Building the Performance

You Need 

A Guide to State-of-the-Art Tools for Seismic Design and 

Assessment 

FEMA P-58-7 / December 2018 
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................1

1. Building Codes Might Not Give You What You Need .............................................2

2. Introduction to Performance-Based Methods.......................................................4

3. Options for a Performance-Based Project..............................................................9

4. How to Determine Your Earthquake Performance Goals ....................................12

5. Selecting and Working with a Qualified Design Team..........................................15

6. Cost Considerations..............................................................................................17

7. Example Uses........................................................................................................19

8. Conclusion ............................................................................................................22

Resources.................................................................................................................23

Definitions and Acronyms ........................................................................................24

Acknowledgements

This document was prepared by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) for the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) under the ATC-58 series of projects. It is one in a series of products 

representing the combined work of more than 200 consultants and individuals. ATC gratefully

acknowledges the work of the ATC-58-2 Stakeholder Products Team, including Laura Samant (Team 

Leader), David Mar, Lori Peek, Maryann Phipps, Sharyl Rabinovici, and Tom Tobin for the conception and 

development of the information contained herein.

Notice

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the Applied Technology Council (ATC), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 

or the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Additionally, neither ATC, DHS, FEMA, nor any of 

their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, nor assumes any legal liability or 

responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product, or process 

included in this publication. Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising from 

such use.

 

CONTENTS 

 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 1 

After an earthquake, buildings designed to minimum building code criteria might be 

unusable and result in heavy financial losses. Is that acceptable for your building? 

For some buildings, safety is the critical concern when it comes to large earthquakes. But for other 

buildings—such as those that house time-critical business activities, need to be reoccupied quickly, or 

represent a significant financial investment—building owners and occupants want more. 

Building codes in the United States provide minimum standards to ensure that new buildings are very 

unlikely to have deadly collapses in large earthquakes. However, a new building constructed in accordance 

with the code could still experience heavy damage, be unusable for an extended period, and require 

demolition. Past earthquakes show that the costs associated with the loss of use of a building during repair

can exceed the value of the building itself. Owners and tenants may face major disruption and loss of

revenue, potentially including the need to abandon the building and find replacement space. 

New performance-based seismic engineering tools empower you to make decisions 

about earthquake risk that are right for you and your building. 

Performance-based design and assessment methods enable detailed analyses of the wide-ranging 

consequences of earthquakes for new and existing buildings. This information can be used to weigh tradeoffs when designing a new building, renovating an existing building, purchasing or leasing space, or making 

decisions to manage the risk of currently owned buildings. Decision-makers can evaluate options and make 

personalized risk decisions that reflect their needs, values, budget, and timeline. In consultation with 

knowledgeable architects, engineers, and other design professionals, performance-based analyses can help 

reduce the chance of injuries, minimize uncertainty and downtime, and reduce future financial losses. 

This Guide presents information project managers and decision-makers need to know to 

use a performance-based approach for seismic design and assessment. 

A building project that uses performance-based seismic design and assessment methods is essentially the 

same as a typical project, but with a few key differences. This Guide provides an overview of decisions, 

steps, and implications associated with using a performance-based approach. It covers: 

• When and why to use a performance-based approach

• How a performance-based approach varies from a conventional approach

• The types of projects a performance-based approach can be used for, and varying ways it can be used 

• How to assemble a knowledgeable and effective team 

• How to determine earthquake performance goals for a particular project 

• Cost implications of using a performance-based approach

This Guide focuses solely on performance-based methods for managing the earthquake risk of buildings, but 

similar approaches can be used for other threats, such as severe storms, flooding, or fire. 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 2 

Building codes mostly aim to protect lives, 

not your business or investments.

New buildings that meet all seismic requirements of 

the building code in the United States can experience 

widely different levels of earthquake damage when 

exposed to the same earthquake shaking. Some new 

buildings could have very light damage and be usable 

quickly. Others could be unusable for an extended 

time after a large but expected earthquake, and might 

even need to be demolished.

The International Building Code (IBC) for new 

construction, enforced in most parts of the United 

States, is a set of minimum rules for designing 

buildings. Procedures in the IBC are meant to: (1) 

protect lives in the largest earthquakes likely to affect 

a building, and (2) reduce property damage and 

economic loss in more frequent, moderate 

earthquakes. 

Building codes are updated regularly, meaning that 

buildings constructed decades ago may be vulnerable 

in ways that more recent buildings are not. With 

limited exceptions, most cities do not require older 

buildings to be evaluated or retrofitted, even for 

building types known to be unsafe in earthquakes. 

Retrofitting can make damage less likely or less 

severe, but by how much depends on the design.

Building codes in New Zealand have similar aims as 

codes in the United States. When two major 

earthquakes hit Christchurch, New Zealand in 2011, 

buildings built to modern codes performed as 

expected—only two collapsed. However, 70% of 

buildings in the Christchurch downtown area were 

eventually demolished due to extensive damage. The 

Central Business District lay vacant for over two years. 

The economic and social consequences to building 

owners, occupants, and the community were massive.

“After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, 

people were shocked at how long it 

took before buildings could be repaired 

and used again. More than one client 

said that while it was great that their 

building didn’t fall down, the amount of 

downtime after the earthquake was an 

unexpected financial disaster. They 

assumed the code would produce 

better buildings.” 

