of reliability and encourage the use of PBSD. 

methods into design procedures will 

49 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

PRODUCT 6 ­

VStakeholders'Guide 

_i ' , #' ; :t1#:#;:~f;#;:#E 

T he Stakeholders' Guide will serve stakeholders see as concerns and 

T to educate the non-engineering benefits. It will need to specify and 

audience about the benefits of PBSD. It quantify these benefits and provide a 

will be their reference and planning tool mechanism for making incremental 

much as the PBSD Guidelines serve a changes to current practice. 

similar purpose for the engineering 

community. The Guide needs to be > Guidance for implementing PBSD. 

written in a non-technical style, and 

emphasize graphic presentation. The The owner and financial 

financial information should be professionals need to be guided 

presented in a way that will be useful to through the process of implementing 

owners and financial professionals. It PBSD. Much more than in current 

needs to communicate the concept and practice these stakeholders will form 

application of PBSD to these primary an integral part of the design team. 

stakeholders. It will include the following They must assist in making 

components: decisions about the direction of a 

project and be involved throughout 

> Background on codes and its implementation. 

performance based design. 

> Example applications of PBSD 

The Guide should give background 

on the history of code development The guide will contain example 

and the reasons for moving toward applications of the guidelines, 

performance based design. It should covering structural and nonstructural 

describe in general terms the design, and financial planning 

principles of PBSD and its benefits issues. The examples will contain 

over current methods. The goal is to /technical information for the design 

show stakeholders that this move is professionals as well as 

necessary and that performance nontechnical information for building 

based design standards are in their owners and financial interests. 

financial and business interests. 

Financial and other benefits of using 

PBSD. 

Tables, charts, equations, examples 

and text, should convey the 

advantages and appropriate uses of 

PBSD in terms of financial and other 

models. Adoption will require that 

the document include the issues that 

50 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 6.1 - Define content and 

format of Stakeholders' Guide 

Description: 

The team will convene a series of 

workshops with stakeholder 

representatives to create the format and 

content of the Stakeholders. Guide. The 

team will determine the level of 

complexity of the information and 

equations presented. The goal is to 

layout the format for the guide so that it 

is usable to a non-technical audience. A 

strong effort will be made to involve 

owners and financial representatives, as 

these will be the primary users of the 

information. Another goal is to be able to 

quantify the level of effort that will be 

required of these groups in the planning, 

design and construction processes, in 

terms of cost and time. A consensus 

about the style of presentation will also 

be reached. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Financial 

interests, Owners, 

Contractors, Material 

suppliers, Building 

officials, Government 

agencies, Legal 

professionals 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $150,000 

Duration: 1 year 

Task 6.2 Present and explain 

financial modeling techniques 

Description: 

The team will present and explain the 

financial modeling tools developed in 

the Guidelines and the Risk 

Management Products. In the same 

manner as the Guidelines these tools 

should be presented with different levels 

of complexity, so that the user can 

employ the most appropriate to a 

specific situation. The technical and 

financial research will have been done 

as part of the RMP. In this task the goal 

is to provide descriptions of and 

practical ways to employ these tools. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Financial 

interests, Owners 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $300,000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

Task 6.3 - Describe the design 

and construction process 

,. Description: 

As with the Guidelines, the team will 

develop a road map to move from the 

concept stage to completion of 

construction, identifying major steps 

along the way. Retrofit and new design 

will be considered. The responsibilities 

and qualifications of each of the 

stakeholders (including owners and 

design professionals) throughout the 

design and construction process will be 

identified and described. The team will 

review these responsibilities and 

evaluate their effects on the groups. The 

team will prepare the information using 

51 

I 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

language, figures, equation styles, 

procedures for implementation, etc., 

consistent with the Guidelines. The 

team will consult with legal professionals 

to evaluate possible changes in liability. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Owners, Financial 

interests, Building 

officials, Government 

agencies, Legal 

professionals 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $250,000 

Duration: 2 years 

d.. Task 6.4 -Developexamples t;SC:;;; I d$t for theauide 0A. 

