ATC 58 3 Proceedings PBSD
ATC 58 3 Proceedings PBSD
ATC 58 3 Proceedings PBSD
Proceedings of
FEMA-sponsored workshop on
performance-based design
Funded by
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Applied Technology Council
Project management and administration are carried out by a full-time Executive Director and
support staff. Project work is conducted by a wide range of highly qualified consulting
professionals, thus incorporating the experience of many individuals from academia, research,
and professional practice who would not be available from any single organization. Funding for
ATC projects is obtained from government agencies and from the private sector in the form of
tax-deductible contributions.
ATC Disclaimer
While the information presented in this report is believed to be correct, ATC assumes no
responsibility for its accuracy or for the opinions expressed herein. The materials presented in
this publication should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent
examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by qualified
professionals. Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising from such
use.
by
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240
Redwood City, California 94065
www.ATCouncil.org
Funded by
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Michael Mahoney, Project Officer
Robert Hanson, Technical Monitor
Washington, D.C.
2003
Proceedings of: FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Performance-Based Design Applied Technology Council
Preface
In September 2001 the Applied Technology Council (ATC) was awarded a contract by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to conduct a long-term project to prepare next-generation
Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines (ATC-58 project). The project is to consider and build on
the FEMA-349 report, Action Plan for Performance-Based Seismic Design (EERI, 2000), which provides
an action plan of research and development activities to produce and implement design guidelines that
specify how to design buildings having a predictable performance for specified levels of seismic hazard.
Ultimately FEMA envisions that the end product from this overall project will be design criteria for
performance-based seismic design that could be incorporated into existing established seismic design
resource documents, such as the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures, and the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
(FEMA, 273), and its successor documents (e.g., FEMA-356 Prestandard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings).
The ATC-58 project is being conducted in several phases, as resources become available. In Phase 1,
which commenced in late 2001, ATC developed a management process for the project, identified and
engaged key project management and oversight personnel, developed a project Work Plan, commenced
development of a report on performance characterization, and conducted two workshops to obtain input
on project needs and goals.
Workshop One focused on communicating earthquake risk and was held on June 18, 2002 in
Chicago, Illinois (ATC, 2002). The purpose of Workshop One was to obtain preliminary feedback from a
cross section of building stakeholders, including real estate developers, building owners, corporate
tenants, lenders, insurers and other interested parties as to how performance-based seismic design
guidelines can most usefully deal with issues of earthquake risk.
Workshop Two, the proceedings of which are presented in this document, was held on February 24-
25, 2003 in San Francisco, California, to introduce the ATC-58 project to the building design, research
and regulation communities, to obtain feedback on significant advances that have occurred since the
development of the FEMA-349 report, and to assist in identifying appropriate updates to the FEMA-349
recommendations considering the state of current knowledge. The Workshop program included updates
on recent international developments, updates on relevant research conducted by the National Science
Foundation-funded earthquake engineering research centers, and breakout sessions that focused on the
following program components; performance-based design of structures, performance-based design of
nonstructural components and systems, and risk management and communication considerations.
The Applied Technology Council gratefully acknowledges the members of the ATC-58 Project Team,
who planned and organized the Workshop, and the representatives from a broad range of organizations
who participated in the workshop: Daniel Abrams, Daniel Alesch, Donald Anderson, Mark Aschheim,
Nuray Aydinoglu, Robert Bachman, Deborah Beck, Fouad Bendimerad, Vitelmo Bertero, David
Bonowitz, Roger Borcherdt, Michel Bruneau, Philip Caldwell, James Carlson, Kelly Cobeen, Craig
Comartin, Allin Cornell, Anthony Court, Gregory Deierlein, Weimin Dong, Richard Drake, John
Eidinger, Amr Elnashai, Mohammed Ettouney, Gregory Fenves, Andre Filiatrault, William Gates, John
Gillengarten, Barry Goodno, James Hackett, Ronald Hamburger, Robert Hanson, Perry Haviland,
William Holmes, John Hooper, Ahmad Itani, William Iwan, James Jirsa, Brian Kehoe, Robert Kennedy,
Petros Keshishian, Andrew King, Stephanie King, Charles Kircher, Anne Kiremidjian, Helmut
Krawinkler, H.S. Lew, Joe Maffei, Michael Mahoney, Praveen Malhotra, James Malley, Zeno Martin,
Peter May, Gary McGavin, Brian Meacham, Ali Memari, Andrew Merovich, Eduardo Miranda, Elliott
Mittler, Jack Moehle, Andrew Mole, Linda Noson, James Partridge, William Petak, Maryann Phipps,
Chris Poland, Andrei Reinhorn, Charles Roeder, Christopher Rojahn, Daniel Shapiro, John Silva, M.P.
Singh, Paul Somerville, T.T. Soong, William Staehlin, Jonathan Stewart, Akira Tasai, James Tauby,
Andrew Taylor, Craig Taylor, Christine Theodoropoulos, Jon Traw, and John Wallace. Bernadette
Mosby coordinated all workshop logistics and served as the workshop registrar. The affiliations of these
individuals are provided in Appendix A.
ATC also gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the guidance and oversight provided by Michael Mahoney (FEMA Project
Officer) and Robert Hanson (FEMA Technical Monitor).
Christopher Rojahn
ATC Executive Director
iv Preface ATC-58-3
Proceedings of: FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Performance-Based Design Applied Technology Council
Table of Contents
Preface ......................................................................................................................................................... iii
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Executive Summary
The Applied Technology Council, on behalf of the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the
Department of Homeland Security, is engaged in a multi-year program to develop practical and effective
design criteria and guidelines for performance-based design of buildings to resist the effects of
earthquakes (ATC-58 project). The goal of this project is to reduce economic costs and life losses
associated with earthquakes by permitting buildings to be designed and constructed so that they are
reliably capable of providing acceptable and appropriate levels of seismic risk. The guidelines and
procedures are to be applicable to the design and construction of new facilities as well as the upgrade of
existing facilities. It is also intended that the performance-based approaches developed under this
program would be applicable to the development of similar design procedures for resistance to other
extreme hazards including wind storms, fire and blast.
The development of performance-based structural and seismic design procedures has received wide
spread interest for more than a decade, both in the United States and abroad. In the period 1993-1997, the
Applied Technology Council, Building Seismic Safety Council and American Society of Civil Engineers
collaborated under FEMA-sponsorship to develop performance-based design procedures for seismic
rehabilitation of existing buildings. The resulting FEMA-273 NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings and companion FEMA 274 Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, were later developed into a national consensus standard and published as the
FEMA-356 Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. These documents
formed the first comprehensive performance-based seismic design methodology, which has experienced
rapid acceptance and application by the design professions. the rehabilitation guidelines for existing
buildings ,however, were not intended to be applicable to the design of new facilities. Therefore, in 1997,
FEMA entered into a cooperative agreement with the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute to
prepare an action plan for the development of a next generation of performance-based design guidelines
applicable to both new and existing buildings. The resulting FEMA-349 report, Action Plan for
Performance-Based Seismic Design (EERI, 2000), recommended a comprehensive, ten-year effort for this
development and serves as the initial framework for the conduct of the ATC-58 Project.
In the time since publication of the FEMA-356 and FEMA-349 reports, a large number of research
and development efforts related to performance-based design have been undertaken. In the United States,
the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Applied Technology Council, the Consortium of
Universities for Earthquake Engineering Research, the Structural Engineers Association of California,
and the three national Earthquake Engineering Research Centers have all have performed significant work
in this area. Other important work has been undertaken in the earth science community and by individual
engineers and researchers. Significant work has also been undertaken in Europe, Japan and New Zealand.
In February 2003, a number of the researchers and engineers involved in these efforts were invited to
attend a 2-day workshop at the Miyako Raddison Hotel in San Francisco, California. The objectives of
this workshop were to introduce the community to the ATC-58 project, identify the significant
development efforts that had been undertaken since publication of the FEMA-349 Action Plan, and obtain
community input into the preparation of an updated action plan for conduct of the ATC-58 Project.
The workshop was attended by 86 participants from the structural engineering, earth science, and
social science business communities, as well as selected members of the project Steering Committee. In
plenary session, the ATC-58 project objectives and work plan, and overview summaries of relevant work
underway by the three national earthquake engineering research centers, as well as in Europe and New
Zealand, were presented. Following the plenary session, participants were separated into three breakout
sessions, respectively focused on performance-based design of structures, performance-based design of
nonstructural components and systems, and risk management and communication considerations. In each
break out session, participants were provided opportunity to present information on recent significant
developments in the focus area. Breakout sessions were chaired by members of the ATC-58 project
development team, who presented preliminary proposed updates to the FEMA-349 Action Plan.
Participants were asked to critique these proposed updates and assist the project team in developing an
appropriate revised Action Plan.
The workshop resulted in the collection of much useful information on recent developments in
performance-based earthquake engineering that permitted the project team to develop a new vision for the
way in which the ATC-58 should be developed. This represents a significant departure from the basic
Action Plan presented in FEMA-349. Chapter 1 of this report presents an overview of the workshop, its
objectives and the way in which it was conducted. Chapter 2 presents an overview of the revised vision
for the conduct of the ATC-58 project. This vision is currently being further developed into a detailed
work plan. Appendices to this document include a list of the participants, abstracts of presentations, and
summary notes from sessions.
Chapter 1: Introduction
General
This document provides a summary of the proceedings of a Workshop on Performance-based Seismic
Design, held in San Francisco, California on February 24-25, 2003. This workshop was held as part of
the FEMA-funded ATC-58 project to develop performance-based seismic design guidelines. The purpose
of the workshop was to:
introduce the earthquake engineering community to the ATC-58 project;
obtain information on recent significant technical developments relevant to performance-based
seismic design; and
obtain community input into the process of updating and revising the FEMA 349 Action Plan for
Performance-Based Seismic Design (EERI, 2000), which, will serve as the basic road map for
conduct of the ATC-58 project.
In addition to providing a summary of the workshop proceedings, this document also presents a
summary vision for the conduct of the ATC-58 project developed based on feedback obtained at the
workshop. This summary vision forms the basis for the revised action plan, which is still undergoing
development.
ATC-58-3 1: Introduction 1
Applied Technology Council Proceedings of: FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Performance-Based Design
criteria that could reliably be used to design buildings to control the economic as well as life losses
associated with earthquakes. Such design criteria and designs developed implementing such criteria have
come to be known as performance-based design.
Following the 1994 Northridge earthquake, FEMA funded the Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute (EERI) in a project to prepare an action plan for the development of reliable performance-based
criteria for the design of new buildings and upgrade of existing buildings. The resulting action plan was
published in 2000 as FEMA-349, Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design. Developed with
broad input from the earthquake engineering community, FEMA-349 lays out a roadmap for the
development of performance-based design criteria that includes development of detailed technical criteria
for design of structural and nonstructural systems and components, as well as methods for building
owners, tenants, and investors and government agencies to determine minimum acceptable performance
goals to be used as the basis for design.
The ATC-58 project, initiated in September 2001, is intended to implement the FEMA-349 Action
Plan for the development of performance-based design guidelines. The FEMA-349 Action Plan was
broken into six basic components, each of which would be responsible for an identifiable portion of the
program and the development and publication of products in specific areas. These included:
Project Planning and Management Program – This component addresses basic management of the
program and includes establishment and communication with a project steering committee, consisting
of representatives of various stakeholder groups, who would both provide feedback to the project
team on the needs of the community and also act as advocates within their own individual
communities for the effective development and use of performance-based approaches. Stakeholder
groups include building developers, corporate risk managers, lenders, insurers, tenants, government
planners, building regulators and design professionals, among others.
Structural Performance Products – This component consists of the development of technical tools
and guidelines to allow building structures to be designed to achieve specified performance.
Nonstructural Performance Products – This component consists of the development of technical
tools and guidelines to allow the design of buildings such that architectural, mechanical, and electrical
systems and components and critical tenant contents and furnishing can achieve desired performance.
Risk Management Products – This foundational component consists of developing the means to
communicate issues of performance design between the design professionals and those who must pay
for performance and will be affected by poor performance including building owners, developers,
tenants, lenders, insurers, community planners and regulators.
Performance Based Design Guidelines – This task consists of developing resource documents,
primarily intended for use by design professionals and building regulators, that can be implemented
as criteria and procedures for doing performance-based designs and which can eventually be
developed into consensus standards or code provisions.
Stakeholder’s Guides – This task consists of developing resource documents, primarily intended for
stakeholders, including owners, developers, tenants, lenders, insurers, community planners and
regulators, that assist these stakeholders in selecting appropriate performance criteria as the basis for
building development and upgrade projects.
Ultimately, FEMA envisions that the end product from this overall project will be design criteria for
performance-based seismic design that could then be incorporated into existing established seismic design
resource documents, specifically the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures for new construction and the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings and its successor documents, for existing buildings. The performance-based
seismic design criteria is intended to be implemented on a voluntary basis by individual development
teams or adopted into the provisions of the building codes and become either an alternative or basic
minimum standard for the design and upgrade of buildings.
The FEMA-349 Action Plan was developed during the period 1997-1998. Upon initiation of the
ATC-58 project in 2001, it was recognized that significant work towards the development of
2 1: Introduction ATC-58-3
Proceedings of: FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Performance-Based Design Applied Technology Council
performance-based design procedures and criteria had likely been accomplished by the three national
earthquake centers, by individual researchers and the practicing profession at large. Accordingly, one of
the first tasks the project team was charged with was to obtain input on advances in the state of the art
since the development of FEMA-349, to obtain community consensus as to the continued viability of the
Action Plan, and to develop a revised action plan as appropriate that would serve as the basic work plan
for the project. The February 24-25, 2003 workshop was a key element of this process of revising the
FEMA-349 Action Plan.
In the interim period, prior to development of this revised action plan, FEMA-349 continues to serve
as the basis for the project work plan. As of the time of the workshop, the project had accomplished the
following:
established a project management structure, including the appointment of a 6-person Project
Management Committee, including a Project Executive Director, Project Technical Director and four
at-large members of the research, regulation, and practice communities;
appointed Team Leaders to lead the effort in each of the Structural Performance Products,
Nonstructural Performance Products, and Risk Management Products component areas;
appointed team members in the aforementioned product areas to assist with project planning tasks;
performed a preliminary project task in the Risk Management Products area to define preferred ways
of communicating performance between stakeholders and design professionals, and to begin to
establish a system of design performance levels or goals; and
developed a preliminary revised Work Plan for the project, based on the FEMA-349 Action Plan, the
results of the preliminary Risk Management Product task, and the project participant’s personal
knowledge of recent developments in performance-based design.
The performance-based design workshop was a key input to the process of revising the Action Plan
and finalizing the project work plans.
Attendees
The Workshop was attended by members of the ATC-58 Project Management Committee and the Project
Steering Committee, the Structural Performance Products Team Leader, the Nonstructural Performance
Products Team Leader, the Risk Management Products Team Leader and Associate Risk Management
Products Team Leader, as well as members of the three product development teams. In addition the
workshop was attended by a large number of invited participants selected on the basis of response to a
broad call for presentations, issued in December 2002, as well as recognized achievement in the field of
performance-based seismic design. Appendix A includes a complete list of all workshop participants.
Appendix B contains a copy of the call for presentations.
Workshop Overview
Appendix C presents an agenda for the workshop. This section provides a brief narrative of the agenda
and proceedings.
The workshop occurred on two days, starting at 9:00 am on February 24 and continuing through the
afternoon of February 25, 2003. The morning and a portion of the afternoon of the first day were held in
plenary session. In this plenary session, introductory remarks were made by the FEMA Project Officer
(M. Mahoney), the Project Executive Director (C. Rojahn) and Project Technical Director (R.
Hamburger). These remarks included an overview of the purpose of the project, a summary of project
accomplishments and technical recommendations to date, an overview of the FEMA-349 Action Plan,
which serves as the initial basis for development of project work plans, and a discussion of the purpose of
the workshop.
Following the introductory presentations on the purpose of the project and the workshop, two invited
presentations were made on the status of development and implementation of performance-based seismic
design approaches in Europe (by A. Elnashi) and Australia/New Zealand (by A. King.) Representatives
ATC-58-3 1: Introduction 3
Applied Technology Council Proceedings of: FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Performance-Based Design
of the Mid-America Earthquake Center (D. Abrams), the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research (M. Bruneau) and the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (G.
Deierlein) presented a summary of relevant research underway that could support the project. Appendix
D contains a reproduction of the slides used in the initial project presentations and abstracts of the focused
plenary presentations.
Upon completion of the plenary session, attendees were assembled into three pre-assigned breakout
groups, focused respectively on the three product areas: Structural Performance Products, Nonstructural
Performance Products, and Risk Management Products. Each breakout session was chaired by the ATC-
58 project team leader for that product area. Prior to the workshop, these team leaders, with the
assistance of the project teams, had prepared initial drafts of an update to the FEMA-349 work tasks and
budgets, termed a Straw Work Plan. This initial Straw Work Plan was distributed to workshop attendees
prior to the workshop, and is contained in Appendix E. The FEMA-349 Action Plan had also been
distributed to all workshop participants, prior to the workshop, together with a questionnaire, containing
the following questions:
Question 1: Are you aware of any significant advances that have been made, since 1998, in the
development of technologies that permit the performance of building structures and
building nonstructural components to be predicted? Please provide a brief description
of any such advances that you are aware of, and also indicate the primary investigators
who performed this work.
Question 2: Are there specific tasks contained in the FEMA 349 Action Plan that you believe need
no longer be performed or that you believe should be performed in a radically different
manner than indicated? Please identify the tasks, your proposed modification or
elimination of the task, and the reason for this.
Question 3: Are there tasks that you believe should be performed as part of the ATC-58 project that
are not currently contained in the FEMA 349 Action Plan? Please identify any such
tasks and the reason you believe these tasks should be performed.
Question 4: Are there specific project reports or deliverables that you believe the ATC-58 project
should produce, that are not identified in the FEMA 349 Action Plan? Please identify
these reports or deliverables and indicate why you believe they are important.
Question 5: Do you wish to make a specific presentation at the workshop, on any of the items noted
above?
A few of the workshop participants provided written response to these questions prior to the
workshop and indicated that they desired to make specific presentation on the points noted. In addition,
several attendees were provided an opportunity to present papers for which abstracts had been submitted
in the original call for presentations (Appendix B). For the most part, the breakout sessions consisted of a
review of the straw work plan previously prepared by the Team Leaders. In some cases, the discussion of
the straw work plan was quite general and did not directly result in modification of specific work tasks
contained in the straw work plan, but rather resulted in a general refocusing of the goals and approach to
the work. In other cases, detailed evaluation of the work tasks were achieved with budgets and even
relative scheduling agreed to.