Mason Walters 

Structural Engineer

Forell/Elsesser Engineering

 

Key Limitations of 

Building Codes 

1. Even modern buildings designed to the 

current building code have some 

chance of collapse in earthquakes or 

might need to be demolished.

2. The building code does not address 

many aspects of a building that affect 

financial loss and whether a building is 

functional after an earthquake.

3. Code-compliant buildings are designed 

to resist forces from an earthquake of a 

particular intensity even though larger 

earthquakes are possible.

4. Most communities do not require older 

buildings to be evaluated or retrofitted, 

even for known earthquake

vulnerabilities.

1. BUILDING CODES MIGHT NOT GIVE YOU 

WHAT YOU NEED 
FEMA P-58-7: An Owner’s Guide to Using Performance-Based Seismic Design and Analysis pg 3

The building code does not cover everything 

that affects the downtime and financial 

losses of your building.

Earthquakes can damage all parts of a building, but 

the code’s seismic standards do not cover all parts of 

a building.

The focus of the building code is preventing collapse 

of the overall structural system that supports a 

building’s weight and withstands the forces of wind 

and earthquakes. There are no guarantees that 

elements connected to or inside the structure will be 

protected. 

Everything else that is fixed in place and vital to a 

building’s use are called nonstructural features or 

elements, and these building elements can be very 

vulnerable to damage, which can lead to costly and 

disruptive repairs. Some nonstructural elements are 

addressed by the code.

Nonstructural elements that can be damaged include:

• Outside façades, balconies, windows, doors, and 

awnings

• Electrical systems and lighting

• Mechanical systems such as elevators or heating 

and cooling (HVAC)

• Plumbing 

• Communications infrastructure such as phone 

lines and internet cables

• Interior walls or partitions

• Ceiling panels

• Floor coverings (e.g., tiles)

Contents are movable and often valuable things inside 

a building, such as furniture, computer equipment, 

machinery, scientific apparatus, data and files, 

chemical and biological research samples, and 

product inventory. In many cases, bracing of contents 

is not required by the code. 

These distinctions are important because earthquakes 

worldwide show that nonstructural and content 

damage are the most likely and often largest 

contributor to total losses. Businesses in the United 

States, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Italy, Chile, and 

elsewhere have lost valuable assets and experienced 

major delays in operations due to repairs of these 

elements that took months to years.

Interior damage in this Christchurch, New Zealand office building after the 2011 earthquake 

demonstrates the safety concerns and length of time it might take to restore nonstructural elements 

 of a building to usable condition. 

Photo credit: Russell Berkowitz, 2011. 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 4 

A performance-based approach enables you to consider a range of future earthquake 

consequences in decisions about new and existing buildings. 

A performance-based approach to seismic design and assessment provides detailed information about what is likely 

to happen to a building in earthquakes and the resulting consequences. This information allows building owners and

occupants to understand and proactively make decisions about how much damage is acceptable to them. 

When designing a new building or retrofitting an existing building, a performance-based approach is both 

complementary to and fundamentally different from a code-based approach. A code-based approach entails 

following a series of rules that, based on decades of experience, are deemed by regulators to meet society’s needs. 

A performance-based approach makes design decisions specifically to control a building’s earthquake risk, reflecting 

the needs of the building owner or decision-maker. A building can both comply with code standards and be 

designed to meet performance needs defined by the owner. 

As the table below shows, the code does not require engineers to consider many potentially important earthquake 

performance factors such as repair time or likelihood of receiving an unsafe placard. A performance-based approach 

enables consideration of these and other outcomes across a range of potential shaking levels that could affect the 

structure. 

Performance-based approaches make sense for some but not all building projects.

A performance-based approach is most relevant in circumstances where it is important to have confidence in a 

building’s expected earthquake performance. It can be appropriate for projects in which: 

• The building represents a significant financial investment. 

• The intent is to maintain an interest in the building for a significant length of time. 

• It is important to be able to reoccupy the building quickly after an earthquake.

• The building has high-value assets inside that may be difficult or impossible to replace or move.

• The building is located in a location with particularly high earthquake hazard. 

• The building has symbolic, historic, cultural, or brand importance. 

• The building could command higher resale or lease values if it can be shown to be earthquake resilient.

• Demonstrating equivalence to code goals allows flexibility in design that could lower costs or enable architectural 

features not typically allowed by the code. 

• The building owner or users want more precise information about exposure and uncertainty, for example to 

compare investment options or manage risk in a portfolio of properties.

The table on the next page shows four different contexts where performance-based approaches can benefit new 

and existing building projects.

2. INTRODUCTION TO PERFORMANCE-BASED 

METHODS 

 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 5

Four Contexts for Performance-Based Projects

New Construction Existing Buildings

1. DESIGNING FOR HIGH-PERFORMANCE 

A performance-based approach can be used to

design a new building that will perform better in 

earthquakes than a basic code-conforming building. 

Owners work with their design team to define what 

levels of damage in earthquakes are acceptable to 

them and produce a design that meets their needs

with a high level of certainty.

3. RISK EVALUATION 

A performance-based analysis can be used by 

owners, investors, buyers, and tenants that want to 

learn about an existing building’s earthquake risk. 

Risk assessment can be conducted at various levels 

of detail and accuracy. 

2. IMPROVED DESIGN FLEXIBILITY 

Performance-based methods can be used to show 

that a building that deviates from some code

requirements or uses innovative systems or materials 

will perform equivalent to or better than what would 

be expected if the building was conventionally 

designed to meet the code. This use is subject to the 

discretion of local Building Officials.

