10NCEE

Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska

ATC-84 PROJECT:
IMPROVED SEISMIC PERFORMANCE
FACTORS FOR DESIGN OF NEW
BUILDINGS
Charles A. Kircher1, John L. Harris2, Jon A. Heintz3 and Ayse Hortacsu4
ABSTRACT
The ATC-84 Project has developed a tentative new framework for the next generation of
seismic provisions of model building codes.
The new framework includes
recommendations for reformulation of seismic performance factors with the intent of
advancing seismic design to more reliably achieve seismic performance objectives. It is
envisioned that future studies will utilize this new framework to improve values of
seismic performance factors and related design criteria. As part of development of the
new framework, the ATC-84 Project investigated how the current risk-based concepts of
ASCE 7 [1] for life-safety performance could be expanded to also address economic and
functional performance goals, which is the subject of this paper.

Principal, Kircher & Associates, Palo Alto, CA 94303 - cakircher@aol.com

Research Structural Engineer, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899
3
Director of Projects, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA 94065
4
Associate Director of Projects, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA 94065
2

Kircher, CA, Harris, JL, Heintz, JA, Hortacsu, A. ATC-84 Project: Improved seismic performance factors for design
of new buildings. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.

10NCEE

Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska

ATC-84 Project:
Improved Seismic Performance Factors for Design of New Buildings
Charles A. Kircher1, John L. Harris2, Jon A. Heintz3 and Ayse Hortacsu4
ABSTRACT
The ATC-84 Project has developed a tentative new framework for the next generation of seismic
provisions of model building codes. The new framework includes recommendations for
reformulation of seismic performance factors with the intent of advancing seismic design to more
reliably achieve seismic performance objectives. It is envisioned that future studies will utilize
this new framework to improve values of seismic performance factors and related design criteria.
As part of development of the new framework, the ATC-84 Project investigated how the current
risk-based concepts of ASCE 7 [1] for life-safety performance could be expanded to also address
economic and functional performance goals, which is the subject of this paper.

Introduction
The ATC-84 Project has developed a tentative new framework for the next generation of seismic
provisions of model building codes, such as those of ASCE 7 [1]. As part the development of
the new framework, topical studies investigated issues related to (1) short-period systems, (2)
over-strength, and (3) long-period (tall building) systems, in each case using the collapse
evaluation methodology of FEMA P-695 [2]. The new framework and other findings of the
ATC-84 Project are documented in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
report, Tentative Framework for Development of Advanced Seismic Design Criteria for New
Buildings, NIST GCR 12-917-20 [3].
The new framework includes a number of proposed changes to the seismic design methods of
ASCE 7 that include re-formulation of seismic design factors, as well as development of
improved values of these factors (e.g., improved values of the R factor based on FEMA P-695
evaluations of existing systems). The ATC-84 Project also investigated more challenging big
picture issues, including seismic design criteria to achieve explicit functional and economic
performance goals and the associated development of risk-targeted ground motions appropriate
for functional and economic design, which is the subject of this paper. Currently, ASCE 7-10
includes MCER ground motions for life-safety design targeted to provide a 1 percent in 50-year
risk of collapse, conditioned on not more than a 10 percent probability of collapse given MCER
1

Principal, Kircher & Associates, Palo Alto, CA 94303 - cakircher@aol.com

Research Structural Engineer, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899
3
Director of Projects, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA 94065
4
Associate Director of Projects, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA 94065
2

Kircher, CA, Harris, JL, Heintz, JA, Hortacsu, A. ATC-84 Project: Improved seismic performance factors for design
of new buildings. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.

ground motions, the latter criterion based on FEMA P-695 collapse performance studies.
FEMA P-695 Collapse Performance Studies
FEMA P-695, Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors [2], a product of the
ATC-63 Project, was developed to provide a rational basis for establishing global seismic
performance factors, including the response modification coefficient, R factor, the system
overstrength factor, O, and deflection amplification factor, Cd, of new seismic-force-resisting
systems proposed for inclusion in national model building codes and standards. The FEMA P695 report effectively establishes a methodology for replacing qualitative judgments with
quantitative methods for evaluating collapse (life-safety) performance of buildings.
Recent studies have used the FEMA P-695 methods to investigate the collapse probability of
different seismic force-resisting systems (SFRSs) of ASCE 7, including the example applications
contained in FEMA P-695 Report, and the trial applications of the NIST GCR 10-917-8 report
Evaluation of the FEMA P-695 Methodology for Quantification of Building Seismic
Performance Factors [4]. These studies provide a wealth of data on the collapse performance of
a number of different SFRSs. While collapse performance was found to be different for each
system, certain common trends in performance were identified, including trends in collapse
performance with building period shown in Figure1.
35%
Bearing Wall Systems (A.7, A.9. A.15)
Building Frame Systems (B.2, B.4, B.5, B.25)

Collapse Probability

30%

Moment Frame Systems (C.1, C.5. C.7)

25%
High axial load,
ordinary (partially
grouted) RMSW

20%

Non-conforming
(SDC C design)
ordinary RCMF

15%

Collapse Safety Goal

10%
5%

BRBF (with ductile

SMF connections)

0%
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Design Period, T (seconds)

Figure 1. Plot showing the trend (and three circled outliers) in the
probability of collapse of selected bearing wall, building
frame and moment frame systems as a function of design
period (Figure 2-1, NIST GCR 12-917-20, [3]).