_ 

Description: 

The team will develop a series of 

examples for the financial and 

engineering application of PBSD, which 

will serve as teaching and reference 

tools. The team will set up a verification 

means and check the examples for 

accuracy and acceptability. The 

examples will include photographs and 

other graphic aids to increase 

understanding of the process. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Researchers, Financial 

interests, Owners 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $400,000 

Duration: 2 years 

Task 6.5 - Develop a plan to 

maintain or monitor the 

I'designed-performance 

objective 

_ 

Description: 

The team will identify maintenance 

needs for nonstructural components, 

based on type, function, age, etc. It will 

develop a program that owners can 

follow, similar to deferred maintenance 

or tenant improvement, for maintaining 

the performance quality of existing 

equipment. A similar program will be 

developed to maintain and monitor the 

overall structural performance goals of a 

building throughout its life, accounting 

for changes in occupancy, 

advancements in the state of the art, 

structural modifications, etc. This 

information will be published as part of 

the Stakeholders' Guide. The team will 

prepare educational material to inform 

owners, contractors, and others about 

the procedures for maintaining a 

building's designed performance. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Contractors, 

Manufacturers, Owners 

Priority: Optimal 

Budget: $250,000 

Duration: 1 year 

52 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Task 6.6 - Publish the Task 6.7 - Develop a means for 

stakeholders5: guide future revisions 

i _ 
ii-_ 

Description: Description: 

The team will set up milestone The team will set up dates for 

deliverables at 25%, 50%, 75% and considering revisions to the Guide and a 

100% and will describe the content to be procedure for doing so. 

included in each. It will establish a final 

review and adoption process. The team Personnel: Design professionals, 

will also include a nontechnical Owners, Financial 

background and history of the PBSD interests, Government 

process and of current code evolution. agencies 

The goal will be to show the nonengineering audience the need for Priority: Optimal 

PBSD and the expected changes with Budget: $100,000 

respect to the current design and Duration: 1 year 

construction practice. A peer review 

procedure will be established at each 

milestone. A writing team will be 

created and a consensus reached on 

the style and voice of the guide. A small 

team of reviewers will focus on the 

presentation of the information, both 

graphically and textually. This group will 

have the responsibility, along with the 

steering committee of ensuring that the 

presentation compliments the 

Guidelines themselves. 

Personnel: Design professionals, 

Financial interests, 

Owners, Government 

agencies, Outside 

experts in information 

outreach 

Priority: Essential 

Budget: $400r000 

Duration: Throughout the project 

53 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Challenges 

Cost collaboration of both teams will be 

important. This will present special 

Turning PBSD into a reality will challenges for each because of the 

require substantial investments of differences in their training and 

time and money by all stakeholders. expertise. 

Stakeholders will need to be 

convinced that spending money up > Education and Incentives 

front will be in their long-term 

financial interests. Lessons should A focus of the Guide will be to make 

be taken from other successful the concepts of risk and reliability 

efforts, or from other countries such understandable to all parties. PBSD 

as Japan. incorporates reliability-based design, 

a concept that design professionals 

Administration often only consider peripherally. 

Owners and Financial interests, 

The Stakeholders' Guide will need to however, use risk management on a 

function well with the PBSD regular basis. It will be a challenge 

Guidelines. Owners and other non- to communicate to design 

engineering stakeholders will professionals that uncertainty must 

primarily use the former while design be included in their design 

professionals will use the latter. approaches, and to convince owners 

Each, however, must lead to. that there are limits on what can be 

complimentary results that meet the known or anticipated regarding 

needs of all parties. Close building performance. 

54 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

S 

It is important to consider the six 

products as interrelated. Itwill not be 

possible to develop PBSD by isolating 

each as an independent project. This 

section describes some of the 

necessary relationships between the 

products and identifies key crossover 

lines between the various product 

teams. 

The Technical Reference 

Products 

The SPP, NPP and RMP will contain the 

bulk of the research, analysis and 

testing necessary to develop PBSD 

guidelines. Generally, these efforts will 

be developed concurrently throughout 

the project. However, there are some 

important commonalties that should be 

developed first, including: 

> Development of performance levels 

andglobal acceptabilitycriteria. 

This is necessary to establish a 

common basis for analysis and the 

development of the standards. Prior 

to the start of focused research, the 

three teams should reach a 

consensus on the definitions of 

performance and acceptability. 

> Hazardquantificationandprediction. 