It can result in a building with better defined seismic 

resistance, lower up front construction cost, or 

approval for new techniques that might not 

otherwise be permitted.

4. EFFECTIVE SEISMIC RETROFIT 

During the seismic retrofit of an existing building, the 

design team and building owner make choices about 

how—and how much—to improve the building’s 

seismic resistance. Performance-based methods can 

provide owners detailed information about the 

earthquake risk of various design options, which can 

be weighed with costs and other constraints. 

The FEMA P-58 methodology is the state-of-the-art performance-based design and assessment 

method.

The FEMA P-58 methodology, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA), was originally released in 2012 after years of development, and can be used to calculate many 

aspects of earthquake performance more rigorously than previously possible. It allows decision-makers to compare 

options for their buildings based on feasibility and value by quantifying different types of outcomes in earthquakes.

A variety of modeling packages implement the FEMA P-58 methodology, including a downloadable program 

distributed free by FEMA and some commercial services (see the Resources section of this document). 

The diagram on the next two pages illustrates the range of earthquake consequences that can be calculated by the 

FEMA P-58 methodology and how they might vary for different types of buildings.
OPTIONS FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN 

Design Decisions Have Measurable Consequences 

-- .1. t--. - . - . - . - Moderate EQ f Major EQ 1 Extreme EQ 

2O%chance I 10%chance - 2%chance Casualty Risks 

in SO years in SO years in SO years I I I 

V') 

0) 

C 

'.g 

·s 

ca 

3: 

(!) 

z 

Protective 

System 

LI □ 

f] [J 

Enhanced 

Code* 

Basic Code 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Basic Retrofit** I 

V') I 

0) I 

C +- '.g 

·s I 

ca I .... 

(!) 

~ I 

0 I • C 

I U nretrofitted I 

♦--- ■-■--· 

Earthquake damage varies depending on the level of shaking experienced and characteristics of the building's structure and other systems. Design choices affect the amount and 

types of likely damage. 

• Includes Risk Category IV and other buildings with enhanced seismic resistance features. 

** Some retrofitted buildings can experience much less damage. 

♦---------- ■ 

New code-compliant buildings have very low risks of 

casualties in the US. Some 

older buildings have high 

safety risks. 
Consequences Under Major Earthquake 

-----------------------------------------♦ Chance of Expected Building Initial Building Repair Cost Carbon Impacts 

Post-EQ Placard Downtime Cost of Repairs 

days 

days to weeks 

j\ ' 

--~--

weeks to months 

' ' (9 lA 

months to a year 

Q) - a year or more -~ • • 

··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·--· 

Design choices affect the Design choices affect the More resilient buildings typically cost Building materials require 

odds of a green tag (no amount of time required be­ slightly more upfront, but result in energy to produce. The 

restrictions), yellow tag (re­ fore a building can be occu­ lower post-earthquake repair costs amount and types of repairs 

stricted entry), or red tag pied after an earthquake. and consequences. required affect carbon re­ (unsafe, no entry). leases and energy usage. 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 8

Comparison of Code-Based and Performance-Based Approaches

Type of Loss Code-Based Approach Performance-Based Approach*

Structural Damage

Damage at or below a level expected to 

keep occupants safe in large 

earthquakes.

Evaluates and controls the likely extent of 

damage to the building structure.

Nonstructural Damage

Some components are designed to 

remain in position. Other components 

and contents are not regulated.

Evaluates and controls the likely extent of 

damage to a building’s nonstructural 

elements and some contents.

Casualties, including 

Deaths and Injuries

In newer buildings, occupants are 

expected to be safe. Retrofits of 

existing buildings are intended to 

improve but not guarantee safety.

Evaluates and controls the likelihood of

deaths or injuries due to building 

damage.

Financial Losses from 

Structural and 

Nonstructural Damage

Not evaluated. Evaluates controls the likely expected 

direct dollar losses from damage.

Likelihood of Unsafe 

Placard Not evaluated.

Evaluates and controls the likelihood of 

receiving a post-earthquake unsafe 

placard (red tag) that restricts entry and 

use.

Repair Time Not evaluated.

Evaluates and controls the likely duration 

of repairs, a key factor in how long a 

building will be unusable after an 

earthquake, and the chance a building 

will need to be demolished.

Environmental Impacts Not evaluated.

Evaluates and controls the likely carbon 

and energy impacts due to building 

repairs or demolition.

* Note: Only the FEMA P-58 methodology can estimate all the listed aspects of earthquake performance.
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 9 

You can use performance-based approaches in a variety of project stages with different degrees 

of effort and benefit. 

A performance-based design or retrofit project is largely the same as a conventional project. The key difference is 

that the project team adds the step of explicitly deciding the earthquake consequences that are acceptable to them 

and takes actions to meet those goals.

A performance-based approach can be used in the early stages of a project to guide conceptual design decisions, or 

it can be used throughout a project to inform every aspect of the design and construction, including the selection 

and installation of finishes and equipment. The appropriate effort and degree of implementing a performancebased approach can be different for each project and decision-maker.