A summary of each of the breakout sessions is contained in Appendices F, G and H of this
proceedings for the Structural Performance Products, Nonstructural Performance Products and Risk
Management Products Breakout Sessions, respectively. Each summary includes the session chair’s notes
and the written abstracts received from participants for presentations made during the session.
With the substantial help and assistance provided by the workshop participants, the project team
developed a new vision for the basis upon which the new performance-based design guidelines should be
developed. The Project Technical Director presented this new vision in a summary presentation at the
closing plenary session. Following the closing plenary session, the Project Team engaged in a process of
revising the Straw Work Plan to incorporate the new vision and to finalize the revised action plan. The
summary presentation from the closing plenary session is contained in Appendix I of this proceedings.
4 1: Introduction ATC-58-3
Proceedings of: FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Performance-Based Design Applied Technology Council
ATC-58-3 2: Summary 5
Applied Technology Council Proceedings of: FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Performance-Based Design
Educate the practicing professionals so as to be able to implement the new procedures and improve
the level of practice.
FEMA-349 indicated that this work could be accomplished in a 10-year period, acknowledging that
this would be aggressive given the massive amount of work that must be performed. A major component
of the program consisted of basic engineering research. That included:
6 2: Summary ATC-58-3
Proceedings of: FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Performance-Based Design Applied Technology Council
the NSF-funded Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) – validation of earthquake
performance simulation capability.
ATC-58-3 2: Summary 7
Applied Technology Council Proceedings of: FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Performance-Based Design
other expressions of loss discussed previously, with loss considering lives, repair/replacement costs, and
downtime.
The second step in the process consists of formulation of a preliminary design. In the rehabilitation
guidelines, this was a trivial task as the preliminary design would start with the existing structure, which
would then be evaluated to determine if it was capable of providing the desired performance. For new
buildings, this task is less trivial as there are a wide range of structural systems, configurations, and
details that can be selected. A major task of the ATC-58 project will be to develop preliminary design
guidance that will assist the engineer in efficient preliminary selection of appropriate systems and
configurations, strength, stiffness and detailing, that will be capable or close to capable of meeting the
desired performance goals. Currently, this process is performed on a largely intuitive basis, often by
making arbitrary modifications to prescriptive code criteria.
The third and final step in the process is one of confirming that the design is capable of providing the
desired performance, both of the structure and the nonstructural components and systems, and of iterating
the design until conformance is obtained. In the context of this project, unlike in past performance-based
design efforts, this will be conducted by estimating the probable losses (life, repair/replacement cost, and
downtime) for the preliminary design, in the same context in which these losses are expressed by the
stakeholder as performance criteria an determining if the losses are suitably low. Figure 2-2 illustrates the
performance verification process.
Regardless of the way in which performance is measured, that is as an average annual loss of life, an
expected mean return period for more than a number of hours of lost facility use, or the maximum
probable repair cost given a specified earthquake event, or by another means, the process is essentially the
same. It initiates with characterization of the hazard in terms of a hazard function. The hazard function
indicates the probability of experiencing ground motion intensity of a given level, together with an
expression of confidence bounds. The hazard function may be either conditioned on the occurrence of a
specific scenario earthquake, or may be an expression of all possible earthquakes and the probability of
occurrence of each. Earthquake intensity must be expressed in the form of a parameter that is useful and
efficient for predicting structural response. A parameter is useful, if it can be used in structural analysis to
predict earthquake effects. A parameter is efficient if the variability in response as a function of the
parameter is relatively small. In the PEER methodology, these parameters are termed Intensity Measures.
Figure 2-3 is illustrative of a hazard curve for a hypothetical building site, using peak ground acceleration
as the Intensity Measure. Other Intensity Measures, such as spectral response accelerations, are likely to
be more efficient than peak ground acceleration.
8 2: Summary ATC-58-3
Proceedings of: FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Performance-Based Design Applied Technology Council
1
0% 50% 100% 150%
Anual Prob. of Exceedance
0.1
10% confidence
0.01 Mean
90% confidence
0.001
0.0001
Peak Ground Acceleration - %g
Once the hazard for a building site has been determined, structural analysis must be used to
understand how structural response varies as a function of ground motion intensity. Structural response
must be characterized by a series of Engineering Demand Parameters (EDPs) that are useful and efficient
for predicting damage. EDPs may be such quantities as, for example, interstory drift, total drift, joint
plastic rotation, and axial column force. Since these response quantities will typically vary in a nonlinear
manner with intensity, it will usually be necessary to perform a series of analyses to predict response at
various intensities. It is also necessary to account for potential variability and uncertainty in response
relating to ground motion, modeling, material properties, construction quality, and other factors. The end
product of structural calculations are a series of response functions that relate the probability of exceeding
ATC-58-3 2: Summary 9
Applied Technology Council Proceedings of: FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Performance-Based Design
various values of each EDP at different ground motion intensity levels. Figure 2-4 is illustrative of one
such a response function.
90
80 Median
Engineering Design Parameters, predicted by structural analysis at various levels of intensity are used
for several purposes. One purpose is to predict damage to the structure and to nonstructural elements and
components. Damage is related to EDPs by means of fragility functions. Fragility functions indicate the
probability of experiencing damage of different types, given the occurrence of various levels of the EDPs.
Damage levels can be characterized in terms of specific damage states that are meaningful with respect to
life loss, repair cost, and downtime. Figure 2-5 is an example fragility curve for moment-resisting steel
frames using beam yielding, beam flange buckling and beam flange fracture as the damage states. Figure
2-6 is an example of a fragility curve for a curtain wall system, using panel cracking, glass cracking, glass
fallout, and connection failure as damage states. Fragilities can be established through a combination of
laboratory testing and analysis. For some nonstructural components and analysis, an interim step must be
performed, consisting of structural analysis of the nonstructural component, using a structural EDP, e.g.,
interstory drift, or floor acceleration as an input parameter, similar to the way in which intensity measures
are used for analysis of the structure, and then predicting response EDPs for the nonstructural
components.
1
Probability of Damage State
0.8
Yielding
Initiation
0.6
Buckling
0.4 Fracturing
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Interstory Drift - In.
10 2: Summary ATC-58-3
Proceedings of: FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Performance-Based Design Applied Technology Council
Initiation
0.6 Glass Breaking
0
0 10 20 30 40
Interstory Drift - In.
Once the probability of a structure being damaged to given levels is understood, in order to predict
performance, expressed in the form of loss, it is necessary to have loss functions. Loss functions relate
the probable value of life loss, repair/replacement cost, and downtime to the occurrence of damage.
Figure 2-7 is a representative loss curve indicating repair cost per framing connection in a steel frame
building for the various damage levels contained in the fragility function of Figure 2-5. Figure 2-8 is a
similar curve indicating the probable loss of life in a building, given building collapse. Similar loss
curves are required for each of the structural and nonstructural components, as well as for the entire
structural system and individual nonstructural systems. Loss functions can be established on the basis of
historical data, expert opinion and judgment, analysis, or by a combination of these.
0.8
Nonexceedance
Probability of
0.6 Yielding
Buckling
0.4 Fracture
0.2
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Repair Cost / Connection $
Figure 2-7 Loss Curve for Connection Repair Costs in Steel Frame Buildings
Once the intensity, response, damage and loss curves are established for the structure as a whole, as
well as individual structural components and nonstructural components and systems, it is possible to
estimate building performance, in any of the ways previously discussed, by integrating the intensity,
response, damage and loss functions. This can either be done numerically, or, if certain simplifying
assumptions are made with regard to the form of distribution of these various functions, in a closed form
solution.
Although this performance verification/prediction approach has been in use for some time in loss
estimation software and is similar to methods used in probabilistic risk assessments conducted in the
nuclear, offshore and aerospace industries, relatively few structural design professionals are familiar with
ATC-58-3 2: Summary 11
Applied Technology Council Proceedings of: FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Performance-Based Design
these methods and they vary substantially from current performance verification procedures.
Consequently, a substantial program of simplification, explanation, and education will be necessary to
allow the implementation of this approach.
0.8
Nonexceedance
Probability of
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10
Lives Lost / 1,000 square Feet, given Collapse
Figure 2-8 Loss Curve for Lives, Given Story Collapse for a Hypothetical Building
12 2: Summary ATC-58-3
Proceedings of: FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Performance-Based Design Applied Technology Council
ATC Seeks Input on Significant Advances in Performance Based Engineering for Presentation at
Upcoming FEMA-funded Workshop on Performance-Based Design
The Applied Technology Council (ATC), under contract to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), is seeking input from structural and earthquake engineering researchers and practitioners on
significant advances over the last decade in the development of performance-based structural and seismic
design technologies. This knowledge will be used by ATC during the planning stages of a long-term
project to develop a next-generation performance-based seismic design procedure (ATC-58 Project), a
FEMA-funded effort that is being planned based on recommendations in the FEMA 349 Action Plan for
Performance-Based Seismic Design, which was prepared by the Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute and published in 2000. Although the project is focused primarily on development of seismic
design procedures, the intent is to maintain relevance and transportability to structural design for other
hazards, including blast, wind and fire. Persons selected to provide information on significant advances
in performance-based structural engineering, as a result of this solicitation, will be asked to participate in
an upcoming ATC-58 Workshop on Programming the Development of Performance-Based Seismic
Design Procedures, to be held February 24-25, 2003, in San Francisco. Each presentation on new
advances presented at the workshop will be limited to 15 minutes.
Persons interested in making a presentation (at the upcoming ATC-58 Workshop) on significant
advances in performance-based structural engineering since 1997 should submit a one-page description of
said advances to the Applied Technology Council by January 31, 2003. Statements should be submitted
to ATC-58 Project, Applied Technology Council, 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 550, Redwood City,
California 94065 (e-mail: [email protected]). Applicants selected for participation at the Workshop
will be notified by February 7, 2003.
For additional information, see the ATC-58 Call for Workshops Presentations on the ATC web site
(www.ATCouncil.org), which contains a copy of the ATC-58 Work Plan, or contact Ron Hamburger
(Project Technical Director) at 415/495-3700 (email: [email protected]).
Appendix C: Workshop on
Performance-Based Design Agenda
Miyako Raddison Hotel
San Francisco, California
February 24-25, 2003
February 24, 2003
9:00 am Registration and Coffee
10:00 am Welcome Rojahn/Mahoney
10:15 am Project Introduction Hamburger
10:45 am FEMA 349 Overview Hamburger
11:15 am Workshop Purpose and Agenda Hamburger
Update on Recent International Developments
11:30 am - Australia/New Zealand King
11:45 am - United Kingdom Elnashi
12:00 Lunch
Update on Relevant Research by NSF Centers
1:15 pm - MAE Center Abrams
1:35 pm - MCEER Bruneau
1:55 pm - PEER Deierlein
Breakout Session 1 – Structural Performance Products
- Strawman Presentation
- Individual Presentations
2:15 pm - Discussion Whittaker
Breakout Session 2 – Nonstructural Performance Products
- Strawman Presentation
- Individual Presentations
2:15 pm - Discussion Bachman
Breakout Session 3 – Risk Management Products
- Strawman Presentation
- Individual Presentations
2:15 pm - Discussion Comartin
4:00 pm Coffee Break
4:15 pm Resume Breakout Sessions
6:00-7:00 pm No-Host Reception
Overview of FEMA 349 Report, Action Plan for Performance-Based Seismic Design
(Slide Presentations by Ronald Hamburger, Project Technical Director) ................................................
Recent Advances in Performance Based Earthquake Engineering – the New Zealand Experience
Andrew King
Section Manager – Active Landscapes, Institute for Geological and Nuclear Sciences New Zealand
Over the past five years a major review of the New Zealand Earthquake Loadings Standard, NZS 4203
has been underway. This has culminated in the development of a joint Australia/ New Zealand earthquake
standard now at its final draft stage. The standard operates within the performance based regulatory
environment set down by the New Zealand Building Code. The design profession requested that the
performance parameters objectives be clearly prescribed within the standard and transparent to enable
designers to appreciate the in-service performance expected from compliant buildings.
Section 2 therefore prescribes the earthquake design performance objectives of the standard. These
include damage control under moderate earthquake attack (serviceability limit state II), the provision of
resistant earthquake mechanisms under severe loading (ultimate limit state) with some reserve capacity
(unspecified), and collapse avoidance under the maximum considered event. The earthquake intensity
associated with ‘moderate’ ‘severe’ and ‘maximum’ varies with the building importance class. For
buildings with ‘ordinary’ occupancy the annual probability of exceedence of the design event was 25
years, 500 years and 2500 years respectively. Buildings classified as having a ‘Critical post-disaster
function attain their special ranking because of the expectation that they would remain operational
(serviceability limit state I) when other buildings were experiencing their ultimate limit state design
actions (500 year recurrence interval. Thus the operational continuity performance expectation was
incorporated for this class of building as a mandatory requirements but is also available for should owners
or operators elect to engage this performance level.
The life safety hazard created by building collapse has been extended to cover other life threatening
failures such as the shedding of elevated facades and the collapse of heavy suspended ceiling systems.
The necessity for building evacuation paths to maintain operational continuity following severe
earthquake attack was also considered and parts required to ensure compliance with this expectation
classified accordingly.
With the clear shift of focus to post earthquake performance including both life safety, damage
control and operational continuity, the importance of adequate design of building parts and non-structural
components was highlighted. A research programme was instigated to investigate the known and
predicted behaviour of non-structural and secondary systems. Reference was made to the behaviour of
instrumented buildings during the Northridge earthquake. The study involved the design and analysis of
over 40 buildings in both high and low seismicity regions of New Zealand. Variations include
consideration of different materials, different structural forms and different building heights. The
selection of the ground motion records to be used during the analysis followed the procedure set out in the
standard (similar to those prescribed in ATC 40 and FEMA 273) were used. The resulting floor response
spectra was used to determine the design spectra for building parts and non-structural systems supported
within the primary structural frame.
The next phase of the programme involved determining the in-elastic response capability of different
non-structural components and items of mechanical plant. Such response needs to include both the
behaviour of the item and its connectivity to the building itself. Work is now being planned as to how to
evaluate these dynamic response characteristics for different systems and to develop a cost-efficient
means by which the necessary design parameters can be determined.
New Zealand proposes to adopt a national earthquake standard which includes clearly stated
earthquake performance objectives. We are keen to participate an international research effort to quantify
response parameters, particularly for damage control and operational continuity.
A.S. Elnashai
Professor, Associate Director, MAE Center, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
Preamble
For the past decade or more, a group of European earthquake engineering experts have been co-operating
in the challenging environment of research and development towards seismic risk reduction, fostered by
the European Commission (EC). Funding was provided by the EC under the successive frameworks 3, 4
and 5, through competitive network applications. The projects in which the writer is/was involved are:
Prenormative Research in Support of Eurocode 8 (PREC8)
Innovative Concepts in Seismic Design of New and Existing Structures (ICONS)
Safety Assessment for Earthquake Risk Reduction (SAFERR)
This does not include a number of earthquake engineering-related projects that the writer was
affiliated with or knew about, such as the Large Installations projects ECOEST I and II, as well as their
successor, ECOLEADER, which are basically consortia of large scale laboratories, most of which are
shaking table facilities. Other networks of a smaller number of partners, such as NODISASTR and
SPEAR, are more focused research groupings that are mainly concerned with reinforced concrete
structures. Other networks concerned with geotechnical and engineering seismology aspects of seismic
hazard are not reviewed here, with the exception of the Eurosei-series of projects, since the latter is a
multi-disciplinary activity that includes structural engineering research. Efforts are currently underway to
amalgamate and enlarge the European networks under the auspices of Framework Program 6, the call-for-
proposals of which has been recently announced.
Within the running of each network, the European group has managed to maintain a balance between
the amount of research, development and training provided, regardless of the bias of the EC proposal
requirements. Furthermore, fore-vision and the use of a clear global framework have enabled the EEEC
to gear the seemingly disparate network applications of Programmes 3, 4 and 5 of the EC, towards the
achievement of the final objective of creating a European Earthquake Risk Centre.
Research Highlights
All research activities undertaken by the successive European earthquake engineering networks are
considered ‘performance-based’. This includes the development of rigorous displacement spectra, long-
period spectra, better site characterizations, targeted repair and strengthening, displacement-based
assessment and design and local ductility assessment and design. One of the most spectacular
achievements of the European networks is large and full-scale testing of structures and foundations.
Examples of such tests are shown in Figure 1. The tests were preceded by extensive analysis and
assessment studies to bracket the limit states of the structure and the required input motion characteristics
and the testing was focused on providing data at pre-assigned performance levels.
Figure D-1 Full scale testing of infilled frame, bare RC and composite frame at JRC Ispra, Italy
The experimental results were used to calibrate models and to adjust limit state definitions in terms of
local and global response parameters corresponding to performance targets. One of the interesting
performance-based concepts developed in Europe is that of ‘selective intervention’, whereby one of the
three most important structural characteristics (stiffness, strength and ductility) is affected without
affecting the two others, thus optimally tuning the response to meet the identified performance target.
Stiffness is most relevant to serviceability, strength to damage control and ductility to collapse
prevention. Therefore, the three parameters map well onto the three limit states. This approach was
utilized in shear walls tests as well as full scale RC frame tests with excellent results, manifested in
achieving the target performance with minimum cost and intrusion, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure D-2 Application of selective intervention on RC walls and full scale frame
Considerable analytical work has also been undertaken to enhance tools of seismic performance
evaluation as well as to advance their application in a framework of performance targets For example,
refined methods of deriving fragility relationships by using adaptive pushover analysis alongside defining
the hazard per limit state have been derived and tested. Analytical and experimental work aimed at
deriving criteria for performance-based design of foundations to match structural limit states has also
been undertake. In short, since Eurocode 8 is a performance-based design document, European research
has been focusing on the explicit definition and means to satisfy performance objectives under earthquake
loading.
Focus of Mid-America Earthquake Center’s Research Relative to FEMA 349 Action Plan for
Performance Based Seismic Design
Daniel P. Abrams,
Willett Professor of Engineering and Director
Mid-America Earthquake Center University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Abstract
The Mid-America Earthquake Center was founded in 1997 with a mission to address the infrequent, high-
consequence earthquakes common to the central and eastern United States. The primary target for MAE
research is the development of new methodologies that can be utilized by practitioners and their non-
expert stakeholder clients for estimating probable losses and consequences of severe seismic events.
Because many civil infrastructure systems in the eastern half of the United States have not been
engineered to resist seismic shaking, one pertinent role of the center is to develop mitigation strategies for
reducing seismic vulnerability of existing construction through rehabilitation. This is done through a
central paradigm known as Consequence-Based Engineering (CBE) which implicitly considers losses
across respective stakeholder systems in the engineering process.