The identification of hazard 

parameters impacts all three 

products and should be consistent 

between them. Researchers and 

design professionals developing this 

information will to some extent be 

working concurrently With the 

structural, nonstructural and risk 

teams. Before these teams make 

assumptions regarding hazard 

evaluation and characteristics, 

however, agreement on these issues 

is needed. This will require greater 

interaction between design 

professionals and scientists. 

3 Reportingmethodologies. 

Each product should report 

information in a consistent manner, 

to make the eventual synthesis into 

the Guidelines and Stakeholders' 

Guide easier. Reporting formats 

should be developed at the 

beginning of the project. Milestones 

should be put in place to compare 

progress and track that basic 

assumptions are consistent between 

the groups. It will be the function of 

the steering committee to make sure 

that each team is meeting its 

schedule. However, several 

members of the technical product 

teams will likely be part of the 

Guidelines teams as well. Conflicts 

about fundamental goals and 

reporting styles may create 

problems in the development of the 

Guidelines. 

55 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

I1 on the content and style of the 

examples to be included in the 

Stakeholders' Guide. The End Use Products 

,. 

The PBSD Guidelines and the 

Stakeholders' Guide are the products 

that will ultimately be used to implement 

PBSD. They need to compliment and 

supplement each other, not duplicate: 

information, and work toward the same 

overall goal. To this end, both teams 

working together should perform several 

tasks. 

> Set goals with stakeholders. 

While each product will be 

developed for somewhat different 

audiences, many of the goals will be 

the same. Each of the goals 

identified by the stakeholders should 

be accounted for in one or both of 

the products. Stakeholders' forums 

should be held with the product 

teams early on and regularly 

throughout the project, to make sure 

that no important goal is missed. 

> Develop document outlines. 

To insure that these products do not 

miss information or undesirably 

duplicate it, the outlines for each 

should be developed in a unified 

setting. Planning sessions should 

be held to make sure that both will 

be compatible. 

> Coordinate example applications. 

Because of the tight overall project 

schedule, much of the efforts for 

these two products will be done 

concurrently. At the point when the 

Guidelines are technically complete, 

the two teams should meet to agree 

Hand over between the 

Technical and End Use 

Products 

R
_ 

The project schedule requires that work 

be done in a manner that moves forward 

quickly. Obviously, developing 

accurate, reliable and acceptable 

information is of utmost importance. The 

quality of the products should not be 

sacrificed to meet the schedule. 

However, since the consensus process 

typically involves compromise and 

reevaluation, valuable time may be lost 

if the end use products are begun 

before substantial progress is made on 

the technical products. To make the 

hand over more efficient the following 

tasks should be performed: 

> Convene technical acceptance 

workshops. 

Before the process of distilling the 

technical products into the end use 

products at each phase (25%, 50%, 

75% and 100%) begins, review 

should be implemented to "sign-off" 

on the former. A representative 

group of stakeholders needs to 

come to agreement that significant 

research has been completed and 

that there is enough information to 

begin developing the Guidelines. If 

substantial research is needed 

during the writing of the guidelines, 

this could snowball, causing 

reworking of all the technical 

products. This is to be avoided. 

56 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

team for accuracy. 

>Checkthat the technicalproducts 

are on the right track: > Recruit andtrain experts to present 

educationa/ material 

At milestones during the technical 

product development, the members The education teams will identify 

people who are gifted in presenting of the end use product teams should and teaching, and have a strong confirm that the right information is knowledge of the PBSD products. being produced to facilitate 

development of the guidelines. To These people may not be members 

this end, early in the development of of the other product development 

the technical products these teams teams. Ifthis is so, the teachers will 

need to have close interaction with need to prepare outlines of the end the product team members to fully use products, so that they or the understand the concepts that need steering committee can see that 

work is moving on the right track. to be conveyed. The team will 

develop teaching and presentation 

programs and train the teachers on 

presentation methods. The teachers 

Development of Education will eventually receive feedback from 

Program the seminars they give. The 

education team will use this 

9
_ information to refine the program. 

An effort should be made to bring 

the concepts of PBSD into 

Two keys to the success of the universities, so students in 

education program will be having engineering, architecture and 

valuable information published in an construction management programs understandable and exciting way, and will be familiar with and embrace 

recruiting experts to present this PBSD concepts when they enter 

information. It may be unrealistic to their professions. 

assume that the members of the product 

development teams will be most suited 

to lead these efforts. 