Flowchart of the Performance-Based Seismic Design Process

• Consider risk to occupants, contents, activities, and 

investments

• Assess realistic and worst case scenarios for shaking 

and damage

• Determine recovery needs after an earthquake

Discuss Performance 

Goals Based on 

What is at Stake

• Assemble a qualified design team

• Educate and involve key stakeholders in setting 

performance goals

• Develop business case for the desired level of 

performance

Bring People on Board

• Use conceptual design tools like FEMA P-58 to 

make ballpark estimates about earthquake 

performance of design options

• Comply with the legal requirements of the building 

code or demonstrate equivalent performance

Create Initial Design

• Refine project plans so expected damage and 

outcomes align with performance goals

• If desired, use FEMA P-58 methodology to help 

identify which parts of a building are driving losses 

and fine tune the design 

Check Results 

and Adjust

• Ensure that finishes and nonstructural components 

of the building also meet performance goals 

• Monitor compliance with earthquake-related 

aspects of the design during construction

Finalize Details and 

Complete Work

3. OPTIONS FOR A PERFORMANCE-BASED 

PROJECT 

 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 10

In the conceptual design stage, a 

performance-based approach helps you 

select the most suitable structural system. 

Decisions made early in a building design process, 

during the conceptual design phase, can have a big 

impact on a building’s earthquake performance. 

Important early decisions for new building designs 

include the shape of the building and the selection of 

its structural system. Simple analyses using 

performance-based methods can provide information 

to guide these choices.

Early in a project, a structural engineer can broadly 

explore earthquake performance implications of 

different structural systems and design options 

through the use of the publication Guidelines for 

Performance-Based Seismic Design of Buildings (FEMA 

P-58-6), and companion computer tool (see the 

Resources section). With a few assumptions, an 

engineer can provide ballpark estimates about 

important aspects of earthquake performance and 

narrow in on the alternatives most likely to achieve 

the client’s earthquake performance goals while 

meeting other practical constraints. 

During detailed structural design, a 

performance-based approach provides 

information to help you understand tradeoffs. 

During the detailed structural design stage, an 

engineer can use performance-based methods to 

estimate project-specific dollar losses, required repair 

time, post-earthquake safety tagging, carbon 

emissions impacts, and potential casualties for 

earthquakes of various intensities. They can also 

identify which aspects of a building design is driving 

unacceptable losses, and adjust plans accordingly. 

This information can guide detailed decision-making 

and can be used to verify that the established 

performance goals are being met. 

A performance-based analysis helps you 

select earthquake-resilient building 

components, anchoring systems, and 

equipment. 

In the later stages of either new construction or a 

retrofit project, performance-based approaches can 

be used to drive decisions about earthquake-resilient 

components and finishes. 

The FEMA P-58 methodology, for instance, provides 

breakdowns of the total loss by how much each 

building element contributes, as shown on the figures 

on the next page. Once the main drivers of 

unacceptable loss are identified, the design team can 

explicitly compare the performance of alternative

design choices, finishes, anchoring systems, and 

materials to aid in selection and specification. 

When you have a lot at stake, a 

performance-based assessment provides 

reliable estimates of risk for financial 

transactions. 

Commercial lenders and investors may be familiar 

with earthquake risk measures such as Scenario 

Expected Loss (SEL), Scenario Upper Loss (SUL), and 

Probable Maximum Loss (PML). 

These traditional approaches provide information 

about the expected dollar losses of damage to a 

building in earthquakes. However, the accuracy and 

quality of these analyses can vary significantly. 

Performance-based analyses can be used to calculate 

reliable, high-quality SEL, SUL, and PML values for 

situations in which it is important to have an accurate 

understanding of risks and potential consequences.
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 11

Three examples of ways to consider information about how building components 

contribute to earthquake performance for an example building.
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 12

Earthquake performance goals should 

reflect what really matters to you. 

It is generally not practical to make a building

“earthquake proof.” The key task in performancebased design is to choose target levels of damage and 

loss that are acceptable when a building is exposed to 

different levels of shaking. The desired performance 

could be the same or better than would be achieved 

by following the rules of the code, depending on the 

goals and constraints for a particular project. 

It may seem awkward to think about any kind of risk 

as “acceptable,” particularly when it comes to grave 

consequences such as building collapse. However, the

code already reflects a level of acceptable risk—one 

that may or may not be right for a particular building. 

Without proactive analysis and discussion, choices 

that affect earthquake outcomes are made by default. 

“We started taking the seismic 

performance of our buildings seriously 

when we realized that a large 

earthquake impacting one of our 

manufacturing facilities could cause us 

to miss a product cycle. That’s 

unacceptable.” 

Jeffrey Soulages 

Senior Structural Engineer

Intel, Portland, Oregon

Many factors play into setting performance goals, 

such as the importance of the activities that take 

place in the building, how quickly activities need to 

resume after an earthquake, and the costs of 

achieving the desired performance. The following 

questions can help guide performance goal-setting 

discussions: 

1. ACTIVITIES IN THE BUILDING 

• What is the building used for?

• Which activities are mission critical or affect 

relationships with competitors or partners, the 

organization’s reputation, or the ability for 

important activities to take place elsewhere?

• How could the activities in the building be affected 

by loss of utility or lifelines systems, such as 

electricity, gas, water, or internet? 

• How difficult or costly would it be to relocate the 

activities if the building is unusable for an extended 

period?

Quick Guide to Determining 

Performance Goals 

1. Identify important aspects of the 

building that could be affected by 

earthquakes. 