MAE research is directed towards refinement of methods for estimating damage and consequences
across regions. A series of research projects are being done to improve or develop methods for: (a)
collecting inventory information on the built environment of a selected region, (b) estimating dynamic
response of structures with simplified approaches, (c) approximating vulnerabilities or fragilities of
specific types of construction, (d) determining vulnerabilities of network systems, (e) estimating socio-
economic impact and (f) assessing overall seismic risk. All of this research is coordinated under the
banner of “damage synthesis.” Research projects are done in a generic manner so that results can be
extrapolated to multiple, diverse stakeholder groups. Research results are synthesized using an advanced
visualization module known as “MAEVIZ”.
Other research is done to identify optimal solutions to minimize consequences from future
earthquakes and includes projects on: (a) how decisions are made with respect to seismic intervention, (b)
what levels of consequences are acceptable to various stakeholder groups, (c) how to establish optimal
rerouting or retrofit strategies for network systems or building structures, (d) how to minimize losses and
risk through better land-use planning practices and (e) how a multi-hazard approach to reducing
consequences can be used. As well, fundamental scientific research is done to better understand and
model the earthquake hazard in the central United States.
MAE research, driven by an interdisciplinary emphasis, takes a wider vision towards development of
new engineering approaches, while the FEMA plan is more focused on individual structural systems. Yet,
MAE stakeholder-specific research has produced products that can be used to augment development done
under the FEMA 349 plan with respect to performance of bridge and building structures and their non-
structural components.
Much more information on these concepts can be found on the MAE Center website at:
http://mae.cee.uiuc.edu.
Greg Deierlein
Stanford University ([email protected])
Abstract
Efforts are underway in Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) center to develop a
performance-based earthquake engineering methodology for buildings and bridges. The performance
assessment process is described through four generalized variables that characterize information from the
relevant scientific and engineering disciplines in a logical and consistent manner. One variable is a ground
motion Intensity Measure, which is determined through a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and is
often described by a seismic hazard curve for spectral acceleration or other quantity. Next, nonlinear
computer simulations are used to determine response of a facility to earthquake ground motions. Output
from these simulations is defined in terms of Engineering Demand Parameters, which may consist of
interstory drifts, floor accelerations, local ductility demands, or other engineering response quantities.
Engineering Demand Parameters are then related to Damage Measures, which describe the physical
damage to the structure and its components. Damage states are delineated by their consequences or
impact on Decision Variables, consisting of dollar losses (repair and restoration costs), downtime, and
casualty rates. A key aspect of the methodology is consistent representation and tracking of uncertainties
in predicting performance metrics that are relevant to decision making for seismic risk mitigation.
In addition to summarizing the proposed methodology, the presentation will highlight
accomplishments and ongoing research by PEER that relate to the ATC 58 effort.
y
4.13 Task 12 – Establish a post-earthquake data collection and analysis program
nl
(Task 3.3.2 in FEMA-349) 49
O
4.14 Task 13- Establish a program for developing innovative nonstructural design
(Task 3.3.3 in FEMA-349) 50
on
4.15 Task 14 – Develop a plan for verifying nonstructural component design
and installation. (Task 5.5 in FEMA-349) 50
si
4.16 Task 15 – Develop documents and reports for use in PBSD Guidelines
s
(Task 3.4 of FEMA-349) 51
cu
5. risk management products Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.1 Objectives 51
is
5.4 Task RMP 2.2 Develop minimum performance objectives considering social and
economic drivers (FEMA 349 Task 4.1.2) 57
ks
5.4.1 Task RMP 2.3 Quantify performance in terms of loss and risk
or
5.5.1 Task RMP-3.1 Formulate a research plan to advance current risk evaluation
methods (FEMA 349 Task 4.2.1) 58
r
Fo
5.5.2 Task RMP-3.2 Develop performance and risk models (FEMA 349 Task 4.2.2) 58
5.5.3 Task RMP-3.3 Define cost effective models for improving performance
(FEMA 349 Task 4.2.3) 58
5.5.4 Task RMP-3.4 Calibrate performance and risk models
(FEMA 349 Task 4.2.4) 59
5.5.5 Task RMP-3.5 Develop cost-effective design strategies
(FEMA 349 Task 4.2.5) 59
5.6 Educate users about risk management concepts (Task RMP-4)
(FEMA 349 Task 4.3) 59
5.7 Identify legal implications of PBSD (Task RMP-5) (FEMA 349 Task 4.4) 60
5.8 Produce documents and reports for use in PBSD Guidelines and
Stakeholders’ Guide (Task RMP-6) (FEMA 349 Task 4.5) 60
6. Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines Error! Bookmark not defined.
E.1 Introduction
E.1.1 General
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has entered into a contract with the Applied
Technology Council to develop a next-generation of performance-based seismic design guidelines,
applicable to the design of new buildings and to the seismic retrofit of existing buildings. This program is
planned to be a multi-year interdisciplinary effort that will provide reliable and practical guidelines that
will permit the design of building structures, as well as their nonstructural components and critical
systems and contents, to reliably provide desired levels of performance in future earthquakes. It also
includes the development of tools that will enable regulators as well as individual building owners,
investors and tenants to make decisions as to appropriate acceptable levels of performance for various
buildings.
On a preliminary basis, the project is planned to follow the general outline presented in the FEMA-
349 Action Plan for Performance-based Seismic Design. However, the project will not include any direct
research components, such as testing of structural or nonstructural components, nor does it directly
include the broad educational components contained in the original FEMA-349 document. Instead it will
include the development of:
protocols that may be used by others to qualify the performance capability of specific structural
systems and nonstructural components,
methods for characterizing performance in a way that is meaningful to stakeholders as well as
designers,
analytical tools and procedures that can be used to predict the performance of individual building
structures and their nonstructural components in terms that are meaningful to stakeholders
procedures and tools for the design of buildings to achieve desired performance
procedures and tools for determining appropriate minimum performance for specific buildings or
broad classes of buildings
guidelines for use by various stakeholders in determining appropriate performance criteria for
buildings
guidelines for use by design professionals in performing designs intended to achieve specified
performance criteria
prescriptive criteria that may be used for the design of selected classes of structures to achieve
specified performance criteria
The project is currently being funded in annual increments. In the first year, the project developed a
project management structure, retained key members of the project management team and an oversight
committee, and performed a preliminary task to determine how best to characterize and communicate
performance as a basis for design. The project has recently initiated a second year, in which it will
continue to develop tools for characterizing performance and begin the process of developing tools for
quantifying performance and also to develop this overall project work plan, which will provide the basis
for project tasks performed in future years.
The current state of the art contains valuable and practical information that has been implemented on
some individual projects. In addition, substantial research applicable to the development of performance-
based seismic design has been conducted by the United States Geologic Survey, by the three national
earthquake engineering research centers, funded by the National Science Foundation, as well as by
individual researchers in the United States and abroad. A goal is to use this information where possible,
filling in the gaps with new evaluation methods and identifying where further research is required.
The project is intended primarily to address the performance-based design of buildings to resist
earthquake effects. However, it is recognized that parallel development of performance-based criteria for
the design of structures to resist fire, blast and other extreme loads is concurrently being developed and
that much of the technology applicable to performance-based design for these various hazards is broadly
applicable. It is intended to develop the performance-based seismic design criteria so that it is compatible
with and transportable to parallel performance-based design procedures for these other hazards
E.1.2 Purpose
When completed, this Draft Work Plan will state the basic tasks and budget allocations to be used by the
ATC-58 project to develop performance-based seismic design guidelines. The primary purpose of this
document is to define the tasks and resources necessary to perform those tasks that will be directly
performed by the ATC-58 project. A secondary purpose is to identify those tasks which must be
performed by others to support the fulfillment of the projects goals and objectives.
E.1.3 Organization
This document is, as its name implies, focuses on the specific tasks that must be accomplished to develop
performance-based seismic design guidelines, together with those tools necessary to encourage its
appropriate implementation. The Plan centers about development of six “products.” Each contributes to
meeting a specific portion of the primary goal. The term “product” does not refer exclusively to written
documents, but implies tools, procedures, guidelines and educational means by which these tools and
procedures may be communicated to the end users. These product categories are as follows:
E.2.2 Overview
Overall planning and management of the project will be conducted by a Project Management Committee,
assisted by a series of three product development teams: Structural Performance Products Team,
Nonstructural Performance Products Team, and Risk Management Products Team. Each team will be
headed by a team leader. In addition the team will have a number of team members and may have a series
of consultants who work as part of the team to perform specific development tasks. The Structural
Performance Products Team and Nonstructural Performance Products team will work together to develop
the Performance-based Seismic Design Guidelines. The Risk Management Products team will develop
the Stakeholders Guides.
The entire project will be conducted under the oversight and with the consultation of a Project
Steering Committee. The Project Steering Committee will be selected to broadly include representatives
of pertinent stakeholder communities including engineering researchers, engineering practitioners,
regulators, institutional building owners, developers, lenders, insurers and corporations.
Figure 1 presents a project organization chart for the project. Following sections describe the Project
Management and Project Steering Committees. Product development teams are described in the chapters
relating to each Product Development area.
scheduling. The Project Management Committee will select project personnel and approve all project
consulting contracts. It will also be responsible for guiding and monitoring the technical and
administrative progress of the project and for developing progress reports to FEMA.
Personnel: Applied Technology Council Executive Staff and Directors, Leading representatives of
earthquake engineering practice, research, social science and regulation
Budget: $1,200,000
Duration: Throughout the project
analytical and experimental data. It will consider the variability and uncertainties involved, with the
goal of obtaining reliable estimates of building structural 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.
E.3.1 Task 2.1 Identify Current Performance-Based Design Information and Additional
Research Needs
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.
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
Budget: $500,000
Duration: Throughout the project
E.3.7 Task 2.2.5 – Develop and Validate Analytic Methodologies for Achieving
Performance Levels
The team will fill in the key 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.
Personnel: Engineers, Researchers
Budget: $1,250,000
Duration: Throughout the project
have the most important effects on buildings. The team will create a standard for characterizing ground
motion and will include issues of damping, nonlinearity, and duration effects. 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 near-fault ground
motion. Similarly, methods to quantify the amount of and consequences of permanent ground
displacement will be developed. Close collaboration with, and additional funding by USGS is assumed.
Personnel: Engineers, Researchers
Budget: $500,000
Duration: Throughout the project
E.3.12 Task 2.6 – Prepare Documents and Reports for Use in Performance-Based Design
Guidelines
This task will occur at milestones within the research plan developed in Task 2.1.2 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 risk management products
and nonstructural performance products will occur to insure that information is presented in a consistent
manner. 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 2.1.2 to set out the goals for the next
phase of research.
Personnel: Engineers, Researchers, Material suppliers, Building officials, Government agencies
Budget: $500,000
E.4.2 Task 1 – Review and Revise Action Plan for Nonstructural Work Products
Under this task, the specific work products and deliverables for the nonstructural work products area are
to be identified along with the tasks necessary to develop the deliverables, estimated budgets, task
durations and task interdependencies. These will be incorporated into an updated Action Plan.
Deliverables: Tasks, task schedules, task budgets, identification of who will perform the tasks, task
interdependencies and deliverables.
Table E-1 Summary of Proposed Budget Yearly Distribution by Task for Nonstructural
Performance Products (Budgets in thousands of $)
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
Task
1 15 15
2 15 15
3 150 150 50 350
4 100 100 100 300
5 50 50 50 150
6 150 100 250
7 150 150 300
8 200 200 200 200 200 1000
9 150 150
10 200 200 200 250 850
11 40 40 40 30 150
12 300 300
13 300 300
14 150 150 300
15 100 100 100 100 100 500
Total 30 450 1140 1190 540 580 450 550 4930*
*The total is $ 330 K higher than the total in FEMA-349 because Tasks 1 and 2 have
been added ($ 30 K ) and Task 14 (FEMA-349 Task 5.5) has been shifted from the
Guideline Products to the NPP Products ($ 300 K).
E.4.9 Task 8 – Establish Comprehensive Testing and Certification Protocols (Task 3.3.1 of
FEMA-349)
The team will catalogue all relevant testing information to date. It will identify gaps in this 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. If financially feasible, some testing should be conducted within this task to calibrate
certification parameters.
Deliverables: Needs analysis and Comprehensive Testing and Certification Protocols
Personnel: 8 person team of Design Professionals, Researchers, Material Suppliers and 1 consultant.
Start Date: Jan. 1, 2005
Finish Date: Dec. 26, 2009
Task Interdependency: Dependent on partial completion of Tasks 4, 5 and 6.
E.4.10 Task 9 – Develop a Research Plan to Advance the State-of-the-Art (Task 3.1.3 of
FEMA-349)
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.
Deliverables: Research plan to advance the state-of-the-art and identification of funding sources for
research
Personnel: 6 person team of Researchers, Design Professionals, Material Suppliers and 1 consultant.
Start Date: Jan. 1, 2005
Finish Date: Dec. 26, 2006
Task Interdependency: Dependent on partial completion of Tasks 6, 7 and 8
Budget for 2006: $150,000
Task Total: = $150,000
E.4.11 Task 10 – Develop Analytic Methodologies for Achieving Performance Levels (Task
3.2.3 of FEMA-349)
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 performance-based seismic design 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 structural performance products.
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.
Deliverables: Design and analysis methodologies/Design Application Report
Personnel: 6 person team of Design Professionals, Researchers, Material Suppliers and 1 consultant.
Start Date: Jan. 1, 2005
Finish Date: Dec. 26, 2008
Task Interdependency: Dependent on partial completion of Tasks 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8
Budget for 2005: $200,000
Budget for 2006: $200,000
E.4.12 Task 11 – Coordinate Design and Analysis Methods with SPP (Task 3.2.4 of FEMA-
349)
The team will compare the design and analysis methods of the structural performance products and
nonstructural performance products 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 performance products in relation to the overall goal of performance-based seismic design
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 nonstructural components overlap or come in
conflict.
Deliverables: Annual Coordination Report and Overall Building/Contents Behavior Report.
Personnel: 4 person team of Design Professionals, Researchers, Material Suppliers and 1 consultant.
Start Date: Jan. 1, 2005
Finish Date: Dec. 26, 2008
Task Interdependency: Dependent on partial completion of Tasks 11 and SPP methodologies.
Budget for 2005: $40,000
Budget for 2006: $40,000
Budget for 2007: $40,000
Budget for 2008: $30,000
$150,000
E.4.13 Task 12 – Establish a Postearthquake Data Collection and Analysis Program (Task
3.3.2 in FEMA-349)
The team will establish a program for collecting nonstructural performance information after an
earthquake. This will be coordinated with the efforts in the structural performance products. 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. It will 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.
Deliverables: A postearthquake data collection and analysis program for nonstructural components
Personnel: 6 person team of Researchers, Design Professionals, Material Suppliers and 1 consultant.
Start Date: Jan. 1, 2006
Finish Date: Dec. 26, 2006
Task Interdependency: Dependent on partial completion of Tasks 6, 7 and 8
E.4.14 Task 13- Establish a Program for Developing Innovative Nonstructural Design
(Task 3.3.3 in FEMA-349)
The team will establish a program for encouraging manufacturer’s to develop innovative nonstructural
designs that take advantage of the performance- based 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.
Deliverables: A Report explaining to manufacturer’s how to take advantage of the PBD criteria
developed in this document
Personnel: 8 person team of Design Professionals, Material Suppliers and Owners, (Government
Agencies) and 1 consultant.
Start Date: Jan. 1, 2010
Finish Date: Dec. 26, 2010
Task Interdependency: Dependent on partial completion of Tasks 1-11
Budget for 2010: $300,000
Task Total = $300,000
E.4.15 Task 14 – Develop a Plan for Verifying Nonstructural Component Design and
Installation. (Task 5.5 In FEMA-349)
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 nonstructural performance products to make easier reevaluation of
existing components and determine expected performance.
Deliverables: Standard format for checking adequacy of nonstructural component system design,
manufacture and installation.
Personnel: 8 person team of Design Professionals, Material Suppliers and Owners, (Government
Agencies) and 1 consultant.
Start Date: Jan. 1, 2009
Finish Date: Dec. 26, 2010
Task Interdependency: Dependent on partial completion of Tasks 6, 7, 8 and 10
E.4.16 Task 15 – Develop Documents and Reports for Use in PBSD Guidelines (Task 3.4 of
FEMA-349)
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 risk management and
structural performance products 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.
Deliverables: Guideline Documents
Personnel: 8 person team of Design Professionals, Researchers, Material Suppliers, Building
Officials, Government agencies and 1 consultant.
Start Date: Jan. 1, 2006
Finish Date: Dec. 26, 2010
Task Interdependency: Dependent on partial completion of Tasks 6,7,8 and 10
Budget for 2006: $100,000
Budget for 2007: $100,000
Budget for 2008: $100,000
Budget for 2009: $100,000
Budget for 2010: $100,000
Task Total = $500,000
management of catastrophic risks for specific projects. Similarly, building officials and regulators
routinely use the prescriptive provisions of codes and standards to judge design acceptability.
Performance-based engineering shows great promise for improving this overall process and providing
society with better protection from catastrophic risks economically. But to do so implies some fairly
radical changes for stakeholders and the design professions. This transition is further impeded by the fact
that the benefits of performance based engineering are not obvious to most stakeholders.
In recognition of the current state of practice, the strategic development of risk management products
requires three key steps.
First, a fundamental understanding of stakeholder decision-making processes is essential to the
successful implementation of performance-based procedures. To date, communication with
stakeholders has tended toward presentation and explanation of performance-based concepts. Many
stakeholders have difficulty in imagining how these can be applied to their day-to-day activities.
Most of those who are developing and presenting performance-based concepts are unfamiliar with
how stakeholders incorporate consideration of catastrophic risks into their investment and resource
allocation decisions. The mechanism of communication will be a number of focus groups comprised
of stakeholders that will essentially serve as consultants to the Risk Management Products team
through the project (see Task RMP-1).
Based on this understanding, the continued development of the overall performance framework (see
Task RMP-2) will result in a set of performance characterization options. It is important to
continue to illustrate the inter-relation among various parameters and options (discrete performance
milestones vs. continuum, deterministic vs. probabilistic, etc.). The same basic underlying
information on hazard and fragility can be cast in many different ways to meet the needs and
preferences of the decision maker.
Finally, the risk management products will establish a connection between the performance
characterization framework and stakeholder decision-making processes. PBE essentially
provides a wide array of tools to deal effectively and efficiently with the challenges posed by
catastrophic risks. The perspective of the various stakeholders within the context of their prevailing
business practices will lead to selecting the right tool for the specific needs of the decision maker.
The Guidelines for Performance-based Engineering will encompass the broad range of potential risk
management tools (see Task RMP-3). The Stakeholder Guides ( see Task RMP-) will illustrate the
selection and implement of the right tools based on the stakeholders’ individual needs.
Table E-2 below presents an overview of the specific tasks proposed and their budgets. The following
sections present a more detailed summary of each of the major tasks of the Risk Management Products
Plan.
At this point, four principal stakeholder categories have been identified (see Table E-3).