Figure 1 is a plot of the collapse probabilities of 33 performance groups, representing ten

different types of bearing wall, building frame and moment frame SFRSs (numbers in
parentheses refer to the SFRS designation in Table 12.2.-1 of ASCE 7). The red horizontal line
in Figure 1 denotes the collapse safety goal of 10 percent given MCER ground motions. Each
performance group contains individual archetypes models of the SFRS of interest that have a
similar configuration and design loads. The FEMA P-695 methods require each performance
group of a new (proposed) SFRS to have a collapse probability of not more than 10 percent, on
average, given risk-targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) ground motions. The 10
percent collapse safety goal was based on the observation that existing SFRSs of ASCE 7
generally conform, on average, to this collapse probability, although trends in results suggest that
there is considerable room for improvement in current values of seismic performance factors
(e.g., R factor) and related seismic design requirements.
As shown in Figure 1, there is strong trend in poor collapse performance at very short design
periods of archetype models. This trend has been noted by a number of previous research
studies, as well as by the topical study of short-period systems of the ATC-84 Project, although
observations of earthquake damage to buildings generally do not indicate increased collapse risk
for buildings with very short periods, suggesting that additional research is needed to develop
more representative archetype models of short-period buildings.
Risk-Targeted Ground Motions of the 2009 NEHRP Recommended Provisions
Prior to the 2009 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions [5], probabilistic MCE ground
motions were defined as those having a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. These
ground motions represent uniform hazard, both in terms of site location as well as response
period. However, it was recognized in the seminal seismic code development work of ATC 3-06
Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations of Buildings [6], that it really
is the probability of structural failure with resultant casualties that is of concern, and the
geographical distribution of that probability is not necessarily the same as the distribution of the
probability of exceeding some ground motion. Over the last 35 years, probabilistic methods
have advanced, including development of the FEMA P-695 Methodology, and uniform risk
concepts were incorporated into the 2009 update of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions.
The 2009 NEHRP Recommended Provisions adopted a new risk-targeted definition of
probabilistic MCER ground motions (the subscript R used to indicate ground motions that are
now based on uniform risk). The risk-targeted MCER ground motions are defined by two
essential collapse objectives. First objective answers the question - what is the acceptable
collapse risk, that is, what is the acceptable probability of collapse of a structure in 50 years?
This probability was selected to be 1 percent (in 50 years), largely for consistency with prior
MCE ground motion intensities in the Western United States. The second collapse objective
answers the question - what is the acceptable probability of collapse of a structure given the
MCER ground motions occur at the site of interest? This conditional probability was selected to
be 10 percent (given MCER ground motions) based on the findings of the FEMA P-695 collapse
evaluations of existing systems, and recognition that the 10 percent conditional probability is
consistent with NEHRP Recommended Provisions commentary which expresses the expectation