2. Consider what is acceptable 

performance for the building in 

earthquakes of different sizes and 

likelihoods. 

3. Work with your design team to 

translate performance goals into 

metrics that can be used for design and 

analysis, including the level of certainty 

with which goals need to be achieved.

4. HOW TO DETERMINE YOUR EARTHQUAKE 

PERFORMANCE GOALS 

 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 13

2. OCCUPANTS AND CONTENTS 

• How many people use the building and how much 

time do they spend there?

• Are any users of the building particularly 

vulnerable, such as children, the elderly, or 

disabled?

• How challenging or time consuming would it be to 

replace or repair the contents of this building (for 

instance, machinery, inventory, information 

technology, or archives)?

• Are there contents in the building that are 

irreplaceable, such as research samples, precious 

artwork, or religious or historic artifacts?

• Does the building contain hazardous materials, or 

substances that could harm health or the 

environment if released?

• What are the consequences if employees cannot 

get into the building to get materials or accomplish 

tasks?

3. POST-EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY NEEDS

• What is at stake for the organization if this building 

is unusable for weeks to months or years during 

repair?

• Is this building required for emergency response or 

other activities immediately after an earthquake?

• Are there systems that are particularly critical to 

have functional after an earthquake, such as 

security or refrigeration?

• Will people need to shelter at the site if they 

cannot safely travel home? 

4. FINANCIAL INVESTMENT

• How severe are the financial consequences if the 

activities in the building are disrupted after an 

earthquake? 

• How severe are the financial consequences if the 

building is so damaged it needs to be demolished?

• After an earthquake, will there be sufficient 

liquidity to pay for repairs as quickly as they are 

needed?

• Could reputation, public relations, or brand be 

affected by what happens to the building?

Performance goals should consider issues that could threaten assets, damage 

inventory, or interrupt mission-critical processes. 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 14

Your performance goals should be different for earthquakes of different sizes and frequency.

In general, smaller earthquakes occur more frequently than larger and more damaging earthquakes. After a major 

earthquake, it is typically reasonable to accept some building damage, financial loss, and building closure. However, 

after an earthquake of a more moderate size and higher likelihood of occurrence, decision-makers might desire the 

same building to be functional shortly after the event. Acceptable earthquake performance goals for a building will 

vary for earthquake shaking of different strengths and likelihoods.

With the help of qualified design professionals, careful review of project circumstances should lead to a clearer 

picture of the most important building performance issues. A performance goal-setting worksheet, as shown below,

can be set up to track discussions. It is not necessary to write something in every box. Rather, the purpose of the 

worksheet is to think and communicate about how acceptable performance changes with the likelihood and size of 

an event. This process will also help uncover whether a code-level design provides the desired performance with 

adequate assurance. If not, an iterative design process can then help explore options and whether their costs are 

worth the expected outcomes.

Performance Goal-Setting Worksheet 

Performance Category 

After a Moderate, 

More Likely 

Earthquake 

After a Large, Rare 

Earthquake 

After a Major, Very 

Rare Earthquake 

Level of safety (e.g., no injuries) (e.g., <1% chance of 

injuries)

Maximum acceptable building 

repair time (e.g., one day) (e.g., one month)

Maximum acceptable cost for 

structural and non-structural 

repairs

(e.g., 1% of building 

replacement cost)

(e.g., 20% of building 

replacement cost)

Level of protection for contents

(e.g., 90% chance of 

industrial machinery 

intact)

(e.g., 50% chance of 

industrial machinery 

intact)

Acceptable chances of collapse (e.g., <1%) (e.g., <5%)

Acceptable chances of red 

tag/unsafe placard (e.g., <10%) (e.g., <25%)
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 15

Assembling a skilled and efficient team is 

key to project success.

Everyone involved in a performance-based project, 

from project leaders to architects, engineers, other 

design professionals, vendors, and contractors and 

subcontractors, needs to understand earthquake

performance goals and be able to work together to 

achieve them. Investing in the services of 

professionals well-versed in or open to performancebased approaches at the outset of a project can save 

money in the long-term.

Frequently but not always, use of performance-based 

seismic engineering requires structural engineer team 

members with in-depth knowledge of ground shaking 

hazards, structural materials behavior, and in-depth

structural analysis. The Resources section at the end 

of this Guide is a good starting point for team 

members who want to learn more about the technical 

aspects of performance-based methods for design 

and assessment.

Encourage regular communication and 

collaboration of all team members to help 

achieve your project goals.

Successful design teams generally communicate early 

and often during the design process amongst each 

other and with representatives of the building owner 

or decision-maker. Frequent communication allows 

design team members to understand each other’s 

constraints and the earthquake risk implication of 

various design choices.

All design team members make decisions that 

contribute to earthquake performance, not just 

structural engineers. Even seasoned design 

professionals may not be aware of all the ways other 

peoples’ work can affect what happens to a building in 

an earthquake. For example: 

• Architects plan the building configuration 

(footprint, shape, number of stories), select 

materials such as exterior cladding, ceilings, 

interior walls, escape routes, and other 

architectural features. Each of these decisions can

affect the seismic performance of the building. 

Architects also play a critical role in coordinating 

interaction among other design consultants.

• Mechanical engineers help plan and oversee proper 

installation of equipment, piping, and essential 

systems such as ventilation, heating and air 

conditioning (HVAC). These systems can be very 

vulnerable to earthquake shaking, depending on 

design.