Translate technical material into 

easy to understandeducationaland 

promotionalmaterial. 

The team responsible for developing 

the education program will meet with 

representatives from the other 

product development teams to 

identify material which would be 

useful. They will work together to 

prepare technically accurate 

information while at the same time, 

keeping the product beneficiaries in 

mind. The representatives will 

review material developed by the 

57 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Conclusion 

F ew lives have been lost in major 

F American seismic events, in 

buildings designed under modern 

codes. The economic losses in recent 

earthquakes, however, have put a strain 

on communities, owners, lenders, 

insurers, governments and building 

users. It must be said, too, that none of 

these events have been of a level that 

would typically be considered 

catastrophic. Temblors with a magnitude 

similar to the 1812 New Madrid or 1906 

San Francisco earthquakes will likely 

result in losses that are several times 

larger than anything previously 

experienced if they occur in a densely 

populated area. 

There has been much 

miscommunication between design 

professionals, owners and financial 

institutions about the performance that 

buildings built to modern codes are 

expected to deliver. This has led to 

higher than appropriate expectations by 

owners. 

Owners, however, must be able to make 

reliable financial decisions about a 

building's seismic performance. Their 

long-term capital planning strategies 

require that seismic risk be translated 

into meaningful, quantifiable terms. 

Engineers need ways to design 

buildings with a predictable level of 

performance that can be adjusted to 

meet the owner's needs. 

Performance based seismic design 

represents a bold new strategy for 

reducing earthquake losses. It focuses 

on the economic goals of building 

stakeholders and integrates financial 

modeling with the latest engineering 

research. This Action Plan lays out a 

rational, cost-effective and achievable 

program for establishing and 

implementing PBSD in a manner that 

will benefit each of the groups with a 

stake in the built environment. 

The organization of this project around 

six "products" insures that the critical 

areas of research and implementation 

are addressed. It breaks the overall 

effort into manageable units and 

produces valuable, self-contained 

material at regular intervals. It brings 

together a diversity of opinions, interests 

and expertise to produce robust and 

widely acceptable guidelines. The 

products themselves will rely upon 

various media to most effectively 

disseminate information. 

The tasks within each product are 

designed to address the major 

challenges that will arise, and provide 

clear guidance for the development 

teams. Establishing a steering 

committee and education program 

insures that administration and 

promotion of the project are top 

priorities. 

The budget and schedule are both 

ambitious. However, flexibility is built 

into each product by recommending 

essential and optimal funding levels. 

Tasks are devoted to finding sources of 

major funding for long term research, 

testing and education efforts, with the 

intention of spreading these costs 

throughout the stakeholder community. 

The process of building design and 

construction must undergo a significant 

change if it is to meaningfully reduce the 

potential for disastrous earthquake 

losses. This Action Plan represents a 

major step towards fulfilling the potential 

of PBSD and reaping its benefits. 

58 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

References 

ISSUE PAPERS 

Alesch, Daniel J., Education, Initiatives, andIncentives for Adoption of Performance 

Based Seismic Design Standards, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 1998. 

Ang, A. H-S, Risk andReliability, University of California, Irvine, 1998. 

Court, A. B., SE, Seismic Performance and Cost/Benefit Issues, Curry Price Court, 

1998. 

Delerlein, Gregory CZ., PhD, PE, StructuralAcceptance Criteriafor PerformanceBased 

Seismic Design (PBSD), Cornell University. 1998 

Jones, Gerald H., Enforcing andAdministering PerformanceBased Seismic Guidelines, 

1998. 

Naeim, Farzad, PhD, SE, Design GroundMotions andPerformanceBased Design, John 

A. Martin and Associates, Inc., 1998. 

Reitherman, Robert and Gillengerten, John, NonstructuralIssues that Must Be Resolved 

If PerformanceBased Seismic Design Is to Be Achieved, 1998. 

OTHER KEY REFERENCES 

Applied Technology Council. Methodology for Seismic evaluation and Upgradeof 

Concrete Structures. Report No. ATC-40, California Seismic Safety Comrnmission. 

Report No. SSC96-01 Sacramento, California. 