The first category comprises owners and managers. These individuals have the responsibility for
designing, building, acquiring, maintaining, and/or operating facilities. They make decisions about
catastrophic risks that lead to action (or inaction) on a relatively narrow scale. Motivations generally
spring from the best interests of the specific business or institution. Within the owner/manager category,
three perspectives have been identified for focus groups:
Investors
Institutions
Industry
This distinction reflects the assumption that the different groups have characteristically different
motivations and criteria for decisions relative to catastrophic hazard mitigation, and it is important to
capture these distinctions (e.g., investment risk, operational risks, and market risks).
The second stakeholder category includes those that represent broader societal and governmental
interests. These individuals view catastrophic risk in a different context than owners/managers. Their
focus is on public safety and the impact of catastrophes on local/regional/national economies. Their
decisions relate primarily to public policy, legislation, and administration. The societal/governmental
category is separated into three perspectives for focus groups:
Policy makers
Regulators
Special interest and advocacy groups
This division reflects the different levels of decision problem and criteria used by the three groups
(e.g., policy makers are making broadly applicable decisions for the community, regulators are considered
more as “enforcers,” focused on the problem one building at a time, and special interest and advocacy
groups reflect “speaking” for the interested and affected public).
The third stakeholder category is primarily financial in nature. The societal and owner groups have a
direct stake in decisions about risks associated with facilities (e.g., protect community interest and protect
the assets). The primary distinction of the financial group is that these stakeholders have an indirect
interest in performance decisions made by others. Their decisions relate primarily to whether or not to
assume risk associated with facilities and at what compensation. The financial category might be
represented by three focus groups:
Lenders
Insurers
Securities
As noted above, this category differs from the previous two in that the stake is indirect: the concern is
on the financial risk associated with the decision to finance or assume risk, rather than in protection of
people or owned assets. The three groups in this category represent different views with respect to when
and how the financial decisions are made, which in turn may impact how they characterize the risk and
performance issues
Finally, design professionals, consultants, researchers and others comprise a service and research
stakeholder category. The development of PBE has advanced primarily within this group. Yet many
from the same, and related, disciplines are not familiar or conversant with PBE. The design and
consulting communities are the conduits through which PBE will be implemented. New advances will be
founded on future research. The purpose of this category is to expand awareness and input on both fronts.
Focus groups include:
Architects and Planners
Geotechnical and Structural Engineers
Potential New Researchers
For each of the nine identified stakeholder focus groups the ATC 58 team will identify and solicit a
total of from four to six representative individuals. These groups will meet periodically with the RMP
team and others to monitor and advise the development of the risk management products. Members of
the RMP team will serve as liaisons with the focus group. Focus group members will be selected as much
as possible from relatively high level and influential candidates. This will result in the development of
longer term relations that will facilitate the transfer of PBE to the stakeholders over time.
Workshop discussion points:
Are there additional stakeholder perspectives?
How can we secure the participation we envision?
E.5.3.1 RMP 2.1: Match Performance Levels with Hazards to Develop Performance Objectives
(FEMA 349 Task 4.1.1)
The team will take the performance levels and hazards developed in the performance products and
combine them in order to understand expected performance over measurable and meaningful time spans
(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 over 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
Budget: $350,000
Duration: 1 year
E.5.3.2 Task RMP 2.2 Develop Minimum Performance Objectives Considering Social and
Economic Drivers (FEMA 349 Task 4.1.2)
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: Design professionals, Researchers, Financial interests, Owners, Building officials,
Government agencies
Budget: $350,000
Duration: 1 year
Workshop discussion points:
Can this be accomplished independently of Task RMP-2.3 ?
Does this imply that ATC 58 will establish acceptable levels of risk?
E.5.3.3 Task RMP 2.3 Quantify Performance in Terms of Loss and Risk (FEMA 349 Task 4.1.3)
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 terminology 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, Researchers, Financial interests, Owners, (Other stakeholders)
Budget: $400,000
Duration: 4 years
Workshop discussion points:
Do we really want to establish acceptable levels of risk?
Doesn’t this effort require some benchmarking to evaluate what levels of risk we now accept? This could
come from Task RMP-3.4.
E.5.4 Develop Tools for Measuring and Managing Risk and Performance (Task RMP-3)
The third major task for the Risk Management Products effort is to develop procedures and tolls for
measuring and managing risks utilizing the basic performance framework of the previous task. It is
anticipated that these tools will be adapted to the specific needs of the various stakeholder groups. Major
sub-tasks are:
E.5.4.1 Task RMP-3.1 Formulate a Research Plan to Advance Current Risk Evaluation
Methods (FEMA 349 Task 4.2.1)
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)
Budget: $150,000
Duration: 1 year
Workshop discussion points:
How can the case be made for funding of such research?
How does this relate to other similar efforts (e.g. EERI)?
E.5.4.2 Task RMP-3.2 Develop Performance and Risk Models (FEMA 349 Task 4.2.2)
The team will use the structural and nonstructural performance acceptability criteria in the performance
products 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
Budget: $650,000
Duration: Throughout the project
Workshop discussion points:
How does this relate to Tasks 2.1, 2,2 and 2.3?
E.5.4.3 Task RMP-3.3 Define Cost Effective Models for Improving Performance (FEMA 349
Task 4.2.3)
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 life-cycle 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. Cost-benefit 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.
E.5.4.4 Task RMP-3.4 Calibrate Performance and Risk Models (FEMA 349 Task 4.2.4)
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. If the 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
Budget: $500,000
Duration: Throughout the project
Workshop discussion points:
This task seems particularly important to the overall effort and be used .
Can experiences in past earthquakes lend credibility to this effort ?
E.5.4.5 Task RMP-3.5 Develop Cost-Effective Design Strategies (FEMA 349 Task 4.2.5)
With information from previous tasks the performance products, 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
Budget: $500,000
Duration: Throughout the project
Workshop discussion points:
Might this be combined with Task RMP 3.3 ?
E.5.5 Educate Users about Risk Management Concepts (Task RMP-4) (FEMA 349 Task 4.3)
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 performance-based seismic design 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
Budget: $500,000
Duration: Throughout the project
Workshop discussion points:
Focus groups provide forum for this purpose.
Information must be cast in context with stakeholders’ individual “world views”.
E.5.6 Identify Legal Implications of PBSD (Task RMP-5) (FEMA 349 Task 4.4)
The team will contract with attorneys to address the legal implications of moving towards performance-
based design 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 PBSD more attractive to stakeholders from a legal standpoint.
Personnel: Attorneys, Design professionals, Financial interests, Owners, Building officials,
Government agencies
Budget: $250,000
Duration: 2 years
Workshop discussion points:
How much is really feasible in this effort ?
Should focus groups include legal perspective?
E.5.7 Produce Documents and Reports for Use in PBSD Guidelines and Stakeholders’
Guide (Task RMP-6) (FEMA 349 Task 4.5)
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 performance products 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)
Budget: $400,000
Duration: Throughout the project
Workshop discussion points:
How is the entire RMP effort to be coordinated with SPP and NPP?
E.6.1.1 Task 5.1 – Reach Consensus on Guidelines Format and Development Process
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
performance and risk management products and writing the guideline provisions.
Personnel: Design professionals, Researchers, Material suppliers, Contractors, Financial interests,
Owners, Building officials, Government agencies
Budget: $150,000
Duration: 1 year
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 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 performance and risk management product teams.
Personnel: Design professionals, Researchers,
Budget: $500,000
Duration: 2 years
E.6.1.6 Task 5.3.2 – Compare Resulting Designs and Costs against Current Methodologies
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 performance and expected
construction costs. Information from the risk management products 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. If the 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
Budget: $400,000
Duration: Throughout the project
E.6.1.7 Task 5.4 – Develop Procedures for Quality Control during Construction
The team will write a set of guidelines for maintaining quality during construction. Information on
reliability and uncertainty developed in the performance products 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
Budget: $300,000
Duration: 2 years
E.6.1.8 Task 5.5 – Develop a Plan for Verifying Nonstructural Component Design and
Installation
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 nonstructural performance products to make easier reevaluation of
existing components and determine expected performance.
Personnel: Design professionals, Contractors, Material suppliers, Building officials
Budget: $300,000
Duration: 2 years
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
Budget: $400,000
Duration: 2 years
E.7.6 Task 6.5 – Develop a Plan to Maintain or Monitor the Designed Performance
Objective
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
Budget: $250,000
Duration: 1 year
2. Session Attendees
3. Presentations
a. Cobeen, K. Resources and Issues From the CUREE Caltech Woodframe Project Structural
Breakout\Cobeen-Curee-Caltech-Woodframe.pdf
b. Martin,Z. and Skaggs, T., Wood Shear Wall Stiffness and Performance-Based Design
Structural Breakout\Martin-wood-wall-stiffness.pdf
Summary Notes
Structural Performance Products Breakout Session
The key points of discussion and/or consensus arising from the Structural Performance Products breakout
session during the January 2003 workshop in San Francisco are listed below. The discussion on the straw
work plan was arranged by focus area and task. Comments are presented below under three headings:
general comments, comments on the three focus areas, and comments on the tasks and subtasks.
General
1. The broad objectives of the ATC-58 project are appropriate but likely cannot be achieved given (a)
the level of funding available, and (b) no research will be conducted as part of the ATC-58 project.
2. One key product of the project must be a framework for performance-based earthquake engineering
(PBEE) that is broadly applicable to all structural framing systems.
3. Given the restrictions of (a) limited funding, and (b) no funded research to support the guidelines-
development effort, consider reducing the scope of the guidelines to a small number of building
types, say, to moment frames in steel and reinforced concrete; shear walls in steel, reinforced
concrete, and timber; and braced frames in steel.
4. Validation of the PBEE guidelines is a key step that is not currently addressed in the action plan.
Validation of SPP, NPP, and system products will be needed, and validation engines must be
developed at the start of the project. Validation could be undertaken using model building structures,
perhaps similar in concept to the 3-, 9- and 20-story SAC steel buildings.
5. Metrics for project success should be drafted at the start of the project rather than midway through the
project. All should have a clear understanding of whether project goals are being achieved.
Adjustment of the metrics throughout the duration of the project may be required to reflect new
information, results from outside research and available funding.
6. The goal of the project is the PBEE of buildings. Overarching tasks that embrace SP and NP products
will be needed to ensure that this goal is achieved. The action plans for the SP and NP teams must be
carefully integrated to facilitate integration.
7. The action plan should be structured so that integrated SP and NP products are released at
intermediate times in the project (perhaps similar to the SAC Interim Guidelines).
8. The guidelines should build on the work presented in FEMA 356 but neither necessarily be structured
similarly to FEMA 356 nor be bound to the analysis and design methodologies of FEMA 356.
9. Immediate consideration should be given to the make-up of the SPP technical teams. One option is
separate technical teams on hazard, analysis methods, foundations, materials, and new technologies
similar to the ATC-33 project. Alternate make-ups should be considered that merge participants from
the SP and NP technical teams.
Focus Areas
1. There was no broad disagreement with the three focus areas discussed in the action plan.
2. Given the level of funding available to the project, consideration should be given to addressing new
building construction (see above discussion on model buildings) first and retrofit building
construction second, if additional funds become available. Regardless, the PBEE framework should
be applicable to both new and retrofit construction.
3. The revised action plan should clearly state that no research will be conducted as part of the ATC-58
project, similar to the ATC-33 project. That said, mechanisms must be developed to sweep new
research information and data into the PBEE guidelines.
Task 2.1.1
1. Drop the work related to validation of existing procedures and information because such work likely
cannot be accomplished with a budget of $1M rather than the proposed $0.15M.
2. Assessment of performance and analysis tools should be an on-going endeavor and not a Year 1
endeavor. This task could form the basis of the validation program.
TASK 2.1.2
1. Replace the research plan with a prioritized list of research needs. A list of needs is more valuable to
both the research community and the ATC-58 project. No agency will fund the research plan but
agencies might fund research projects that address one or more of the research needs. Researchers
could be encouraged to work with ATC-58 SP technical teams to (a) enhance the utility of their work,
and (b) speed the research results into practice.
2. Identification of research needs should be an on-going endeavor and not a Year 1 endeavor. The list
of needs should be updated yearly with input from the SP, NP, and RM product teams.
3. One list of prioritized research needs that includes input from the SP, NP, and RM product teams
should be prepared, not three disparate lists.
Task 2.2.1
1. Some tasks are finely subdivided into sub-tasks and other tasks are broad in scope. The revised action
plan should be consistent in this regard.
2. Consider repackaging part of the work plan around framing systems or building types. The key to
success with this approach is to ensure consistency over all building types considered.
3. There is considerable overlap in the sub-task statements in Task 2.1. Consider merging all sub-tasks
and eliminating overlap.
4. The sub-task as written addresses discrete performance levels and not a continuum approach to
performance. The latter approach was preferred by many at this time and so allowance should be
made in the guidelines to accommodate both approaches.
Task 2.2.2
1. The task statement should be rewritten to better address the proposed work.
3. Eliminate the reference to research because the plan is unable to target and then fund research.
5. Key to the success of this sub-task is the linkage of component and building acceptance criteria.
Consider developing such criteria for the model buildings only, otherwise the scope is too broad and
the impact of the funding will be substantially diluted.
Task 2.2.3
2. Change the title of the sub-task because subsurface response will not predict building performance
but rather influence performance.
3. Eliminate the reference to research because the plan is unable to target and then fund research.
4. The last sentence in the subtask is unclear because the only way to reduce uncertainty is to increase
knowledge through research.
Task 2.2.4
Task 2.2.5
2. The level of funding proposed for this task appears too small to support a research effort and too large
to move currently available analysis methodologies into guidelines.
3. Task 2.2.5 is missing the work necessary in the materials chapters of the guidelines to develop
unbiased values for acceptance criteria, etc. Much of the funds assigned to this sub-task could be
spent completing such work.
Task 2.2.6
1. Consider deleting the work on existing buildings until additional funds become available. That is,
develop the skeleton or framework for PBEE and add tissue, organs, and skin for a small number of
(new) model framing systems. Use the funds to increase the number of model framing systems.
3. The funding necessary to “quantify uncertainties within the existing built environment” is likely in
the $5M range: an order of magnitude greater than that assigned to the sub-task.
4. If the guidelines must address existing buildings, limit the scope to those framing systems considered
for the new model buildings.
Task 2.3
1. Much work has been completed on the subjects of permanent ground displacement and near-field
shaking since FEMA 349 was published.
Task 2.4.1
1. The task statement is broad and over-reaching. The identification and quantification of uncertainties
in seismic hazard and building response, for a large number of building types and geometries is an
immense undertaking. Consider identification and quantification of uncertainty and randomness for
the (new) model framing systems only.
3. Consider eliminating this task and sweeping some of the activities and all of the funds into other
tasks.
Task 2.4.2
1. The task statement as written is neither clear nor focused. Repair costs and life-cycle costs are likely
not related as indicated in the task statement.
2. Delete the task and sweep the QA/QC work and funds into another task.
3. Identification of structural systems that have predictable building performance is not straightforward
and would require full-scale testing. The objective should be to identify framing systems with the
least sensitivity in response due to uncertainties and randomness in the hazard, modeling, material
characteristics etc. Such work could form the basis of a research project and could be listed in
research needs.
Task 2.4.3
1. The work of identification of separate sources of funding, especially materials suppliers, for
component testing does not belong in a task statement. Those sources would have been tapped years
ago had the suppliers been interested in such collaboration.
4. Testing protocols should be developed but not imposed on the research community.
Task 2.5
1. The straw man work plan at the meeting dropped this task from the action plan. Many participants in
the breakout session disagreed with this proposal but agreed that the task statement had to be re-
written.
2. The task statement notes that existing data should be reviewed. To aid in the development of the
PBEE guidelines, detailed studies of modern instrumented buildings that have been (a) subjected to
severe earthquake shaking, and (b) carefully studied by reconnaissance teams after such shaking are
needed. Candidate buildings must be identified. Consider selecting buildings similar to the model
buildings discussed above. The budget of $0.3M is far too small for such work.
3. The product of this subtask should also include recommendations for (a) building instrumentation that
if implemented and the building subjected to earthquake shaking would yield key performance data
for validation of the PBEE guidelines, and (b) a list of performance-oriented data to be collected by
future reconnaissance teams. Formal coordination with EERI and the NSF-funded EERCs would
maximize the impact of this work.
Task 2.6
1. Decisions should be made in this phase of the project regarding how the guidelines will be prepared.
Two options are (1) the team-writing approach used in ATC-33, and (2) individual consultants as lead
writers similar to the SAC project. No consensus regarding the best approach for this project was
reached.
2. One product of the work should be model-building applications of the PBEE guidelines. These
applications could be published a number of times over the course of the project, reflecting advances
in both knowledge and the guidelines.
Abstract
First, available resources that are pertinent to the tasks and products proposed in the ATC 58 action plan
will be highlighted. Resources include:
Full-building demand data from shake table testing,
Compiled descriptions of drift versus visual damage for structure and finishes,
Abstract
Past seismic events have illustrated the vulnerability of woodframe construction to significant expensive
damage. Although life safety, the current implicit performance objective of modern building codes has
been reasonably preserved, damage is common. Over half the property damage caused by the Northridge
earthquake was attributed to woodframe construction. With the exception of rehabilitation of historical
and multi-family wood framed projects, performance-based design are seldom considered in the design
process. Some of the impediments to performance-based design with wood buildings include lack of
simple design procedures, and a relatively low level of engineering performed for many wood framed
structures.
Keeping these impediments in mind and understanding that the linear and non-linear behavior of
structural elements is essential for performance-based design procedures. Accurately estimating
interstory drift is a key parameter in designing for damage control. The presentation will provide a
concept such that a bilinear pushover curve up to ultimate wall strength can be established. The focus is
on a single method to estimate linear wood shear wall stiffness up to a so-called yield point, but
parameters essential to describe post yield behavior in simple terms will also be presented.
In the past five years, there has been an unprecedented amount of research on wood shear wall
performance. Sufficient information exists to create and verify by extensive independent test data, a
simple and practical method to predict linear elastic wood shear wall stiffness up to the wall yield point.
The presentation will provide a concept for a mathematical model for wall stiffness up to the wall yield
point as follows:
V H
K
L
where = shear wall deflection, in. V= load applied, kips H = wall height (in same units as L), L = wall
length (in same units as H). The H/L serves to normalize the stiffness value for different aspect ratios.
Wall stiffness can bthen be modified for such things as openings, length of wall, tie down stiffness,
fasteners, end posts and even effects of finishes. Recent research provides some quantitative values for
these empirical relationships.
Wood shear walls do not have as clearly defined point of yield as other materials, such as steel. A
point of yield essentially describes the region on a load displacement curve where linear elastic behavior
ends. Researchers have developed two methods in an attempt to quantify the point of yield. The first
defines elastic stiffness to be represented at the line from the origin to the point the load-displacement
curve where the load equals a percentage of the ultimate load. The second method assigns a yield point
based on strength degradation from repeated cyclic loads at a given displacement.