• Plumbing specialists design a building’s water 

systems. Design and installation decisions impact

leaks or breaks in earthquakes that can lead to 

flooding and loss of use of the entire building after 

an earthquake.

• Electrical specialists plan and implement power 

supply to mission-critical IT infrastructure, security, 

HVAC, and lighting systems as well as back-up 

power and fire alarms.

Questions for Prospective 

Team Members 

Ask potential design team members the 

following questions to launch a discussion 

about earthquake performance:

• What is your experience with 

performance-based seismic design 

and analysis?

• Does a performance-based 

approach make sense for conceptual 

or detailed structural design phases 

of this project?

• What earthquake performance 

objectives seem right for this 

project?

• What do you think are the most 

seismically vulnerable nonstructural 

components in our building and 

what can be done to protect them?

5. SELECTING AND WORKING WITH A 

QUALIFIED DESIGN TEAM 

 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 16

• Fire protection engineers design sprinkler systems

that might be needed to fight post-earthquake fires

and could flood the building if damaged by the

shaking.

• Interior architects or interior designers often select

elements like suspended ceilings, decorative wall

hangings, and large furniture, which can be

hazardous if not properly anchored.

• Structural engineers select and design the

structural system, critical both to minimizing

structural damage and also building movement

that can damage architectural, mechanical, and

electrical components. Structural engineers

typically lead the performance-based seismic

design process.

“Our entire design team meets 

together, beginning in the conceptual 

design phase. All of our subcontractors 

discuss the performance needs of the 

aspects of the project they work on—

not just seismic performance, but every 

aspect of performance. We need our 

structures and systems to work under a 

wide range of scenarios. This allows us 

to identify issues and solve them before 

they become problems.” Geoff Neumayr

Chief Development Officer

San Francisco International Airport

San Francisco Airport recently underwent millions of dollars in upgrades, 

including new buildings that took advantage of performance-based 

seismic design. 

Photo credit: John Swain Photography 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 1

A performance-based project is not 

necessarily more expensive than a 

conventional project, but can be more 

complex. 

Every building project is unique, and it is not possible 

to make a generic statement comparing the costs of a 

performance-based project with a project that does 

not employ performance-based methods. In some 

cases, early investments in seismic performancebased engineering lead to cost savings in the 

construction phase. In other cases, decisions to invest 

in greater seismic resilience result in a more expensive 

building project.

“Our client needed their new Public 

Safety Building to be operational after 

the maximum credible earthquake. 

Using performance-based methods, our 

design team found that strategically 

positioning sensitive equipment within 

the building in areas that are expected 

to shake less in earthquakes allowed us 

to meet the client’s goals without 

adding significant costs to the project.” Kevin Miller, AIA 

GSBS Architects, Salt Lake City, Utah 

 

6. COST CONSIDERATIONS 

Salt Lake City used a cost-effective performance-based approach to enable its Public 

Safety Building to operate after a disaster. 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 18

Following are some important cost and logistical 

considerations:

• Time for Setting Goals. All design team members 

will need to put thought and time into determining, 

analyzing, and meeting desired building 

performance goals, ideally in a collaborative fashion. 

This can require more time for consultants than 

projects that do not include these tasks.

• Analysis Time. More time and input information 

may be required to conduct performance-based 

assessments than required for prescriptive codebased approaches. 

• Structural Elements. If higher earthquake 

performance than provided by minimum code

standards is desired, the structural system itself may 

cost more than a minimally code-compliant 

structure. However, this is not always the case. 

Sometimes, extra time spent on design can result in 

a better performing structure that does not require 

larger or more expensive structural elements. 

• Better Components. For nonstructural elements and 

contents with better than minimum code 

performance, such as finishes, utilities, and fire 

protection systems, ensuring that each of these 

systems meets articulated performance goals can 

require analysis and iteration by design team 

members. Possibly, the team would need to include 

additional consultants to conduct this analysis. This 

can also result in the selection of higher cost 

components than might otherwise have been used. 

• Interior Arrangement. In order to achiever superior 

performance, it may be necessary to locate some 

critical business or building functions in lower levels, 

so as to minimize earthquake effects on these 

functions. This can result in less than optimal 

arrangement for other perspectives, or require 

other accommodation in building layout.

• Permitting. If performance procedures are used to 

avoid one or more code requirements, the building 

authority may take additional time to review the 

project and issue building permits. The building 

official may also require independent reviews by 

other design professionals.
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 19

Earthquake Performance Planning at the Campus Scale 

The University of California San Francisco (UCSF) operates a world-class hospital, research institution, and 

medical school. As part of its billion-dollar facility expansion and improvement program, institutional 

leaders put significant thought into how much earthquake damage it can tolerate in its buildings. 

UCSF created three tiers of seismic performance and requires integrated design-build teams to present 

options for each of these tiers so that they can be compared in terms of costs and benefits. Each tier 

addresses objectives for structural and nonstructural systems, including explicit limits on downtime and 

damage that could affect UCSF’s core mission, people, and assets. 