FEMA 2731274, NEHRP Guidefines and commentary for Seismic Rehabilitationof 

Buildings, 1997. 

FEMA 283, PerformanceBased Seismic Design of Buildings, 19194. 

Hamburger, Ronald, An Overview of PerformanceBased Design, 1997. 

Hamburger, R.C. and Holmes, W.T., Vision Statement EERI/FEMA PerformanceBased 

Seismic EngineeringProject, 1997 

Hanson, Robert D., Performance Based StandardsandSteel FrameBuildings, 

University of Michigan, 1998. 

59 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

International Workshop on Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of 

Codes, Bled, Slovenia, 1997. 

Kunreuther, Howard, Role of Mitigation in Managing Catastrophic Risks, Wharton Risk 

Management and Decision Processes Center, 1997. 

Mahoney, Michael and Hanson, Robert, An Action Plan for Performance Based Design 

SEAOC, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural 

Engineers Association of California, 1996. 

SEAOC, Vision 2000, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, 

California, 1996. 

60 
-I 

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Performance based Design 

Workshop Participant List


July 27-28 

San Diego, 

Daniel Abrams 

Professor 

University of Illinois 

1245 Newmark Civil 

Engineering Lab 

MC 250 

205 N. Mathews Avenue 

Urbana, IL61801-2397 

Tel. 2171333-0565 

Fax 217/333-3821 

E-mail d-abrams@uiuc.edu 

Randall Allen 

Director of Design and 

Construction 

State of Missouri 

Office of Administration 

301 West High Street 

P. O. Box 809 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

Tel. 573f751-4174 

Fax 573/526-3665 

E-mail 

allenr@mail.oa.state.mo.us 

Christopher Arnold 

President 

Building Systems 

Development 

P. 0. Box 51950 

Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Phone 650/462-1812 

Fax 650/462-1817 

E-rnal chrisarno@ aol.com 

1998 

California 

S. Ahmad 

American Concrete Institute 

38800 CountryClub Drive 

Farmington Hills, Ml 48331 

Tel. 2481848-3700 

Fax 2481848-3700 

E-mail SAhmad~aci-int.org 

Donald Anderson 

Senior Geotechnical 

Engineer 

CH21M Hill 

777 - 108th Avenue NE 

Bellevue, WA 98004-5118 

Tel. 425/453-5000 

Fax 4251462-5957 

E-mail 

dandersooch2m.com 

Deborah Beck 

Real Estate Board of New 

York 

12 East 41st Street 

New York, NY 10017 

Tel: 212/532-3100 

Fax 212/779-8774 

Dan Alesch 

Professor 

University of Wisconsin 

Rose Hall, Suite 324 

2420 Nicolet Dr. 

Green Bay, WI 54311-7001 

Tel. 920/465-2355 

Fax 920/465-2791 

E-mail: aleschd@uwcfb.edu 

Alfredo Ang 

Professor 

University of California 

Dept. of Civil & 

Environmental Engineering 

4157 Engineering Gateway 

Irvine, CA 92697-2175 

Tel. 714/824-8528 

Fax 714/824-5051 

E-mail: ahanq@uci.edu 

Vitelmo Bertero 

Professor Emeritus 

1106 Colusa Avenue 

Berkeley, CA 94707 

Tel. 510/231-9586 

Fax 5101527-8178 

61 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Michael Bocchicchio Lawrence Brugger Jacques Cattan 

Assistant Vice President ICC Building Performance American Institute of 

Facilities Administration Committee Steel Construction 

University of California 3131 Donnie Ann Road 1 East Wacker Drive, Suite 

Office of the President Rossmoor, CA 90720 3100 

1111 Franklin Street, 6th Tel: 213/977-6446 Chicago, IL 60601-2001 

Floor Fax 213/977-6468 Tel. 312/670-5430 

Oakland, CA 94607-5200 Fax 312/670-5403 

Tel. 510/987-0777 

Fax 510/987-0752. 