Wood frame design provisions are in need of advancements in the analysis tools available such that
performance based designs are practical and feasible for wood framed structures. A simple matrix of
shear wall stiffness values can be developed from existing models, and adjusted or verified by empirical
test data. Recent cyclic wall test and shake table test data shows that there is reasonably good agreement
with modeled elastic stiffness and observed stiffness. The limits of validity for a bi-linear stiffness model
are also presented.
Abstract
A number of advances in knowledge have occurred since 1998 with respect to soil-foundation structure
interaction. Moreover, new issues have been raised based on observations from recent earthquakes. These
advances/issues can be divided into three general categories, as follows:
1. Soil-structure interaction, kinematic interaction: Advances in knowledge have occurred with respect
to the variations between ground motions at the foundation level of structures vs. the free-field.
Simple models suitable for use in practice have been developed to predict these ground motion
variations as a function of frequency, shear wave velocity of soil, and foundation dimensions. These
advances are being studied within the ATC-55 project, and should be incorporated into the ATC-58
effort as well.
2. Soil-structure interaction, inertial interaction: In recent years, research has been conducted to support
the development of recommendations for the use of simple impedance function models for realistic
site conditions. These advances have been partially incorporated into the 2000 version of the NEHRP
Provisions for new buildings (analysis of foundation stiffness), and are being considered as part of the
ATC-55 project as well (primarily with respect to analysis of foundation damping effects on seismic
demand).
3. Soil-structure interaction, ground failure: The 1999 earthquakes in Turkey and Taiwan caused many
incidents of ground failure apparently induced by soil-foundation interaction. In many cases there was
no apparent ground failure in the free-field, and permanent deformations were concentrated beneath
and immediately surrounding the foundation. Models to predict this type of ground failure are not yet
available, and basic research directed toward improving our understanding of this complicated
problem are in their preliminary stages. It is important for the ATC-58 project to be aware of this
important subject of ongoing research.
Each of the above will be discussed in the presentation by the author at the ATC-58 workshop.
Abstract
Due to the uncertain information about the structures' demand resulting form the uncertain ground
motions and structural systems and due to the "fuzzy" description of performance limits, the performance
of structures cannot be well defined and measured precisely. An attempt is made to use for the
quantification of performance, the relation between the response demands and the performance limits
using probability functions, usually defined as fragility. The quantification of such fragility is presented
using an example of a structure of a hospital building previously damaged in Northridge 1994 earthquake.
The sensitivity of several parameters on performance is presented.
Abstract
Performance Based Design allows to design or retrofit buildings for a higher performance level than those
foreseen by the building codes. For example FEMA-356 (2000) defines three basic performance levels,
namely, Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety and Collapse Prevention. It is recommended that the
buildings be designed for a given return period earthquake for a given performance level, but there is no
clear criterion or methodology how to choose those performance levels and their respective earthquakes.
The earthquake risk mitigation has two aspects: (1) Life Safety which is concerned in providing
certain level of reliability that the building retains a margin against onset of partial or complete collapse;
and (2) Economic Loss – which recognizes that designing a building to meet the Life Safety criterion has
very little to do with economical design. A building could successfully meet the Life Safety criterion, but
still be a complete economic loss after an earthquake. Economic Loss aspect of earthquake risk analysis
deals with finding the optimal design, be it new or retrofit design, that reduces the present value of all the
potential losses that a building could incur during its useful lifetime.
This paper addresses those two aspects of earthquake risk mitigation. It defines a clear methodology
on choosing the design earthquake based on predefined criterion of providing either a certain performance
level reliability or minimizing the expected monetary losses given the seismic hazard and expected
lifespan of the building.
Assuming that earthquake occurrences constitute a Poisson process, the conditional probability
distribution function of the spectral accelerations, derived from the hazard function, is used in conjunction
with the fragility functions to derive basic criteria for choosing design earthquakes to provide certain
performance level, e.g. Life Safety, or to minimize the anticipated economic losses due to earthquakes.
The hazard function represents the probability of exceedance of a certain level of earthquake ground
motion at a site within a given number of years. The economic loss is assumed to be proportional to the
physical damage. The latter is defined in terms of a fragility function that represents the probability of the
building attaining or exceeding a pre-specified damage state for a given earthquake intensity.
It is demonstrated that choosing the design earthquake based on earthquake return period only does
not guarantee uniform probability of failure since the latter is a function of both the shape of the hazard
function as well as the exposure time. For a simple fragility function it is shown that one can choose the
design earthquake based on required reliability (acceptable probability of failure), exposure period and
the seismic hazard. This outlined approach is suggested as an alternative way of choosing design
earthquakes for performance based design.
Abstract
The Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) is widely employed as a tool for performance-based analysis and
design of structures. Although rooted in concepts of linear elastic analysis, the CSM may be generalized
to treat inelastic structural behavior. This may be accomplished by modifying either the Capacity or the
Demand or both in some manner so as to approximately account for the differences between elastic and
inelastic response behavior. As initially conceived, the CSM uses the Secant Stiffness as the equivalent
linear stiffness parameter along with formulas or rules that provide the equivalent viscous damping
parameter. However, it is generally known that the Secant Stiffness is not an optimal equivalent linear
stiffness parameter for inelastic systems subjected to earthquake excitation. Recently, new equivalent
linear parameters have been defined for a broad range of inelastic systems based on a statistical approach
which maximizes the probability that the solution error will lie within some range of Engineering
Acceptability. The new equivalent linear parameters may be used to provide improved estimates of
structural performance. Since the Secant Stiffness is no longer employed with these new parameters, an
adjustment must be made in order to use these parameters within the context of the CSM approach. This
presentation describes a procedure for adapting the CSM for use the new equivalent linear parameters.
The new procedure provides an efficient means of obtaining consistent response Performance Point
results without resorting to cumbersome iteration schemes.
Abstract
This talk proposes that the process of design for seismic performance be viewed from a new
perspective. Introduced are the concepts of Yield Point Spectra, the determination of Admissible Design
Regions, and design based on an estimated yield displacement. Examples illustrate a simple design
approach that can be used to address multiple performance objectives. The design approach produces a
design base shear coefficient that can be used for design along the lines of current code Equivalent Lateral
Force approaches.
The fundamental basis is the use of “equivalent” SDOF systems, with inelastic spectral demands
estimated from elastic spectra (using either displacement modification or equivalent linearization). The
approach is effective for limiting drift (associated with non-structural damage) and system ductility
(associated with structural damage) to prescribed values. This approach may be sufficient for many
ordinary structures, and can be used for the preliminary design of those structures whose performance
must be assessed through more rigorous analysis procedures.
1. Aschheim, M.A. (2002). “Seismic Design Based on the Yield Displacement,” Earthquake Spectra,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Vol. 18, No. 4, Nov., pp. 581-600.
2. Aschheim, M., and Black, E. (2000). “Yield Point Spectra for Seismic Design and Rehabilitation,”
Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Vol. 16, No. 2, May, pp. 317-335.
3. Tjhin, T,. Aschheim, M., and Wallace, J. (2002) “Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete Structural Walls” 7th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, July
21-25.
4. Black, E. F., and Aschheim, M., (2000). Seismic design and evaluation of multistory buildings using
Yield Point Spectra, CD Release 00-04, Mid-America Earthquake Center, July.
Abstract
ATC-58 identified structural and non-structural analysis tools as areas for development. Since then there
have been advances in both hardware and software. These are of particular relevance to performance-
based design. This presentation offers a review of high-performance computing tools, past and present,
with an assessment of future developments. Applications relevant to Performance-Based Seismic Design
are presented.
Abstract
Analysis and design of reinforced concrete (RC) columns that are subjected to blast loading have gained
considerable importance in the past few years. A new method of analyzing RC columns was recently
developed. The method has the efficiency of the SDOF method and the fidelity of the FEM method. The
method is based on assembling a database of common column designs, which was accomplished by
designing more than 3000 buildings of several shapes, structural systems, number of floors, and seismic
zones. The columns of each building were designed and detailed following the ACI-318-99 design code.
The different column attributes included:
1. Column cross sectional dimensions as well as height
2. Number, distribution and sizes of longitudinal steel reinforcement
3. Number, distribution and sizes of lateral steel reinforcement
4. Axial stress ratio
5. Concrete and steel strengths.
In addition, a survey was conducted to establish the most commonly used blast loadings (charge
weight and standoff). A total of ten blast loadings were chosen. The resulting complete structure-load
database, DB-1, had 11,400 records.
A numerical simulation of all the columns and blast loads was accomplished with the FLEX (FEM) .
FLEX is a high resolution FEM computer code that is especially well suited for this type of highly
nonlinear dynamic analysis. For each simulation (11,400 in total) three output measures were obtained.
They are: a) maximum lateral displacement, b) maximum shear strains and c) an overall damage measure.
The development of this new method is timely with the advent of Performance based engineering for
the blast design community. The analytical accuracy and the wealth of output measures that the method
produces are utilized to produce a performance-based design for blast-subjected columns. The
performance based blast design of this document is consistent with the newly developed performance
based seismic designs, yet it is specialized for blast environment. For example, an additional performance
level was deemed necessary, and the performance limit states are specialized for blast environment. The
three output measures were utilized to identify performance levels, while accounting for the inter-
dependability of those performance levels.
Abstract
Three key resources are available to advance the state of performance-based design of concrete structures.
For reinforced concrete structures, both new and existing, the FEMA 306 and 307 documents provide
an opportunity to improve on seismic evaluation and design methods used in FEMA 356 and for new
buildings. Compared to the FEMA 356 acceptance criteria for concrete members, the procedures of FEMA
306 are more transparent to the engineer because they relate directly to identified behavior modes of
structural members or actions. Use of such procedures would lead to more accurate criteria, with less
uncertainty in the resulting seismic performance.
Pagiotakos and Fardis [ACI Structural Journal March-April 2001] have studied the ultimate
deformation capacity of reinforced concrete members using an extensive database. They have compared
rotation capacities directly with the limits given in FEMA 356. The results show a potential for improved
accuracy. Professor Fardis reports the current status of the work:
“We have been building up a data base with test results of concrete components (mainly columns, but
also beams, piers and walls, no joints though). The data base now includes about 1400 components with
rect. section (including walls and beams), about 225 circular columns or piers and about 70 hollow (or T, U,
etc.) sections. Most of the components are flexure-critical but about 150 have a ductile shear failure mode
(yielding in flexure, failing then apparently in shear). There are also smaller databases on components with
rect. section strengthened with concrete, steel or FRP jackets We are currently now working on the database
(extending it, checking, etc.), so it is not in a publishable form. An earlier version, with about 1000
components with rect. section (including walls and beams) was made available to ACI, in hardcopy and
electronic form, as an Annex to a paper of myself and a co-worker that appeared in the ACI Struct. J.,
Vol.98, No.2 (March-April 2001). That database has very few bugs, though. I will be happy to provide
further info.”
For new precast and prestressed concrete structures, the Federation International du Beton is finalizing
a state-of-the-art report that describes design approaches from a performance-based perspective. The
document gives a brief discussion of performance-based terminology and covers key issues like the unique
types of nonlinear behavior for jointed precast systems. [Contact me for more details on the document.]
I believe that to provide the best benefit to stakeholders, the principal objective of the performance-
based action plan should be to produce design provisions (in specific language), commentary, and
example applications. The chart below gives my recommendation on the relative amount of effort for the
principal tasks toward this aim. Example applications should be used early in the process, and provisions
for selected building types should be developed before general frameworks are chosen.
Appendix G: Nonstructural
Performance Products Breakout
Session Materials
Contents
1. Agenda
2. Summary Notes
3. Session Attendees
4. Presentations
Agenda
February 24, 2003
2:15 pm Breakout Session Overview Bachman
- Goals
- Phase 2 NPP Team Introduction
- Introduction of Attendees
Individual Presentations
2:30 - “Today’s Design & Installation of Carlson
Nonstructural Components”
2:50 - “Recent Developments in Earthquake Memari
Resistant Design of Nonstructural Building
and Wall Systems”
3:10 - “Seismic Demands and Acceptance Criteria Gillengerten
for Seismic Qualification Testing of
Nonstructural Components”
3:30 - “Shake Table Testing of Electrical Equipment Caldwell
for Commercial Applications from an
Equipment Supplier’s Perspective”
3:50 Discussion
4:00 Coffee Break
4:15 - “Cyclic Demand in Performance Based Malhorta
Design”
4:35 - “Development of Experimental Performance- Filiatrault
Based Seismic Qualification Procedures for
Nonstructural Components”
4:55 Presentation of NPP Strawman Work Plan Bachman
5:00 Discussion and Feedback
6:00 No Host Reception
7:00 Dinner (on your own)
Summary Notes
Nonstructural Performance Products Breakout Session
The nonstructural performance products breakout session took place on the afternoon of Feb. 24th and the
morning of Feb. 25th. The session was attended by approximately 25 invited researchers, practicing
engineers and supplier representatives.
The session was organized into two parts. On the first day, Bob Bachman, Team Leader for
Nonstructural Performance Products gave an overview regarding the goals, organization and ground rules
for the breakout session. After Bob gave his overview, the following presentations were made during the
remaining portion of the afternoon which provided an understanding of current practice and recent
developments in the design, installation and testing of nonstructural components which may impact the
development of the project work plan.
Today’s Design and Installation of Nonstructural Components Jim Carlson
Recent Developments in Earthquake Resistant Design of
Nonstructural Building and Wall Systems Ali Memari
Seismic Demands and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic
Qualification Testing of Nonstructural Components John Gillengerten
Shake Table Testing of Electrical Equipment for Commercial
Applications from an Equipment Supplier’s Perspective Phil Caldwell
Cyclic Demand in Performance Based Design Praveen Malhotra
Development of Experimental Performance Seismic
Based Qualification Procedures for Nonstructural Components Andre Filiatrault
The next morning breakout session focused on reviewing and providing comments on the
Nonstructural Performance Product Straw Work Plan that was provided in the workshop workbook. The
comments of the participants were captured in two ways by two different scribes. They were annotated in
real time on table below each task as the task was discussed during the session. These real time comments
were projected on a screen so everyone could see the comments as they occurred. Secondly, a note taker
took notes as each task was discussed.
The participation in the feedback session was excellent. Virtually all 25 attendees participated
significantly. In general, the attendees were supportive of the plan but made suggested changes to it.
There were 3 areas where they were critical.
1. Some of the audience expressed disappointment that representatives from Canada were not invited.
Canada is currently moving forward with a PBSE code for nonstructural components which we
should take advantage of.
2. Many of the researchers were disappointed that there would be no funding available for testing. They
felt testing was critical in this area especially if uncertainty bands was desired to establish fragility
data.
3. There was consensus that Table 6 and 7 should occur before or concurrently with Tasks 2 and 3. Task
4 should be delayed until Task 3 is mostly completed.
The result of the review and comments was a revised Straw Work plan for Nonstructural Performance
Products. This revised work plan is provided below and is the consensus of the participants of the
breakout session regarding suggested changes to the work plan.
ATC-58 Nonstructural Performance Products Strawman Work Plan, February 25, 2003
# Task $K 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
1 Revised Action Plan 15
2 Define possible EDPs and NPLs 15
3 Choose EDPs and define NPLs 350
4 Develop building-specific demand prediction 300
methods
5 Develop generic demand prediction methods 150
6 Identify component types and performance 250
impacts
7 Evaluate current practice 300
8 Define testing protocols 100
0
9 Develop research plan 150
10 Develop analysis & design methods 850
11 Coordinate design & analysis with SPP 150
12 Define post-eq data collection program 300
13 Define program to encourage PBSD use and 300
innovation
14 Develop seismic design implementation, 300
QA/QC plan
15 Document results for Guidelines, do verification 500
studies
Abstract
With the advent of the International Building Code and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Building Code, numerous jurisdictions are changing their minimum requirements with respect to seismic
issues especially those associated with non-structural components. Many new areas will be looking for
guidance to design and install seismic restraints on equipment. Areas where seismic restraints are
common may now face more stringent requirements. Requirements found in the code do not utilize
performance based design guidance, but define the minimum requirements. This is where performance
based seismic design guides are imperative to provide support to the building construction industry.
In 1999, American Society of Heating Refrigeration Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
published “A Practical Guide for Seismic Restraint” and it’s said to be the highest selling guide that
ASHRAE publishes. This reflects a real need of the design community for application type information
regarding the seismic restraint design for non-structural components. Except for structural engineers
versed in the seismic design, most professionals dealing with non-structural components lack even the
basic knowledge and require seminars, training and guides to evaluate seismic installations.
Contractors have historically ignored seismic restraints or did not properly install these restraints. A
FEMA funded project is in process to develop a multi-part manual that identifies and illustrates best
practices in the installation of seismic restraint devices for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP),
so that equipment will perform more satisfactorily in response to earthquakes. Contractors can take
advantage of performance based designs to better implement information in these installation manuals.
Many standards specify installation properties that may be incomplete or in conflict with the
minimum seismic requirements contained in building codes. For example, the piping support spacing
tables do not meet the minimum 16.66 Hz natural frequency stiffness to assume rigid installations or
include refrigeration piping which uses thin walled copper tubing. Design methods and analysis
procedures need to be developed for appropriate performance based seismic design.
Abstract
Three types of nonstructural wall systems in buildings consisting of curtain walls that include
architectural glass, brick veneer wall systems, and masonry infill walls have been the subject of recent
research at Penn State. According to building codes, nonstructural (architectural) walls shall be designed
to accommodate the design interstory building drifts in order to avoid damage to such systems. In past
earthquakes, the architectural glass used in curtain walls, windows and storefronts has been damaged,
extensively in some earthquakes. In one recent study at Penn State, a modified geometry architectural
glass panel has been developed that can increase the drift capacity by almost 100% for some glass types.
Glass panels with rounded corners and specially polished edges have been tested and shown to have such
an increased drift capacity, which will satisfy the building drift requirements in most cases. Moreover, a
type of curtain wall has been developed that will provide complete seismic isolation from story to story
through seismic decoupler joints for any level of seismic input to the building. With such a system, as
long as the building does not collapse, there is little chance for damage to the curtain wall. Another aspect
of recent research on architectural glass is the investigation of the performance of safety film covered
architectural glass under dynamic racking tests.
With respect to masonry infill walls, a seismic isolation system has been developed that can be placed
between structural frame and the infill wall to act as a sacrificial subframe in order to prevent damage to
the structural frame and the infill wall. This system is designed to preserve the tight-fit contact between
the wall and the frame under low to moderate seismic events, but to disengage the contact between the
frame and the wall under a high seismic event. The system is designed based on the “fuse” concept.