UCSF’s desired performance for each tier varies based on the size of the earthquake as shown in the 

diagram below. Detailed policies define what “minor,” “moderate,” or “major” disruption mean in terms 

that are meaningful to UCSF, such as destruction of laboratory samples, loss of student housing, or 

hazardous chemical releases. Level of Shaking

M6.0 Scenario

Code Design 

Earthquake

M8.0 Scenario

Moderate 

disruption

Major 

disruption

Minor

disruption

Desired Level of Earthquake Performance

Tier 1

Well-Designed 

Building 

Safe for re-entry

Tier 2

Important Building

Usable for critical 

functions

Tier 3

Mission Critical

Building

Continuous 

operation

 

7. EXAMPLE USES 

 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 20

UCSF’s Mission Bay campus features mixed uses including administrative offices, 

patient care, research facilities, housing, public transit, and parking. Buildings have 

been categorized into tiers based on UCSF’s performance policy.

TIER 1: Mission Hall Global 

Health and Clinical 

Sciences Building 

(Offices)

TIER 2: Neuroscience 

Research (Clinics 

and Laboratory – 

in construction)

TIER 3: Benioff Children’s 

Hospital (Urgent Care)
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 21

Roseville City Hall Annex: A Five Star Building

In 2016, the City of Roseville, California completed construction of its new City Hall Annex building. The 

building was designed to meet code standards, without using a performance-based approach. However, 

due to the critical operations and services that would take place in the building, the design team

incorporated a number of features to increase the building’s earthquake performance. 

The design team and the City believed the building would have significantly better performance than an 

average building complying with minimum code requirements. To confirm this was true and to 

communicate the findings clearly, the City sought an earthquake performance rating of the building. Their 

design team conducted a performance-based assessment that enabled the City to obtain the highest 

possible ratings by the U.S. Resiliency Council: five stars for safety, repair cost, and recovery time.

The non-profit U.S. Resiliency Council (USRC) was founded in 2011 to implement an earthquake 

performance rating system. The USRC certifies qualifying engineers to issue ratings (from 1 to 5 stars) for 

three important considerations of building earthquake risk: (1) safety; (2) repair cost; and (3) time to 

regain function. Under the USRC system, a 5-star rating means the chance of fatalities is next to zero, 

damage will be under five percent of replacement cost, and the building will be re-occupiable within days

of a major seismic event. This is well beyond what could be expected by a typical building designed

according to minimum code requirements.

Performance-based analyses were used to earn the Roseville, California City Hall Annex 

a five star seismic resilience rating for safety, repair cost, and recovery time. 

Photo credit: John Swain
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need pg 22

Detailed earthquake performance 

information empowers informed decisions 

about your buildings.

Performance-based seismic design and assessments

enable developers, owners, tenants, and investors to 

clarify exactly what levels of earthquake damage and 

loss are acceptable, feasible, and affordable to them. 

Armed with the information that performance-based 

methods provide, stakeholders can: 

• Achieve a more resilient building that has less 

damage and improved functionality after an 

earthquake, as well as reduced environmental 

impacts.

• Better understand and control their risk exposure

and reduce uncertainty. 

• Increase the value of a property at time of sale.

• Differentiate rental properties from competing 

properties, because tenants are in a more resilient

building and will be able to resume operations 

more quickly after an event.

• Thoroughly evaluate choices when considering 

purchase or renovation alternatives.

• Enhance recruitment, retention, reputation, and 

public relations by going beyond minimum 

requirements to better protect the public as well as 

employees and their livelihoods.

• Make a contribution to community resiliency and 

getting the local and regional economy back on 

track after an earthquake. 

• Gain greater confidence and peace of mind from 

having clearly defined seismic performance goals 

and a plan for achieving them.

“Seismic performance-based methods 

are the future. New structural 

engineers are learning how to use 

these methods to better understand 

the difference between a structure that 

is safe and one that is both safe and 

can be quickly reoccupied following a 

major earthquake.” 

Stephen Mahin, Ph.D. 

Nishkian Distinguished Professor 

of Structural Engineering

University of California, Berkeley, California

Performance-based seismic design and analysis is the 

future. Newly available technical analysis tools, such 

as the FEMA P-58 methodology, can more quickly and 

reliably than ever before calculate how much damage 

and loss is expected, how long post-earthquake 

repairs will take, and how many environmental 

impacts will result. This empowers better decisions 

about how much and what types of investment in 

seismic resilience makes sense for each building 

project.

 

8. CONCLUSION 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 23

 

The FEMA P-58 Methodology

• FEMA P-58-1, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 1 – Methodology, Second Edition, 2018: 

This document provides a detailed, technical overview of the FEMA P-58 methodology.

• FEMA P-58-2, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 2 – Implementation Guide, Second 

Edition, 2018: This document provides guidance on implementing a seismic performance assessment using 

the FEMA P-58 methodology.

• FEMA P-58-5, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 5 – Expected Seismic Performance of 

Code-Conforming Buildings, 2018: This document summarizes the assessed performance of code-conforming 

buildings using FEMA P-58 performance metrics.

• FEMA P-58-6, Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Buildings, 2018: This document provides 

guidance to engineers for using insights from the FEMA P-58 methodology to select building characteristics 

necessary to achieve the desired performance.

• Online Quiz: Could Your Project Benefit from New Earthquake Risk Analysis Techniques?: A brief online 

interactive tool that provides insight on whether a building-related project is likely to benefit from the use of 

performance-based methods, http://femap58.atcouncil.org/.

• FEMA website for Seismic Performance of Buildings: This site includes downloads of all the major FEMA P-58 

reports and computer tools, https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/90380.