E-mail: 

mike.bocchicchio@ ucop.edu 

C. Allin Cornell Craig Comartin Anthony Court 

Professor President, Comartin-Reis Vice President 

Stanford University 7683 Andrea Avenue Curry Price Court Structural 

Terman Engineering Center 

Stanford, CA 94305-4020 

Stockton, CA 95207-1705 

Tel: 209/472-1221 

& Civil Engineers 

444 Camino del Rio South 

Tel. 650/854-8053 Fax: 209/472-7294 #201 

Fax 650/854-8075 E-mail: San Diego, CA 92108 

E-mail: comartin@cornartin-reis.com Tel. 619/291-2800 

cornell@ce.stanford.edu Fax 619/291-0613 

E-mail: cpcenq@aol.com 

Chuck Davis Greg Deierlein Bruce Ellingwood 

Esherick Homsey Dodge Professor Johns Hopkins University 

and Davis Stanford University Dept. of Civil Engineering . 

2789 25th Street Dept. of Civil & 3400 N. Charles Street 

San Francisco, CA 94110- Environmental Engineering Baltimore, MD 21218 

3597 . Terman Engineering Center Tel: 410/516-8443 

Tel. 415/285-9193 - M 4020 Fax 410/516-7473 

Fax 415/285-3866 Stanford, CA 94305-4020 

Tel. 650/723-0453 

Fax 6500/723-7514 

E-mail: 

ggd@cive.stanford.edu 

Jeffrey Gee, AIA S. K. Ghosh John Gillengerten 

Director of Design & Projec:t Portland Cement John A. Martin & Associates 

Management 

University of California 

2000 Carleton Street 

Association 

1811 Cree Lane 

Mt. Prospect, IL 60077 

1212 S. Flower Street 

Los Angeles, CA 90015 

Tel. 213/483-6490 

Berkeley, CA 94720-1380 Tel: 847/297-5640 Fax 213/483-3084 

Phone 510/643-9363 Fax 847/297-9144 E-mail: JGjama@aol.com 

Fax 510/642-7271 E-mail skghosh@aol.com 

E-mail 

gee@dofm.berkeley.edu 

62 
1593 

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Michael Hagerty 

Chief Engineer 

City of Portland 

Bureau of Buildings 

1120 SW 5th, Room 930 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel. 5031823-7538 

Fax 5031823-7692 

E-mail 

haciertvm @oi.portland.or.us 

Gary Hart 

University of California at 

Los Angeles 

Civil & Environmental 

Engineering Dept. 

5731 Boelter Hall 

Los Angeles, CA 90095­

Tel: 310/825-1377 

Fax: 3101206-2000 

E-mail qhart@ucla.edu 

William Holmes 

Vice President 

Rutherford & Chekene 

Consulting Engineers 

303 Second Street, Suite 

800 North 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Tel: 415/495-4222 

Fax 415/546-7536 

E-mail: 

wholmes @ruthchek.com 

Ronald Hamburger 

Senior Vice President 

EQE International, Inc. 

1111 Broadway, 1 0 ,1h Floor 

Pakland, CA 94607 

Tel. 510/817-31 00 

E-mail: roh @ eoe.com 

Perry Haviland, FAIA 

Building Standards Seismic 

Safety Advisory Committee 

Haviland Associates 

Architects 

27 Embarcadero Cove 

Oakland, CA 94606 

Phone 510/532-6996 

Fax 5101532-6998 

John Hooper 

Skilling Ward Magnusson 

Barkshire Inc. 

1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 

3200 

Seattle, WA 98101-2699 

Tel. 206/292-1200 

Fax 206/292-1201 

E-mail: Jdh@skillino.com 

Robert 0. Hanson 

Senior Earthquake Engineer 

University of Michigan/ 

FEMA CA-1008-DR 

74 North Pasadena Avenue 

Parsons Bldg. West Annex 

Room 308 

Pasadena, CA 91103 

Tel. 626/431-3079 

Fax 626/431-3859 

E-mail: 

robert.hanson @femagov 

Frederick Herman 

City of Palo Alto 

250 Hamilton 

P. 0.Box 10250 

Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Tel. 41 51329-2550 

Fax 415/3229-2240, 

E-mail: 

fred herman @citv.oaloalto.oa.us 

Laurence Kornfield 

Chief Building Inspector 

City and County of San 

Francisco 

Dept. of Building Inspection 

1660 Mission Street, 3rd 

Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94103­

2414 

Tel. 415/558-6244 

Fax 415/558-6474 

63 
416 

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Wilfred Iwan 

Professor/Director 

Earthquake Engineering 

Research Laboratory 

California Institute of 

Technology 

223 Thomas Laboratory 

Pasadena, CA 91125 

Tel. 626/395-4144 

Fax 626/568-2719 

E-mail: 

wdiwan Scco.caltech.edu 

Helmut Krawinkler 

Professor 

Stanford University 

Dept. of Civil Engineering 

Terman Engineering Center 

Stanford, CA 94305-4020 

Tel. 650/723-4129 

Fax 650/723-7514 

E-mail: 

krawinkler@ce.stanford.edu. 