Finally, a panelized brick veneer on steel stud wall system is under development that can be suitable for a
multi-hazard resistant design situation, where resistance without cracking under high wind, in-plane
seismic isolation under seismic events, and out-of-plane resistance under impact or blast loading may be
desirable. The presentation will include brief explanations on these topics and how such developments fit
in the overall efforts in the area of performance-based design.
Abstract
1) When to use a seismic simulation shaker table to verify compliance with model building code
requirements
2) Overview of a seismic simulation shaker table test program campaign
a) Rationalization of product line to be qualified
i) Role of high end computer simulation tools
ii) Methods to validate computer simulation
b) Identification and evaluation of model codes to evaluate for compliance
c) Selection criteria for table (when to use 1-D, 2-D or 3-D table)
d) Development of a test plan
i) Specification of test protocol (i.e. ICBO ES AC156)
ii) Identification of test samples
iii) Specification of test parameters to be instrumented
iv) Other documentation requirements
v) Pre-test requirements
vi) Test motions (Required Response Spectra) and time duration
vii) Post test requirements
viii) Evaluation criteria for pass/fail
e) Selection of test samples to envelop full range of engineering investigation
i) Computer simulation validation
ii) Verification of design options
(1) Example of anticipated passing test
(2) Example of anticipated test failure
f) Conducting test
i) Review of test plan with test facility
ii) Test facility preparations prior to test
iii) Conducting test
(1) Criteria for documenting pre-test and post test
(2) Be prepared to be flexible with the order of test plan execution
(3) Maintain constant awareness of test setup and execution and conformance to test plan
3) Development of test reports
a) Content of test report
b) Working with test facility to insure accuracy of test report and all required information to verify
compliance or failure is contained in report
c) How to use the results of test reports
i) Development of self certification documents
ii) Review with third party listing agency in preparation for obtaining third party certification
(i.e. ICC Evaluation Services – formerly ICBO Evaluation Services)
4) Some of the shortcomings of the current process
a) Confidence in the demand motions
5) How to engage more suppliers into the PBSE process
a) Examples and results of previous efforts within electrical industry to get an industry effort
b) Suggestions for future efforts
Abstract
The amplitude of the seismic load is insufficient to evaluate the seismic performance of structures or non-
structural components. The number of cycles for which the seismic load is applied should also be
considered. However, there has been no simple way to consider the cyclic-demand, because numerous
definitions of strong-motion duration are only an indirect measure of the number of load cycles.
Furthermore, duration derived from the acceleration history is meaningless for flexible systems which
respond to support velocities and displacements, rather than accelerations.
FM Global Research has established a test protocol for evaluating the strength of sprinkler-pipe
seismic-brace components. Because the components can fail in low-cycle fatigue, it was necessary to
consider the number of load cycles in evaluating the seismic strength. Strong-motion records from 18
severely shaken buildings were incorporated into a low-cycle fatigue model to determine the number of
load cycles for which the components must resist their rated capacity. The protocol is currently under use
to evaluate the seismic strength of brace components. With slight modifications, the protocol may be used
for various other piping components hanger rods, couplings, flexible hoses, fasteners, etc.
The concept of cyclic-demand is expanded for general application in performance-based seismic
design of structures. A cyclic-demand spectrum is proposed, which, in conjunction with the amplitude
spectrum, provides a more complete definition of the seismic load hence a way to consider the
degradation in strength, stiffness and energy-dissipation capacity in a rational manner. Similar to three
amplitude parameters (peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and peak ground displacement),
three cyclic-demand parameters are proposed for stiff, medium-stiff, and flexible systems.
Abstract
In many strong earthquakes that have struck the United States in the twentieth century, damage to
nonstructural building components has exceeded the cost of structural damage in most affected buildings.
Failures of interior partitions, finishes and hung ceilings pose hazards to occupants. With the development
of performance-based earthquake engineering, harmonization of the performance levels between
structural and nonstructural components is necessary. Even if the structural components of a building
achieve an immediate occupancy performance level during a seismic event, building contents and interior
architectural components failure inside the building can lower the performance level of the entire building
system.
In comparison to structural components and systems, there is little information available giving
specific guidance on the seismic design of nonstructural building components for multiple-performance
levels. Little basic research has been done in this area and often design engineers are forced to start
almost from square one: observe what goes wrong and try to prevent repetitions. This is a consequence of
the empirical nature of current of existing seismic regulations and guidelines for nonstructural
components. The code information currently available for the most part is based on judgment and
intuition rather than on experimental and analytical results.
The development of experimental protocols to asses the seismic performance of nonstructural
building components is urgently needed. The development of static and dynamic (shake table) test
protocols is required to characterize the physical properties of nonstructural components and qualify both
their structural and functional performances during seismic events.
This presentation will briefly review past experimental studies conducted by the author and others on
the seismic performance of nonstructural building components. A rational methodology for the
construction of experimental fragility functions for acceleration-sensitive building contents and
cantilevered interior architectural components will be described.
Abstract
The NEHRP Provisions contain requirements for the seismic qualification of designated seismic systems
that must function following an earthquake. These requirements can be met through shake table testing,
three-dimensional shock tests, or rigorous analysis that considers the nature of the input floor motion and
the component dynamic response characteristics. This presentation outlines the current NEHRP design
provisions, and the method used to develop floor response spectra for component testing. The test
spectrum is incorporated into a new testing specification for non-structural components.
The test specification, adopted by the ICBO Evaluation Services as AC-156, Acceptance Criteria for
Seismic Qualification of Nonstructural Components, is discussed. The presentation provides a brief
background about measured building floor response spectra, and the concept of generic floor spectra.
Nonstructural code forces, the relationship to generic floor spectra, and the relationship to the spectra
specified in AC156 are discussed.
2. Summary Notes
3. Session Attendees
4. Presentations
a. Eidenger, J. Benefits and Costs of Meeting Different Seismic Retrofit Design Criteria for the
BART System Risk Management Breakout\eidenger-bart.pdf
e. Kircher, C.A. HAZUS AEBM – Potential ATC-58 Risk Management Tool Risk Management
Breakout\Kircher-HAZUS.pdf
Agenda
February 24, 2003
2:15 pm Breakout Session Overview Comartin
- Introductions of Attendees
- Goals
- Reintroduction of Attendees
2:20 Overview of RMPP Straw Work Plan Comartin
2:40 - “Application of the AEBM module of HAZUS Kircher
to selecting appropriate performance goals
as the basis for design”
3:00 - “Case study of the application of economic Eidinger
loss and cost benefit analysis to
development of retrofit criteria for the BART
system”
3:20 - “A process for seismic risk management and Nosen
selection of criteria”
3:40 - “Probabilistic Approach to PBEE” Cornell
4:00 Coffee Break
4:15 - “Risk-Informed Performance-Based Design Meacham
for Fire: Similarities and Differences to
Seismic Design”
4:35 - “The implementation of PBE in the regulatory Hackett
environment”
4:55 - “Context matters in performance based Petak
engineering”
5:15 Group Discussion of Draft Work Plan
6:00 No Host Reception
7:00 Dinner (on your own)
Summary Notes
Risk Management Products Breakout Session
H.2 Presentations
Following the session overview, a number of presentations were made on topics associated with the
overall scope and aim of the RMP area, including benefit-cost analysis, risk management issues, and
stakeholder communication. The following are brief summaries of each presentation.
Application of the AEB Module of HAZUS to Selecting Appropriate Performance Goals as the
Basis for Design, Charles Kircher
Kircher began his presentation with a discussion of earthquake risk, which in a comparative sense, is
fairly low. In his comparison of losses in the Northridge, Kobe and Kocaeli earthquakes, in terms of
lives, property damage and economic impact, Northridge had the lowest losses. Kircher pointed to the
need for the seismic risk assessment process to cover a broad range of issues, not only in terms of life
safety and property damage, but the downtime/business interruption/recovery time costs. This discussion
then transitioned into an overview of the HAZUS AEBM module, which is a useful tool for helping to
understand earthquake loss estimation, including such factors as injuries, damage costs and downtime
costs for single building evaluation. Kircher used examples to demonstrate the benefits of HAZUS
AEBM, including an analysis of an instrumented building in San Jose and the development of fragility
curves using the SAC steel-frame building database.
Key points from Kircher’s presentation include:
Seismic risk in US is comparatively low
Seismic risk assessment needs to consider downtime costs as well as life and property damage costs
HAZUS AEBM is an existing tool that can be applied to these issues
How to properly develop a fragility curve is the key factor
Case Study of the Application of Economic Loss and Cost Benefit Analysis to Development of
Retrofit Criteria for the BART System, John Eidinger
The focus of Eidinger’s presentation was on the use of cost benefit analysis for making seismic risk
mitigation decisions for the BART system. The study developed out of an assessment that indicated a
need for greater than $3 Billion of seismic upgrades to obtain a “full operability” level following a
significant event, and the desire to determine if there were some other level that may not be full
operability, yet may be “good enough.” The range of potential options included “life safety” at one end,
“full operability” at the other, with numerous variants in between. Six retrofit alternatives were
identified, with ranges in performance levels and cost, from $600 Million to $1.44 Billion, based on a
total replacement cost estimate of some $10.8 Billion. Eidinger outlined the process of inventory
development, component descriptions, mapping, and so forth, and discussed the use of scenario
earthquakes for hazard characterization. In total, 166 sets of fragility curves were used in some 100
simulations to assess system performance, which was measured in terms of passenger trips/day, economic
loss, and life safety. Operation levels were measured in terms of riders vs. days after the event. Benefit-
cost analysis was applied to the retrofit alternatives. In the end, the analysis indicated that retrofit for
return to full operability was not best approach given the uncertainty in the ability to return to full
operability and the marginal benefits for the magnitude of cost expenditure.
A Process for Seismic Risk Management and Selection of Criteria, Linda Noson
The presentation by Noson fit well with the earlier discussion on stakeholder needs, as she focused in on
the fact that one needs to work with stakeholders to understand what they want to accomplish, with the
recognition that different organizations handle risk management decisions differently, with varying
degrees of decision-making flexibility and budget. Noson outlined various organizational risk
management issues, identifying components of the process, including risk identification, decision-making
and management. She identified terminology as a significant concern, as people with different
backgrounds have different interpretations (e.g., engineer versus CFO), and that care must be taken to
properly differentiate between such terms as vulnerability, hazard, exposure is discussions and
assessments.
assurance is a critical issue, and the DSA is exploring the formation of an internal group for ensuring
uniformity and consistency. This is not intended to result in prescriptive design, but rather, to help assure
the appropriate use of methods for choosing performance levels and developing design solutions.
Benefits and Costs of Meeting Different Seismic Retrofit Design Criteria for
the BART System
John Eidenger
Abstract
BART has embarked on a multi-year effort to seismically retrofit its original 1968-vintage rail system.
The original system was built using reasonably ductile design methods, for a site-specific motion of about
ZPA = 0.5g (some variation for rock and soil sites) More recent understanding of seismology and
structural design have been applied to evaluate the existing BART system. This includes site specific
ground motions, fault "fling", current understanding of ductility, etc. Following FEMA / NEHRP criteria,
essentially 100% of the existing BART infrastructure fail these more "rigorous" year 2002 design
guidelines standards.
The cost to retrofit all of BART's original infrastructure to meet either "Life Safety" or "Full
Operability" guidelines, as suggested in various current FEMA documents, would easily exceed $3
billion, possibly more. recognizing the cost implications, BART performed a more system-wide approach
to seismic retrofit of its system. This approach explicitly considers that every component between two
stations must perform reasonably well in order to safely run a train between the two stations. Damage to
components could be acceptable, along with reduction in train speeds or service, as long as economic
impacts to the community were not too great.
We examined numerous alternative levels of seismic retrofit standards. We performed system wide
benefit cost models with / without the retrofits installed. We generally found that the lowest level of
seismic retrofit, ie "life safety" was the most cost effective for purposes of retrofitting BART. More
expensive retrofits, ie "full operability" (lower allowable strains, etc.) were found to be not cost effective,
even after consideration of system-wide impacts, for more than 905 of the BART system. This study
illustrates the use of performance evaluation on a system wide basis and cost-benefit analyses to assist in
selection of seismic design criteria.
Abstract
The questions addressed are the relative benefits of two of the more extreme ways of presenting,
communicating and defining risk information with clients as a basis for design criteria. One of these
consists of an expression of the total probability of exceeding or experiencing defined limit states or
performance levels, such as collapse, specified repair costs, deaths, downtime, etc. Detailed development
of such approaches are underway by researchers at PEER and elsewhere. The alternative and more
traditional approach relates to definition of an expected performance level given a single definition of a
design scenario event, such as a magnitude, M, on the San Andreas Fault.
The full probabilistic approach can provide a wide range of information upon which decisions can be
based, (e.g., mean annual frequency of collapse, the probability that some number of lives > n lives may
be lost, the probability that economic loss in excess of x$ will occur; plus, perhaps, even confidence
levels on such estimates.) Scenario formats (e.g., Magnitude M, Magnitude M at distance R; ground
motion level x, etc.). while providing less information, and which potentially address events that may
never occur, while not addressing events that could occur, are none the less, easier to understand for
many.
A proposal is presented for a hybrid approach which starts from the “full probabilistic” form of
information and translates that into an “equivalent” scenario format. Use with absolute assessments and
relative comparisons between alternative designs is suggested.
Abstract
The Division of the State Architect (DSA) provides plan review and observation of construction for over
2000 public school districts, 900 California Community College districts and a rapidly expanding
population of charter schools throughout the state. The increasing demand for new facilities combined
with the lack of available unimproved land in urban areas has prompted the legislature to enact legislation
requiring DSA to promulgate regulations for the conversion of non-Field Act buildings to a performance
level equivalent with the implementing provisions of the Field Act.
The performance objectives defined in the Field Act is protection of life and property (Section 17280,
California Education Code). These objectives are being achieved in the California Building Code through
prescriptive technical provisions adopted for state use, thorough plan review and continuous inspection of
construction.
The DSA is currently considering implementing regulations that will incorporate the PBSE processes
of FEMA 356. However, implementing these provisions will have a significant impact on the operations
of DSA, and the following issues will pose a challenge to put into practice in a manner that will allow for
consistent implementation across the four regional offices of DSA:
1. Analysis of structures utilizing non-linear PBSE analysis techniques will require development of a
program to provide extensive training of staff and management.
2. A credible procedure for acceptance of alternative design and acceptance criteria of existing
conditions that do not comply with prescriptive modal code provisions must be developed.
3. Development of a peer review process providing credible expertise is necessary. Peer review
consultants to DSA may need to be retained until staff obtains the necessary expertise.
4. Protection of life and property as identified in the Field Act require definition of the performance
objectives in the damage control range. Developing a numerical equivalent accounting for the effects
of thorough plan review and continuous inspection is problematic and may be difficult to technically
justify.
5. Since DSA expects a wide range of building types, materials and sizes to be candidates for
conversion, procedures must be developed to determine when PBSE methods are appropriate for use.
Abstract
This paper provides an introduction to Performance-Based Risk Management for the purpose of
developing a conceptual and theoretical background on which to prepare guidance materials...
Performance-Based Risk Management provides a comprehensive, consistent methodology to help those in
authority address the affects of natural, technological, and human hazards on an organization’s capability
to carry out it’s mission and on a department’s capability to accomplish operational roles and
responsibilities. .Risk management provides a comprehensive approach for developing and implementing
sustainable and effective risk policies and interventions to manage the adverse effects of accidental losses,
such as those related to natural hazard impacts, and business losses. Risk management consists of both a
management process and a decision-making process. The five steps of the risk management decision-
making process include: (1) Identify and Analyze Loss Exposures; (2) Examine Alternative Risk
Management Techniques; (3) Select Risk Management Techniques; (4) Implement techniques; and (5)
Monitor Results (Table 1). The traditional elements of management – planning, organizing, leading, and
controlling – are applied to each of the steps shown in Table 1. Table 2 shows an example of applying
each of the elements of management to Step 1 in the decision making process (Identifying and Analyzing
Loss Exposures).
Abstract
The FEMA/NIBS earthquake loss estimation methodology, commonly known as HAZUS, is a complex
collection of components that work together to estimate casualties, loss of function and economic impacts
of earthquake ground shaking and ground failure. The methodology is documented in the HAZUS
Technical Manual and a number of technical papers. One of the main components of the methodology
estimates the probability of various states of structural and nonstructural damage to buildings using
quantitative descriptions of ground shaking and nonlinear response analysis of the structure. Damage
state probabilities are used by other components of the methodology to estimate various types of building-
related loss.
The Advanced Engineering Building Module (AEBM) was recently added to the methodology to
allow expert users to create “building-specific” damage and loss functions for detailed evaluation of an
individual building (or group of similar buildings). The AEBM provides seismic/structural engineers with
the requisite set of tools for evaluating the performance of structural and nonstructural systems of
buildings. These tools may be used to evaluate the relative performance of alternative designs of a new
building, or similarly different rehabilitation schemes for an existing building. These tools can also
provide the “metrics” for judging the benefits of performance-based seismic design, by quantifying
performance in terms of lives saved or injuries avoided, reduction in business interruption and functional
downtime and reduction in direct and indirect economic losses.
The HAZUS AEBM bridges the gap between quantitative measures of ground shaking and estimates
of damage and loss due to this ground shaking. A research opportunity exists for extending and adapting
the methods of the HAZUS AEBM as a risk management tool of the ATC-58 effort to develop
performance-based design guidelines. Current performance-based methods typically focus on improved
prediction and understanding of building response (e.g., inelastic building drift). This is understandable,
since engineers (and engineering researchers) tend to think in terms of engineering parameters, such as
building drift, as the primary measure of building performance. While engineering parameters are
important (to engineers), stakeholders (e.g., building occupants and owners) are more interested in
judging performance in terms of threats to life safety, possible loss of building use (e.g., shelter or
business), and cost of repair or replacement of systems damaged by the earthquake. The methods off the
HAZUS AEBM technology can provide a key link between earthquake hazard, engineering measures of
performance (e.g., building drift), and those measures of performance (e.g., life safety) that are more
meaningful to stakeholders and society in general.