• Applied Technology Council website for FEMA P-58: This site includes downloads of all major FEMA P-58 

reports and computer tools, as well as background research reports used to develop the methodology, 

http://femap58.atcouncil.org/.

Other Performance-Based Engineering Methods

• ASCE/SEI 41-13, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, 2013, American Society of Civil Engineers 

(ASCE), Structural Engineering Institute: This standard presents procedures that use performance-based 

principles to evaluate and retrofit existing buildings.

• Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, 2017, Pacific Earthquake Engineering 

Research Center (PEER): This guideline presents recommended procedures using a performance-based 

approach for seismic design and review of tall buildings, http://peer.berkeley.edu/. 

• An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in The Los Angeles Region -

A Consensus Document (2014 Edition with 2015 Supplements), Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design 

Council: This document provides a performance-based approach for seismic design and analysis of tall 

buildings, http://www.tallbuildings.org/.

Other

• U.S. Resiliency Council (USRC) Earthquake Rating System, http://usrc.org/.

• REDi Rating System, ARUP, https://www.arup.com/publications/research/section/redi-rating-system.

• SP3, Seismic Performance Prediction Program, based on FEMA P-58 methodology, https://www.hbrisk.com/.

 

RESOURCES 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 24

Code This refers to the International Building Code (IBC) for new 

buildings, which is the model building code adopted by most U.S. 

states. The IBC presents standards for the design of new buildings, 

including the design of seismic force resisting systems. Note: many 

states and localities make modifications to the IBC when they adopt 

it, creating variations in code requirements among communities.

Conceptual structural design Early structural design steps for a building, such as selecting the 

structural system that will be used and determining general layout.

Contents The movable but often valuable things inside a building, including

furniture, computer equipment, machinery, scientific apparatus, 

data and files, chemical and biological research samples, and 

product inventory.

Design team A team of professionals involved in designing a building, typically 

including an architect, structural engineer, and others such as

mechanical engineers, plumbing specialists, electrical specialists, 

and fire protection engineers. 

Earthquake performance Refers to the amount and types of damage and consequences that a 

building experiences during earthquake shaking.

Existing building A building constructed sometime in the past, possibly prior some to 

Building Code improvements that address seismic risk issues.

FEMA P-58 A state-of-the-art performance-based seismic engineering 

methodology that enables users to estimate the amount of 

expected dollar losses, repair time, casualties, chance of receiving 

an unsafe placard, and carbon emissions for a building exposed to 

earthquake shaking.

Finishes Refers to non-structural elements of a building that have a 

decorative function, including, for example, the exterior cladding of 

a building, interior floor surfaces, and paneling on interior walls. 

Intensity A measure of the strength of shaking produced by an earthquake at 

different locations, expressed in terms of the effects of the shaking 

on people, the built environment, and nature.

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) shaking The maximum intensity of earthquake shaking considered by the 

Building Code for a specific site. This is intended to represent the 

most severe shaking a building is ever likely to experience. 

However, with very low probability, a building could experience 

more severe shaking. 

Nonstructural damage Earthquake damage to nonstructural elements of a building, which 

are the parts of a building that are fixed in place but are not part of 

the structural system. Nonstructural elements can include façades, 

balconies, utility systems, partition walls, and ceiling panels. 

DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS 
FEMA P-58-7: Building the Performance You Need page 25

Partitions Refers to interior walls or other room dividers that are not

structural elements. 

Performance-based seismic engineering (PBSE) Engineering techniques to determine the amount of damage a 

building may experience in response to earthquake shaking, and the 

consequences of that damage, so that information can be 

considered for design and analysis.

Performance-based approach A process to design or analyze a building that uses or considers the 

amount of damage a building may experience in response to 

earthquake shaking, and the consequences of that damage.

Performance-based design A formal process for design of new buildings, or seismic upgrade of 

existing buildings, which includes a specific intent to achieve 

defined performance objectives in future earthquakes.

Performance goals / performance objectives A defined set of expectations regarding the amount of damage a 

building may experience in response to earthquake shaking, and the 

consequences of that damage.

Probable Maximum Loss (PML) A term used to express the amount of financial loss expected to a 

building when it is exposed to earthquake shaking. Scenario 

Expected Loss (SEL) and Scenario Upper Loss (SUL) are more specific 

forms of probable maximum loss that are sometimes used in 

financial transactions associated with buildings. 

Resilience The ability of a community, system, or organization to prepare and 

plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to 

adverse events, such as earthquakes.

Replacement cost The cost to reconstruct a building today in essentially the same way 

it exists now.

Scenario Expected Loss (SEL) A calculation of the mean expected repair costs for a building that 

experiences earthquake shaking with a specified return period 

(often 475 years), expressed as a percentage of the replacement 

cost of the building. This calculation is sometimes used for financial 

transactions associated with buildings.

Scenario Upper Loss (SUL) A calculation of the expected repair costs that have a 90% chance of 

not being exceeded for a building that experiences earthquake 

shaking with a specified return period (often 475 years), expressed 

as a percentage of the replacement cost of the building. This value 

is sometimes used for financial transactions associated with 

buildings.

Seismic retrofit Upgrades to an existing structure to reduce the amount of damage 

that will occur due to earthquake shaking.

Structural system The load resisting system of a building, such as columns, beams, 

joints, and walls that are designed to support a building under 

normal gravity loads and when it is exposed to earthquake shaking 

and strong winds.
FEMA P-58-7 

Catalog No. 1894-10