Michael Mahoney 

Senior Geophysicist 

FEMA 

National Earthquake 

Program Office 

500 'C" Street SW, Room 

Washington, D.C. 20472 

Tel. 202/646-2794 

Fax 202/646-3990 

E-mail: 

Mike.Mahonev~fema.gov 

Jack Moehle 

Professor & Director 

Pacific Earthquake 

Engineering Research 

Center 

1301 S. 46th Street 

Richmond, CA 94804-4698 

Tel. 510/231-9554 

Fax 510/231-9471 

E-mail: 

moehle~eerc.berkelev.edu 

James Jirsa 

Professor 

University of Texas 

Ferguson Structural 

Engineering Lab 

10100 Burnet Road, PRC 

Bldg. 177 

Austin, TX 78758-4497 

Tel: 512/471-4582 

Fax: 512/471-1944 

E-mail: 

iirsa uts.cc.utexas.edu 

George Lee 

Director 

MCEER 

SUNY at Buffalo 

100 Red Jacket Quadrangle 

Box 610025 

Buffalo, NY 14261-0025 

Tel. 716/645-3391 

Fax 716/645-3399 

E-mail 

aclee @acsu.buffalo.edu 

Hank Martin 

American Iron and Steel 

Institute 

11899 Edgewood Road, 

Suite G 

Auburn, CA 95603 

Tel. 530/ 887-8335 

Fax 530/887-0713 

Hmartin(steel.org 

Vilas Mujumdar 

Chief. 

Division of the State 

Architect 

Office of Regulation 

Services 

1300 I Street, Suite 800 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Tel. 916/445-1304 

Fax 916/327-3371 

E-mail 

vmuiumda@d s.ca.gov 

Gerald Jones 

1100 West 122nd Street 

Kansas City, MO 64145 

Tel. 816/942-3167 

Fax 816/941-8743 

E-mail: 

qhiones@prodipv.net 

H. S. Lew 

National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

Building and Fire Research 

Lab 

Building 226, Room B168 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Tel: 301/975-6060 

Fax: 301/869-6275 

E-mail: hsl@nist.gov 

Andrew Merovich 

President 

A. T. Merovich & 

Associates, Inc. 

1163 Francisco Blvd., 2nd 

Floor 

San Rafael, CA 94901 

Tel. 415/457-0932 

Fax 415/457-1718 

E-mail: 

atmerovich@aol.com 

Paul Murray 

Structural Engineer 

Stanley D. Lindsey & Assoc. 

Ltd. 

1801 West End Avenue, 

Suite 400 

Nashville, TN 37203-2509 

Tel. 615/320-1735 

Fax 615/320-0387 

E-mail: pmurray'sdlnash.com 

64 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Farzad Naeim 

Director 

Research/Development 

John A. Martin & Associates 

1212 S. Flower Street 

Los Angeles, CA 90015 

Tel. 213/483-6490 

Fax 2131483-3084 

E-mail: 

farzad iohnmartin.com 

Chris Poland 

President 

Degenkolb Engineers 

225 Bush Street #1 000 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Tel: 4151392-6952 

Fax: 4151981-3157 

E-mail: 

cooland @deqenkolb.com 

Evan Reis 

Vice President, ComartinReis 

356 King Street 

Redwood City, CA 94062 

Tel. 650/725-7016 

Fax 650/723-7444 

E-mail: 