Project Participants
Project Management
Christopher Rojahn (Project Executive Director) Ronald O. Hamburger (Project Technical
Applied Technology Council Director)
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Redwood City, California 94065 The Landmark @ One Market, Suite 600
San Francisco, California 94105
FEMA Oversight
Mike Mahoney (Project Officer) Robert D. Hanson (Technical Monitor)
Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street, SW, Room 416 2926 Saklan Indian Drive
Washington, D.C. 20472 Walnut Creek, California 94595-3911
Steering Committee
William T. Holmes (Chair) Randall Berdine
Rutherford & Chekene Fannie Mae
427 Thirteenth Street 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Oakland, California 94612 Washington, D.C. 20016-2892
from NSF. Available through the ATC office. to seismic forces, (2) sets forth suggested
(Published 1984, 112 pages) design criteria for conventional layouts of
dwellings constructed with conventional
ABSTRACT: This report evaluates the cost
materials, (3) presents construction details
and technical impact of using the 1978
that do not require the designer to perform
ATC-3-06 report, Tentative Provisions for
analytical calculations, (4) suggests
the Development of Seismic Regulations for
procedures for efficient plan-checking, and
Buildings, as amended by a joint committee
(5) presents recommendations including
of the Building Seismic Safety Council and
details and schedules for use in the field by
the National Bureau of Standards in 1982.
construction personnel and building
The evaluations are based on studies of three
inspectors.
existing California buildings redesigned in
accordance with the ATC-3-06 Tentative ATC-4-1: The report, The Home Builders
Provisions and the 1982 Uniform Building Guide for Earthquake Design, was published
Code. Included in the report are under a contract with HUD. Available through
recommendations to code implementing the ATC office. (Published 1980, 57 pages)
bodies.
ABSTRACT: This report is an abridged
ATC-3-5: This project, “Assistance for First version of the ATC-4 report. The concise,
Phase of ATC-3-06 Trial Design Program Being easily understood text of the Guide is
Conducted by the Building Seismic Safety supplemented with illustrations and 46
Council”, was funded by the Building Seismic construction details. The details are
Safety Council to provide the services of the provided to ensure that houses contain
ATC Senior Consultant and other ATC structural features that are properly
personnel to assist the BSSC in the conduct of positioned, dimensioned and constructed to
the first phase of its Trial Design Program. The resist earthquake forces. A brief description
first phase provided for trial designs conducted is included on how earthquake forces impact
for buildings in Los Angeles, Seattle, Phoenix, on houses and some precautionary
and Memphis. constraints are given with respect to site
selection and architectural designs.
ATC-3-6: This project, “Assistance for Second
Phase of ATC-3-06 Trial Design Program Being ATC-5: The report, Guidelines for Seismic
Conducted by the Building Seismic Safety Design and Construction of Single-Story
Council”, was funded by the Building Seismic Masonry Dwellings in Seismic Zone 2, was
Safety Council to provide the services of the developed under a contract with HUD.
ATC Senior Consultant and other ATC Available through the ATC office. (Published
personnel to assist the BSSC in the conduct of 1986, 38 pages)
the second phase of its Trial Design Program.
ABSTRACT: The report offers a concise
The second phase provided for trial designs
methodology for the earthquake design and
conducted for buildings in New York, Chicago,
construction of single-story masonry
St. Louis, Charleston, and Fort Worth.
dwellings in Seismic Zone 2 of the United
ATC-4: The report, A Methodology for Seismic States, as defined by the 1973 Uniform
Design and Construction of Single-Family Building Code. The Guidelines are based in
Dwellings, was published under a contract with part on shaking table tests of masonry
the Department of Housing and Urban construction conducted at the University of
Development (HUD). Available through the California at Berkeley Earthquake
ATC office. (Published 1976, 576 pages) Engineering Research Center. The report is
written in simple language and includes
ABSTRACT: This report presents the results
basic house plans, wall evaluations, detail
of an in-depth effort to develop design and
drawings, and material specifications.
construction details for single-family
residences that minimize the potential ATC-6: The report, Seismic Design Guidelines
economic loss and life-loss risk associated for Highway Bridges, was published under a
with earthquakes. The report: (1) discusses contract with the Federal Highway
the ways structures behave when subjected
they relate to the building; and conclusions professionals from throughout the United
and recommendations pertaining to future States. The report contains reviews of
building code provisions and future research current and past design practices, summaries
needs. of research developments, and in-depth
discussions of design implications of recent
ATC-10: This report, An Investigation of the
research results.
Correlation Between Earthquake Ground
Motion and Building Performance, was funded ATC-12: This report, Comparison of United
by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). States and New Zealand Seismic Design
Available through the ATC office. (Published Practices for Highway Bridges, was published
1982, 114 pages) under a grant from NSF. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1982, 270 pages)
ABSTRACT: The report contains an in-depth
analytical evaluation of the ultimate or limit ABSTRACT: The report contains summaries
capacity of selected representative building of all aspects and innovative design
framing types, a discussion of the factors procedures used in New Zealand as well as
affecting the seismic performance of comparison of United States and New
buildings, and a summary and comparison Zealand design practice. Also included are
of seismic design and seismic risk research recommendations developed at a 3-
parameters currently in widespread use. day workshop in New Zealand attended by
16 U.S. and 35 New Zealand bridge design
ATC-10-1: This report, Critical Aspects of
engineers and researchers.
Earthquake Ground Motion and Building
Damage Potential, was co-funded by the USGS ATC-12-1: This report, Proceedings of Second
and the NSF. Available through the ATC office. Joint U.S.-New Zealand Workshop on Seismic
(Published 1984, 259 pages) Resistance of Highway Bridges, was published
under a grant from NSF. Available through the
ABSTRACT: This document contains 19
ATC office. (Published 1986, 272 pages)
state-of-the-art papers on ground motion,
structural response, and structural design ABSTRACT: This report contains written
issues presented by prominent engineers and versions of the papers presented at this 1985
earth scientists in an ATC seminar. The workshop as well as a list and prioritization
main theme of the papers is to identify the of workshop recommendations. Included
critical aspects of ground motion and are summaries of research projects being
building performance that currently are not conducted in both countries as well as state-
being considered in building design. The of-the-practice papers on various aspects of
report also contains conclusions and design practice. Topics discussed include
recommendations of working groups bridge design philosophy and loadings;
convened after the Seminar. design of columns, footings, piles,
abutments and retaining structures;
ATC-11: The report, Seismic Resistance of
geotechnical aspects of foundation design;
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls and Frame
seismic analysis techniques; seismic
Joints: Implications of Recent Research for
retrofitting; case studies using base
Design Engineers, was published under a grant
isolation; strong-motion data acquisition and
from NSF. Available through the ATC office.
interpretation; and testing of bridge
(Published 1983, 184 pages)
components and bridge systems.
ABSTRACT: This document presents the
ATC-13: The report, Earthquake Damage
results of an in-depth review and synthesis
Evaluation Data for California, was developed
of research reports pertaining to cyclic
under a contract with the Federal Emergency
loading of reinforced concrete shear walls
Management Agency (FEMA). Available
and cyclic loading of joints in reinforced
through the ATC office. (Published 1985, 492
concrete frames. More than 125 research
pages)
reports published since 1971 are reviewed
and evaluated in this report. The preparation ABSTRACT: This report presents expert-
of the report included a consensus process opinion earthquake damage and loss
involving numerous experienced design estimates for industrial, commercial,
ATC-15-3: The report, Proceedings of Fourth nonfederal buildings nationwide. The plan was
U.S.-Japan Workshop on Improvement of developed on the basis of nine issue papers
Building Structural Design and Construction presented at the workshop and workshop
Practices, was published jointly by ATC and the working group discussions. The Workshop
Japan Structural Consultants Association. Proceedings and Five-Year Plan are available
Available through the ATC office. (Published through the Federal Emergency Management
1992, 484 pages) Agency, 500 “C” Street, S.W., Washington, DC
20472.
ABSTRACT: This report contains 22
technical papers presented at this Kailua- ATC-17: This report, Proceedings of a Seminar
Kona, Hawaii, workshop in August, 1990, and Workshop on Base Isolation and Passive
by practitioners and researchers from the Energy Dissipation, was published under a grant
United States, Japan, and Peru. Included are from NSF. Available through the ATC office.
papers on postearthquake building damage (Published 1986, 478 pages)
assessment; acceptable earth-quake damage;
ABSTRACT: The report contains 42 papers
repair and retrofit of earthquake damaged
describing the state-of-the-art and state-of-
buildings; base-isolated buildings, including
the-practice in base-isolation and passive
Architectural Institute of Japan
energy-dissipation technology. Included are
recommendations for design; active
papers describing case studies in the United
damping systems; wind-resistant design; and
States, applications and developments
summaries of working group conclusions
worldwide, recent innovations in technology
and recommendations.
development, and structural and ground
ATC-15-4: The report, Proceedings of Fifth motion issues. Also included is a proposed
U.S.-Japan Workshop on Improvement of 5-year research agenda that addresses the
Building Structural Design and Construction following specific issues: (1) strong ground
Practices, was published jointly by ATC and the motion; (2) design criteria; (3) materials,
Japan Structural Consultants Association. quality control, and long-term reliability; (4)
Available through the ATC office. (Published life cycle cost methodology; and (5) system
1994, 360 pages) response.
ABSTRACT: This report contains 20 ATC-17-1: This report, Proceedings of a
technical papers presented at this San Diego, Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy
California workshop in September, 1992. Dissipation and Active Control, was published
Included are papers on performance under a grant from NCEER and NSF. Available
goals/acceptable damage in seismic design; through the ATC office. (Published 1993, 841
seismic design procedures and case studies; pages)
construction influences on design; seismic
ABSTRACT: The 2-volume report documents
isolation and passive energy dissipation;
70 technical papers presented during a two-
design of irregular structures; seismic
day seminar in San Francisco in early 1993.
evaluation, repair and upgrading; quality
Included are invited theme papers and
control for design and construction; and
competitively selected papers on issues
summaries of working group discussions
related to seismic isolation systems, passive
and recommendations.
energy dissipation systems, active control
ATC-16: This project, “Development of a 5- systems and hybrid systems.
Year Plan for Reducing the Earthquake Hazards
ATC-18: The report, Seismic Design Criteria
Posed by Existing Nonfederal Buildings”, was
for Bridges and Other Highway Structures:
funded by FEMA and was conducted by a joint
Current and Future, was developed under a
venture of ATC, the Building Seismic Safety
grant from NCEER and FHWA. Available
Council and the Earthquake Engineering
through the ATC office. (Published, 1997, 151
Research Institute. The project involved a
pages)
workshop in Phoenix, Arizona, where
approximately 50 earthquake specialists met to ABSTRACT: Prepared as part of NCEER
identify the major tasks and goals for reducing Project 112 on new highway construction,
the earthquake hazards posed by existing this report reviews current domestic and
foreign design practice, philosophy and and Development (OSHPD) and FEMA.
criteria, and recommends future directions Available through the ATC office (Published
for code development. The project 1989, 152 pages)
considered bridges, tunnels, abutments,
ABSTRACT: This report provides procedures
retaining wall structures, and foundations.
and guidelines for making on-the-spot
ATC-18-1: The report, Impact Assessment of evaluations and decisions regarding
Selected MCEER Highway Project Research on continued use and occupancy of earthquake
the Seismic Design of Highway Structures, was damaged buildings. Written specifically for
developed under a contract from the volunteer structural engineers and building
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake inspectors, the report includes rapid and
Engineering Research (MCEER, formerly detailed evaluation procedures for inspecting
NCEER) and FHWA. Available through the buildings and posting them as “inspected”
ATC office. (Published, 1999, 136 pages) (apparently safe, green placard), “limited
entry” (yellow) or “unsafe” (red). Also
ABSTRACT: The report provides an in-depth
included are special procedures for
review and assessment of 32 research
evaluation of essential buildings (e.g.,
reports emanating from the MCEER Project
hospitals), and evaluation procedures for
112 on new highway construction, as well as
nonstructural elements, and geotechnical
recommendations for future bridge seismic
hazards.
design guidelines. Topics covered include:
ground motion issues; determining structural ATC-20-1: The report, Field Manual:
importance; foundations and soils; Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings,
liquefaction mitigation methodologies; was developed under a contract from OES and
modeling of pile footings and drilled shafts; OSHPD. Available through the ATC office
damage-avoidance design of bridge piers, (Published 1989, 114 pages)
column design, modeling, and analysis;
ABSTRACT: This report, a companion Field
structural steel and steel-concrete interface
Manual for the ATC-20 report, summarizes
details; abutment design, modeling, and
the postearthquake safety evaluation
analysis; and detailing for structural
procedures in a brief concise format
movements in tunnels.
designed for ease of use in the field.
ATC-19: The report, Structural Response
ATC-20-2: The report, Addendum to the ATC-
Modification Factors was funded by NSF and
20 Postearthquake Building Safety Procedures
NCEER. Available through the ATC office.
was published under a grant from the NSF and
(Published 1995, 70 pages)
funded by the USGS. Available through the
ABSTRACT: This report addresses structural ATC office. (Published 1995, 94 pages)
response modification factors (R factors),
ABSTRACT: This report provides updated
which are used to reduce the seismic forces
assessment forms, placards, including a
associated with elastic response to obtain
revised yellow placard (“restricted use”) and
design forces. The report documents the
procedures that are based on an in-depth
basis for current R values, how R factors are
review and evaluation of the widespread
used for seismic design in other countries, a
application of the ATC-20 procedures
rational means for decomposing R into key
following five earthquakes occurring since
components, a framework (and methods) for
the initial release of the ATC-20 report in
evaluating the key components of R, and the
1989.
research necessary to improve the reliability
of engineered construction designed using R ATC-20-3: The report, Case Studies in Rapid
factors. Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings,
was funded by ATC and R. P. Gallagher
ATC-20: The report, Procedures for
Associates. Available through the ATC office.
Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings,
(Published 1996, 295 pages)
was developed under a contract from the
California Office of Emergency Services (OES), ABSTRACT: This report contains 53 case
California Office of Statewide Health Planning studies using the ATC-20 Rapid Evaluation
procedure. Each case study is illustrated hazardous and should be analyzed in more
with photos and describes how a building detail by a professional engineer
was inspected and evaluated for life safety, experienced in seismic design. In the Second
and includes a completed safety assessment Edition, the scoring system has been revised
form and placard. The report is intended to and the Handbook has been shortened and
be used as a training and reference manual focused to ease its use.
for building officials, building inspectors,
ATC-21-1: The report, Rapid Visual Screening
civil and structural engineers, architects,
of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards:
disaster workers, and others who may be
Supporting Documentation, Second Edition, was
asked to perform safety evaluations after an
developed under a contract from FEMA.
earthquake.
Available through the ATC office, or from
ATC-20-T: The Postearthquake Safety FEMA by contacting 1-800-480-2520, as FEMA
Evaluation of Buildings Training CD was 155 Second Edition. (Published 2002, 117
developed by FEMA to replace the 1993 ATC- pages)
20-T Training Manual that included 160 35-mm
ABSTRACT: Included in this report is the
slides. Available through the ATC office.
technical basis for the updated rapid visual
(Published 2002, 230 PowerPoint slides with
screening procedure of ATC-21, including
Speakers Notes)
(1) a summary of the results from the efforts
ABSTRACT: This Training CD is intended to to solicit user feedback, and (2) a detailed
facilitate the presentation of the contents of description of the development effort
the ATC-20 and ATC-20-2 reports in a 4½- leading to the basic structural hazard scores
hour training seminar. The Training CD and the score modifiers.
contains 230 slides of photographs,
ATC-21-2: The report, Earthquake Damaged
schematic drawings and textual information.
Buildings: An Overview of Heavy Debris and
Topics covered include: posting system;
Victim Extrication, was developed under a
evaluation procedures; structural basics;
contract from FEMA. (Published 1988, 95
wood frame, masonry, concrete, and steel
pages)
frame structures; nonstructural elements;
geotechnical hazards; hazardous materials; ABSTRACT: Included in this report, a
and field safety. companion volume to the ATC-21 and
ATC-21-1 reports, is state-of-the-art
ATC-21: The report, Second Edition, Rapid
information on (1) the identification of those
Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential
buildings that might collapse and trap
Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, was developed
victims in debris or generate debris of such a
under a contract from FEMA. Available
size that its handling would require special
through the ATC office, or from FEMA by
or heavy lifting equipment; (2) guidance in
contacting 1-800-480-2520, as FEMA 154
identifying these types of buildings, on the
Second Edition. (Published 2002, 161 pages)
basis of their major exterior features, and (3)
ABSTRACT: This report describes a rapid the types and life capacities of equipment
visual screening procedure for identifying required to remove the heavy portion of the
those buildings that might pose serious risk debris that might result from the collapse of
of loss of life and injury, or of severe such buildings.
curtailment of community services, in case
ATC-21-T: The report, Rapid Visual Screening
of a damaging earthquake. The screening
of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards
procedure utilizes a methodology based on a
Training Manual was developed under a
"sidewalk survey" approach that involves
contract with FEMA. Available through the
identification of the primary structural load-
ATC office. (Published 1996, 135 pages; 120
resisting system and its building material,
slides)
and assignment of a basic structural hazards
score and performance modifiers based on ABSTRACT: This training manual is intended
the observed building characteristics. to facilitate the presentation of the contents
Application of the methodology identifies of the ATC-21 report (First Edition). The
those buildings that are potentially training materials consist of 120 slides and a
companion training presentation narrative from the Office of Statewide Health Planning
coordinated with the slides. Topics covered and Development (OSHPD), State of California.
include: description of procedure, building Available through the ATC office. (Published
behavior, building types, building scores, 1991, 58 pages)
occupancy and falling hazards, and
ABSTRACT: This report summarizes results
implementation.
from a seismic survey of 490 California
ATC-22: The report, A Handbook for Seismic acute care hospitals. Included are a
Evaluation of Existing Buildings (Preliminary), description of the survey procedures and
was developed under a contract from FEMA. data collected, a summary of the data, and
Available through the ATC office. (Originally an illustrative discussion of data analysis
published in 1989; revised by BSSC and and interpretation that has been provided to
published as FEMA 178: NEHRP Handbook for demonstrate potential applications of the
the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings in ATC-23 database.
1992, 211 pages; revised by ASCE for FEMA
ATC-23B: The report, General Acute Care
and published as FEMA 310: Handbook for the
Hospital Earthquake Survivability Inventory for
Seismic Evaluation of Buildings – a Prestandard
California, Part B: Raw Data, is a companion
in 1998, 362 pages, available from FEMA by
document to the ATC-23A Report and was
contacting 1-800-480-2520)
developed under the above-mentioned contract
ABSTRACT: The ATC-22 handbook from OSHPD. Available through the ATC
provides a methodology for seismic office. (Published 1991, 377 pages)
evaluation of existing buildings of different
ABSTRACT: Included in this report are
types and occupancies in areas of different
tabulations of raw general site and building
seismicity throughout the United States.
data for 490 acute care hospitals in
The methodology, which has been field
California.
tested in several programs nationwide,
utilizes the information and procedures ATC-24: The report, Guidelines for Seismic
developed for the ATC-14 report and Testing of Components of Steel Structures, was
documented therein. The handbook includes jointly funded by the American Iron and Steel
checklists, diagrams, and sketches designed Institute (AISI), American Institute of Steel
to assist the user. Construction (AISC), National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER),
ATC-22-1: The report, Seismic Evaluation of
and NSF. Available through the ATC office.
Existing Buildings: Supporting Documentation,
(Published 1992, 57 pages)
was developed under a contract from FEMA and
is available as the FEMA 175 report by ABSTRACT: This report provides guidance
contacting 1-800-480-2520. (Published 1989, for most cyclic experiments on components
160 pages) of steel structures for the purpose of
consistency in experimental procedures. The
ABSTRACT: Included in this report, a
report contains recommendations and
companion volume to the ATC-22 report,
companion commentary pertaining to
are (1) a review and evaluation of existing
loading histories, presentation of test results,
buildings seismic evaluation methodologies;
and other aspects of experimentation. The
(2) results from field tests of the ATC-14
recommendations are written specifically for
methodology; and (3) summaries of
experiments with slow cyclic load
evaluations of ATC-14 conducted by the
application.
National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research (State University of New York at ATC-25: The report, Seismic Vulnerability and
Buffalo) and the City of San Francisco. Impact of Disruption of Lifelines in the
Conterminous United States, was developed
ATC-23A: The report, General Acute Care
under a contract from FEMA. Available
Hospital Earthquake Survivability Inventory for
through the ATC office. (Published 1991, 440
California, Part A: Survey Description,
pages)
Summary of Results, Data Analysis and
Interpretation, was developed under a contract
Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 276), were ATC-35: This report, Enhancing the Transfer
developed under a contract with the Building of U.S. Geological Survey Research Results into
Seismic Safety Council, for FEMA. Available Engineering Practice was developed under a
through FEMA by contacting 1-800-480-2520 cooperative agreement with the USGS.
(Published 1997, Guidelines, 440 pages; Available through the ATC office. (Published
Commentary, 492 pages; Example Applications, 1994, 120 pages)
295 pages.) FEMA 273 and portions of FEMA
ABSTRACT: The report provides a program
274 have been revised by ASCE for FEMA as
of recommended “technology transfer”
FEMA 356 Prestandard and Commentary for the
activities for the USGS; included are
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Available
recommendations pertaining to management
through FEMA by contacting 1-800-480-2520
actions, communications with practicing
(Published 2000, 509 pages)
engineers, and research activities to enhance
ABSTRACT: Developed over a 5-year period development and transfer of information that
through the efforts of more than 60 paid is vital to engineering practice.
consultants and several hundred volunteer
ATC-35-1: The report, Proceedings of Seminar
reviewers, these documents provide
on New Developments in Earthquake Ground
nationally applicable, state-of-the-art
Motion Estimation and Implications for
guidance for the seismic rehabilitation of
Engineering Design Practice, was developed
buildings. The FEMA 273 Guidelines
under a cooperative agreement with USGS.
contain several new features that depart
Available through the ATC office. (Published
significantly from previous seismic design
1994, 478 pages)
procedures used to design new buildings:
seismic performance levels and ABSTRACT: These Proceedings contain 22
rehabilitation objectives; simplified and technical papers describing state-of-the-art
systematic rehabilitation methods; methods information on regional earthquake risk
of analysis, including linear static and (focused on five specific regions—Northern
nonlinear static procedures; quantitative and Southern California, Pacific Northwest,
specifications of component behavior; and Central United States, and northeastern
procedures for incorporating new North America); new techniques for
information and technologies, such as estimating strong ground motions as a
seismic isolation and energy dissipation function of earthquake source, travel path,
systems, into rehabilitation. and site parameters; and new developments
specifically applicable to geotechnical
ATC-34: The report, A Critical Review of
engineering and the seismic design of
Current Approaches to Earthquake Resistant
buildings and bridges.
Design, was developed under a grant from
NCEER and NSF. Available through the ATC ATC-35-2: The report, Proceedings: National
office. (Published, 1995, 94 pages) Earthquake Ground Motion Mapping Workshop,
was developed under a cooperative agreement
ABSTRACT: This report documents the
with USGS. Available through the ATC office.
history of U. S. codes and standards of
(Published 1997, 154 pages)
practice, focusing primarily on the strengths
and deficiencies of current code approaches. ABSTRACT: These Proceedings document
Issues addressed include: seismic hazard the technical presentations and findings of a
analysis, earthquake collateral hazards, workshop in Los Angeles in 1995 on several
performance objectives, redundancy and key issues that affect the preparation and use
configuration, response modification factors of national earthquake ground motion maps
(R factors), simplified analysis procedures, for design. The following four key issues
modeling of structural components, were the focus of the workshop: ground
foundation design, nonstructural component motion parameters; reference site
design, and risk and reliability. The report conditions; probabilistic versus deterministic
also identifies goals that a new seismic code basis, and the treatment of uncertainty in
should achieve. seismic source characterization and ground
motion attenuation.
ATC-35-3: The report, Proceedings: survey, the selection of the surveyed areas,
Workshop on Improved Characterization of and the entry of the survey data into an
Strong Ground Shaking for Seismic Design, was electronic relational database. The full
developed under a cooperative agreement with database is contained in the ATC-38 CD-
USGS. Available through the ATC office. ROM. The ATC-38 database includes
(Published 1999, 75 pages) information on the structure size, age and
location; the structural framing system and
ABSTRACT: These Proceedings document
other important structural characteristics;
the technical presentations and findings of a
nonstructural characteristics; geotechnical
workshop in Rancho Bernardo, California in
effects, such as liquefaction; performance
1997 on the Ground Motion Initiative (GMI)
characteristics (damage); fatalities and
component of the ATC-35 Project. The
injuries; and estimated time to restore the
workshop focused on identifying needs and
facility to its pre-earthquake usability. The
developing improved representations of
report and CD also contain strong-motion
earthquake ground motion for use in seismic
data, including acceleration, velocity, and
design practice, including codes.
displacement time histories, and acceleration
ATC-37: The report, Review of Seismic response spectra.
Research Results on Existing Buildings, was
ATC-40: The report, Seismic Evaluation and
developed in conjunction with the Structural
Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, was developed
Engineers Association of California and
under a contract from the California Seismic
California Universities for Research in
Safety Commission. Available through the ATC
Earthquake Engineering under a contract from
office. (Published, 1996, 612 pages)
the California Seismic Safety Commission
(SSC). Available through the Seismic Safety ABSTRACT: This 2-volume report provides a
Commission as Report SSC 94-03. (Published, state-of-the-art methodology for the seismic
1994, 492 pages) evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings.
Specific guidance is provided on the
ABSTRACT: This report describes the state of
following topics: performance objectives;
knowledge of the earthquake performance of
seismic hazard; determination of
nonductile concrete frame, shear wall, and
deficiencies; retrofit strategies; quality
infilled buildings. Included are summaries
assurance procedures; nonlinear static
of 90 recent research efforts with key results
analysis procedures; modeling rules;
and conclusions in a simple, easy-to-access
foundation effects; response limits; and
format written for practicing design
nonstructural components. In 1997 this
professionals.
report received the Western States Seismic
ATC-38: This report, Database on the Policy Council “Overall Excellence and
Performance of Structures near Strong-Motion New Technology Award.”
Recordings: 1994 Northridge, California,
ATC-41 (SAC Joint Venture, Phase 1): This
Earthquake, was developed with funding from
project, Program to Reduce the Earthquake
the USGS, the Southern California Earthquake
Hazards of Steel Moment-Resisting Frame
Center (SCEC), OES, and the Institute for
Structures, Phase 1, was funded by FEMA and
Business and Home Safety (IBHS). Available
conducted by a Joint Venture partnership of
through the ATC office. (Published 2000, 260
SEAOC, ATC, and CUREe. Under this Phase 1
pages, with CD-ROM containing complete
program SAC prepared the following
database).
documents:
ABSTRACT: The report documents the
SAC-94-01, Proceedings of the Invitational
earthquake performance of 530 buildings
Workshop on Steel Seismic Issues, Los
within 1000 feet of sites where strong
Angeles, September 1994 (Published 1994,
ground motion was recorded during the
155 pages, available through the ATC
1994 Northridge, California, earthquake (31
office)
recording sites in total). The project required
the development of a suitable survey form, SAC-95-01, Steel Moment-Frame
the training of licensed engineers for the Connection Advisory No. 3 (Published
1995, 310 pages, available through the ATC available through FEMA by contacting 1-
office) 800-480-2520)
SAC-95-02, Interim Guidelines: ATC-41-1 (SAC Joint Venture, Phase 2):
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and This project, Program to Reduce the Earthquake
Design of Welded Steel Moment-Frame Hazards of Steel Moment-Resisting Frame
Structures (FEMA 267 report) (Published Structures, Phase 2, was funded by FEMA and
1995, 215 pages, available through FEMA conducted by a Joint Venture partnership of
by contacting 1-800-480-2520) SEAOC, ATC, and CUREe. Under this Phase 2
program SAC has prepared the following
SAC-95-03, Characterization of Ground
documents:
Motions During the Northridge Earthquake
of January 17, 1994 (Published 1995, 179 SAC-96-03, Interim Guidelines Advisory
pages, available through the ATC office) No. 1 Supplement to FEMA 267 Interim
Guidelines (FEMA 267A Report) (Published
SAC-95-04, Analytical and Field
1997, 100 pages, and superseded by FEMA-
Investigations of Buildings Affected by the
350 to 353.)
Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994
(Published 1995, 2 volumes, 900 pages, SAC-99-01, Interim Guidelines Advisory
available through the ATC office) No. 2 Supplement to FEMA-267 Interim
Guidelines (FEMA 267B Report,
SAC-95-05, Parametric Analytical
superseding FEMA-267A). (Published 1999,
Investigations of Ground Motion and
150 pages, and superseded by FEMA-350 to
Structural Response, Northridge Earthquake
353.)
of January 17, 1994 (Published 1995, 274
pages, available through the ATC office) FEMA-350, Recommended Seismic Design
Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame
SAC-95-06, Surveys and Assessment of
Buildings. (Published 2000, 190 pages,
Damage to Buildings Affected by the
available through FEMA: 1-800-480-2520)
Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994
(Published 1995, 315 pages, available FEMA-351, Recommended Seismic
through the ATC office) Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for
Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame
SAC-95-07, Case Studies of Steel Moment
Buildings. (Published 2000, 210 pages,
Frame Building Performance in the
available through FEMA: 1-800-480-2520)
Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994
(Published 1995, 260 pages, available FEMA-352, Recommended Postearthquake
through the ATC office) Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded
Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. (Published
SAC-95-08, Experimental Investigations of
2000, 180 pages, available through FEMA:
Materials, Weldments and Nondestructive
1-800-480-2520)
Examination Techniques (Published 1995,
144 pages, available through the ATC FEMA-353, Recommended Specifications
office) and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel
Moment-Frame Construction for Seismic
SAC-95-09, Background Reports:
Applications. (Published 2000, 180 pages,
Metallurgy, Fracture Mechanics, Welding,
available through FEMA: 1-800-480-2520)
Moment Connections and Frame systems,
Behavior (FEMA 288 report) (Published FEMA-354, A Policy Guide to Steel
1995, 361 pages, available through FEMA Moment-Frame Construction. (Published
by contacting 1-800-480-2520) 2000, 27 pages, available through FEMA: 1-
800-480-2520)
SAC-96-01, Experimental Investigations of
Beam-Column Subassemblages, Part 1 and FEMA-355A, State of the Art Report on
2 (Published 1996, 2 volumes, 924 pages, Base Materials and Fracture. Available
available through the ATC office) from the ATC office. (Published 2000, 107
pages; available on CD-ROM through
SAC-96-02, Connection Test Summaries
FEMA: 1-800-480-2520)
(FEMA 289 report) (Published 1996,
FEMA-355B, State of the Art Report on recommended repair techniques, and an in-
Welding and Inspection. Available from the depth discussion of policy issues pertaining
ATC office. (Published 2000, 185 pages; to the repair and upgrade of earthquake
available on CD-ROM through FEMA: 1- damaged buildings. The documents have
800-480-2520) been developed specifically for buildings
with primary lateral-force-resisting systems
FEMA-355C, State of the Art Report on
consisting of concrete bearing walls or
Systems Performance of Steel Moment
masonry bearing walls, and vertical-load-
Frames Subject to Earthquake Ground
bearing concrete frames or steel frames with
Shaking. Available from the ATC office.
concrete or masonry infill panels. The
(Published 2000, 322 pages; available on
intended audience includes design
CD-ROM through FEMA: 1-800-480-2520)
engineers, building owners, building
FEMA-355D, State of the Art Report on regulatory officials, and government
Connection Performance. Available from agencies.
the ATC office. (Published 2000, 292
ATC-44: The report, Hurricane Fran, North
pages; available on CD-ROM through
Carolina, September 5, 1996: Reconnaissance
FEMA: 1-800-480-2520)
Report, was funded by the Applied Technology
FEMA-355E, State of the Art Report on Past Council. Available through the ATC office.
Performance of Steel Moment-Frame (Published 1997, 36 pages)
Buildings in Earthquakes. Available from
ABSTRACT: Written for an intended
the ATC office. (Published 2000, 190 pages;
audience of design professionals and
available on CD-ROM through FEMA: 1-
regulators, this report contains information
800-480-2520)
on hurricane size, path, and rainfall
FEMA-355F, State of the Art Report on amounts; coastal impacts, including storm
Performance Prediction and Evaluation of surges and waves, forces on structures, and
Steel Moment-Frame Structures. Available the role of erosion; the role of beach
from the ATC office. (Published 2000, 347 nourishment in reducing wave energy and
pages; available on CD-ROM through crest height; building code requirements;
FEMA: 1-800-480-2520) observations and interpretations of damage
to buildings, including the effect of debris
ATC-43: The reports, Evaluation of
acting as missiles; and lifeline performance.
Earthquake-Damaged Concrete and Masonry
Wall Buildings, Basic Procedures Manual ATC-48 (ATC/SEAOC Joint Venture
(FEMA 306), Evaluation of Earthquake- Training Curriculum): The training
Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall curriculum, Built to Resist Earthquakes, The
Buildings, Technical Resources (FEMA 307), Path to Quality Seismic Design and
and The Repair of Earthquake Damaged Construction for Architects, Engineers, and
Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings (FEMA Inspectors, was developed under a contract with
308), were developed for FEMA under a the California Seismic Safety Commission and
contract with the Partnership for Response and prepared by a Joint Venture partnership of ATC
Recovery, a Joint Venture of Dewberry & Davis and SEAOC. Available through the ATC office
and Woodward-Clyde. Available on CD-ROM (Published 1999, 314 pages)
through ATC; printed versions available through
ABSTRACT: Bound in a three-ring notebook,
FEMA by contacting 1-800-480-2520
the curriculum contains training materials
(Published, 1998, Evaluation Procedures
pertaining to the seismic design and retrofit
Manual, 270 pages; Technical Resources, 271
of wood-frame buildings, concrete and
pages, Repair Document, 81 pages)
masonry construction, and nonstructural
ABSTRACT: Developed by 26 nationally components. Included are detailed,
recognized specialists in earthquake illustrated, instructional material (lessons)
engineering, these documents provide field and a series of multi-part Briefing Papers
investigation techniques, damage evaluation and Job Aids to facilitate improvement in
procedures, methods for performance loss the quality of seismic design, inspection, and
determination, repair guides and construction.
technology transfer gap that has emerged ATC Design Guide 1: The report, Minimizing
within the National Earthquake Hazards Floor Vibration, was developed with funding
Reduction Program (NEHRP) that limits the from ATC’s Henry J. Degenkolb Memorial
adaptation of basic research knowledge into Endowment Fund. Available through the ATC
practice. The report defines a much- office. (Published, 1999, 64 pages)
expanded problem-focused knowledge
ABSTRACT: Design Guide 1 provides
development, synthesis and transfer program
guidance on design and retrofit of floor
to improve seismic design and construction
structures to limit transient vibrations to
practices. Two subject areas, with a total of
acceptable levels. The document includes
five Program Elements, are proposed: (1)
guidance for estimating floor vibration
systematic support of the seismic code
properties and example calculations for a
development process; and (2) improve
variety of currently used floor types and
seismic design and construction
designs. The criteria for acceptable levels of
productivity.
floor vibration are based on human
ATC-R-1: The report, Cyclic Testing of Narrow sensitivity to the vibration, whether it is
Plywood Shear Walls, was developed with caused by human behavior or machinery in
funding from the Henry J. Degenkolb Memorial the structure.
Endowment Fund of the Applied Technology
ATC TechBrief 1: The ATC TechBrief 1,
Council. Available through the ATC office
Liquefaction Maps, was developed under a
(Published 1995, 64 pages)
contract with the United States Geological
ABSTRACT: This report documents ATC's Survey. Available free of charge through the
first self-directed research program: a series ATC office. (Published 1996, 12 pages)
of static and dynamic tests of narrow
ABSTRACT: The technical brief inventories
plywood wall panels having the standard
and describes the available regional
3.5-to-1 height-to-width ratio and anchored
liquefaction hazard maps in the United
to the sill plate using typical bolted, 9-inch,
States and gives information on how to
5000-lb. capacity hold-down devices. The
obtain them.
report provides a description of the testing
program and a summary of results, including ATC TechBrief 2: The ATC TechBrief 2,
comparisons of drift ratios found during Earthquake Aftershocks − Entering Damaged
testing with those specified in the seismic Buildings, was developed under a contract with
provisions of the 1991 Uniform Building the United States Geological Survey. Available
Code. The report served as a catalyst for free of charge through the ATC office.
changes in code-specified aspect ratios for (Published 1996, 12 pages)
narrow plywood wall panels and for new
ABSTRACT: The technical brief offers
thinking in the design of hold-down devices.
guidelines for entering damaged buildings
It also stimulated widespread interest in
under emergency conditions during the first
laboratory testing of wood-frame structures.
hours and days after the initial damaging
event.
Sponsors Contributors
Structural Engineers Association of California Edwin T. Huston
Charles H. Thornton Omar D. Cardona
John M. Coil Computers & Structures, Inc.
Burkett & Wong Lawrence D. Reaveley
James R. & Sharon K. Cagley Barrish, Pelham & Partners
Degenkolb Engineers Bliss & Nyitray, Inc.
Sang Whan Han Edwin & Jonelle Dean
Walter P. Moore & Associates Daniel & Lois R. Shapiro
Nabih Youssef & Associates John C. Theiss
Baldridge & Associates
Supporters Kenneth B. Bondy
Buehler & Buehler Associates
Baker Concrete Company
Raj and Helen Desai
Cagley & Associates
DeSimone Consulting Engineers
Cagley, Harman & Associates
DPIC Companies
CBI Consulting, Inc.
E. W. Blanch Co.
Nishkian Menninger
Hinman Consulting Engineers
Structon
John A. Martin & Associates
Rutherford & Chekene
Lane Bishop York Delahay, Inc.
LeMessurier Consultants, Inc.
Lionakis Beaumont Design Group
Marr Shaffer & Miyamoto, Inc.
Master Builders
Patrick Buscovich & Associates
Severud Associates
Tokyo Engineering Power Company
Weidlinger Associates
William Bevier Structural Engineer, Inc.