reis@comartin-reis.corn 

Dan Rogers 

Stanford University 

University Facilities Projects 

655 Serra Street, 2nd Floor 

Stanford, CA 94305-6114 

Tel. 650/723-3928 

Fax 650/725-9475 

Hidemi Nakashima 

Visiting Scholar 

PEER Center 

1301 South 46th Street 

Richmond, CA 94804-4698 

Tel. 5101231-9597 

Fax 51O1231-9471 

E-mail 

hidemi@poo.bekkoame.or.iP 

Maurice Power 

Principal Engineer 

Geomatrix Consultants 

100 Pine Street, Suite 1000 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel. 4151434-9400 

Fax 4151434-1365 

Robert Reitherman 

Executive Director 

CUREe 

1301 S. 46th St. 

Richmond, CA 94804-4698 

Tel. 510/231-9557 

Fax 510/231-5664 

E-mail: 

reitherm @nisee.ce.berkeley 

.edu 

Ronald Sack 

Director 

National Science 

Foundation 

Division of Civil and 

Mechanical Systems 

4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 

545 

Arlington, VA 22230 

Tel. 703/306-1360 

Fax 703/306-0291 

E-mail: rsack~nsf.gov 

Maryann Phipps 

Principal 

Degenkolb Engineers 

225 Bush Street, Suite 1000 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Tel: 4151392-6952 

Fax 4151981-3157 

E-mail: 

mphipps @decenkolb.com 

Andrei Reinhorn 

Professor 

SUNY at Buffalo 

Civil Engineering 

Department 

231 Ketter Hall 

Buffalo, NY 14260 

Tel. 7161645-3491 x 2419 

Fax 716/645-3733 

E-mail: 

reinhorn @eng.buffalo.edu 

Mike Riley 

National Institute of 

Standards & Technology 

Earthquake Equipment 

Group 

Route 270 & Quince 

Orchard Rd. 

Building 226, Room B158 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Tel. 301/975-6065 

Fax 301/869-6275 

Phillip Samblanet 

Structural Engineer 

National Concrete Masonry 

Association 

2302 Horse Pen Road 

Herndon, VA 20171-3499 

Tel. 703/713-1900 

Fax 703/713-1910 

E-mail 

PSamblanet@ NCMA.orq 

65 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 

Sheila Selkregg 

Planning Director 

Municipality of Anchorage 

Community Planning and 

Development 

632 West 6th Avenue, 

Room 210 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

Tel. 907-343-4303 

Fax 907-343-4220 

Stephen Toth 

Chief Engineering Officer 

Teachers Insurance & 

Annuity Ass'n/College 

Retiremt. Equities Fund 

730 Third Avenue 

New York, NY 10017-3206 

Tel. 212/916-4445 

Fax 212/916-6207 

E-mail stoth@tiaa-cref.org 

Fred Turner 

Staff Structural Engineer 

California Seismic Safety 

Commission 

1900 K Street #100 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Tel: 916/322-4917 

Fax: 916/322-9476 

E-mail: fredt5@aol.com 

Paul Somerville 

Senior Associate 

Woodward-Clyde Federal 

Services 

566 El Dorado Street 

Pasadena, CA 91101 

Tel. 626/449-7650 

Fax 626/449-3536 

E-mail pgsomerO@wcc.corr 

Bill Tryon 

Wells Fargo Bank 

540 Oak Street 

Petaluma, CA 94952 

Tel. 707/773-2868 

Fax 707/773-2879 

E-mail: 

trvoncw@wellsfarno.com 

David Tyree 

Regional Manager 

American Forest & Paper 

Association 

1080 Mesa Road 

Colorado Springs, CO 

80904 

Tel. 719/633-7471 

Fax 719/633-7439 

E-mail: dptvree@aol.com 

John Theiss 

208 St. Georges Drive 

P. 0. Box 102 

St. Albans, MO 63073 

Tel. 314/458-2453 

Fax 314/994-0722 (EQE) 

E-mail: ct29@aol.com 

Susan Tubbesing 

Executive Director 

EERI 

499 - 14th Street, Suite 320 

Oakland, CA 94612-1934 

Tel. 510/451-0905 

Fax 510/451-5411 

E-mail: eeri@eeri.orq 

Nabih Youssef 

President 

Nabih Youssef & Associates 

800 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 

510 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Tel: 213/362-0707 

Fax 213/688-3018 

E-mail: nvoussef@qnn.com 

*U.S. GOVERM*MT PRINTMl OFFICE, 2000-522-300/95079 

66