that if a structure experiences a level of ground motion 1.5 times the design level [i.e., the MCE
ground motion], the structure should have a low likelihood of collapse (p. 320, [7]).
The 1 percent in 50-year collapse risk objective is the result of integrating the hazard function
(which is different for each site) and the derivative of the hypothetical collapse fragility
defined by the 10 percent conditional probability (and an appropriate amount of collapse
uncertainty). The collapse fragility is hypothetical, since it represents what we hope to achieve
with the seismic design process, but as Figure 1 shows, collapse performance of some existing
systems may not be consistent with this collapse safety objective. The process of calculating
MCER ground motions is necessarily iterative, requiring trial values of MCER ground motions to
be evaluated by integrating fragility (which is defined by the trial value of MCER ground
motions) with the hazard function to verify the 1 percent collapse risk objective. The technical
basis of this process is more thoroughly described in Luco et al. [8] and same as that used by the
United States Geological Survey to develop the MCER design value maps of the 2009 NEHRP
Recommended Provisions (and ASCE 7-10).
The change in the definition and basis of probabilistic maximum considered earthquake ground
motions, from a 2% in 50-year hazard level to a 1% in 50-year collapse risk target was made to
improve seismic design by achieving a more uniform level of collapse prevention. However,
such improvements cannot be fully realized without also improving the values of seismic
performance factors (e.g. R factor) and related design requirements (e.g., using FEMA P-695
methods). While this may take some time to achieve, the new risk-based framework now
provides a rational basis for improving seismic code design criteria in the future.
Current Risk-Based Criteria of ASCE 7-10
ASCE 7-10 adopted the risk-targeted MCER ground motions of the 2009 NEHRP Recommended
Provisions and the commentary to ASCE 7-10 describes anticipated structural reliability
(maximum probability of failure) associated with these ground motions (Table C.1.3.1b). Table
1 provides a summary of ASCE 7-10 failure probabilities for total or partial collapse (life-safety
risk) for each of the four Risk Categories. Blank cells indicate that ASCE 7-10 does not define
seismic performance objectives for either economic loss or functional failure.
For Risk Category I and II structures s (i.e., Ie = 1.0), acceptable life-safety risk is defined by 1
percent probability of collapse in 50 years and a 10 percent conditional probability of collapse
given MCER ground motions, based on FEMA P-695. As previously described, the 1 percent in
50-year, and the conditional, 10 percent given MCER ground motions, probabilities were used by
the USGS to develop the probabilistic MCER ground motions of ASCE 7-10. Conceptually, the
conditional probabilities of 6 percent (Risk Category III structures) and 3 percent (Risk Category
IV structures) shown in Table 1 represent improved reliability that would be anticipated for
structures designed with an importance factor, Ie, greater than 1.0. Although not specifically
stated by ASCE 7-10 commentary, and not explicitly validated by analytical studies, it may be
presumed that Risk Category III and IV structures have absolute collapse probability objectives
that are less than 1 percent in 50 years (i.e., due to design with an importance factor of Ie > 1.0).

Table 1. Current Seismic Performance Objectives (Life-Safety), Ground

Motions (MCER), and Design Factors of ASCE 7-10
Design Criteria

Seismic Performance Objectives

Generic Risk
Subject

Probability
Facility Performance

Conditional
50-Year Risk
(on GMs)

Ground
Motions

Primary
Design
Factor

Risk Category I (structures posing low risk to life safety)

Life Safety
Economic
Function

No Collapse

10

MCER

Risk Category II (structures not in Risk Categories I, III or IV)

Life Safety
Economic
Function

No Collapse

10

MCER

Risk Cat. III (structures posing high risk to life safety, economics, etc.)
Life Safety
Economic
Function

No Collapse

<1

MCER

R/1.25

Risk Cat IV (essential facilities required to maintain functionality)

Life Safety
Economic
Function

No Collapse

<1

MCER

R/1.5

Hypothetical Risk Criteria Future ASCE 7 Editions

The ATC-84 Project investigated possible adaption of the risk-based concepts of FEMA P-695 to
address economic and functional risk objectives, as well as life-safety objectives, recognizing
that specific risk objectives are ultimately the responsibility of seismic code committees. In fact,
technical subcommittees of the Provision Update Committee of Building Seismic Safety Council
are using the risk-based framework of the ATC-84 project to refine the seismic performance
objectives of the 2015 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions. This section describes
the risk-based framework of the ATC-84 Project.
Risk-based design criteria necessarily combine performance objectives with seismic hazard
(ground motion intensity). For life-safety, ASCE 7-10 requires only a single (MCER) ground
motion intensity, defined probabilistically as ground motions having a 1 percent probability of
causing structural collapse in 50 years. MCER ground motions are very rare, typically having a
return period of about 2,000 years, and are, in general, not appropriate for design to meet
economic or functional risk objectives. Hence, one or possibly two other ground motion
intensity levels would likely be required to explicitly address economic and functional risk
objectives. For this purpose, the conceptual framework defines two new hypothetical levels of
earthquake intensity: (1) risk-based functional level (FLER) ground motions and (2) risk-based
service level (SLER) ground motions. Like MCER ground motions, FLER and SLER ground
motions are defined by a common 50-year risk period and appropriate conditional probabilities,
and would be calculated from the same set seismic hazard functions (by the USGS).

Table 2 provides example values of hypothetical seismic performance objectives illustrating how
the current criteria of Table 1 could be expanded to address economic and functional risk, as well
as life-safety risk, and to define FLER and SLER ground motion intensities, as well as MCER
ground motion intensity. Acceptable functional performance is shown as Green Tag, implying
that a building could have some damage, but would not be closed. Acceptable economic
performance is shown as 10% Loss Ratio, implying that a building would not sustain damage
requiring more than 10 percent of the replacement value to repair. Similar to No Collapse
being used to describe acceptable life safety performance, Green Tag and 10% Loss Ratio
are simply short-hand terms for much more detailed sets of system-specific performance criteria.
Table 2. Hypothetical Seismic Performance Objectives, Ground Motion
Intensities, and Design Factors Illustrating Proposed Risk-Based
Framework of Future Editions of ASCE 7 (from Table 4-6, NIST
GCR 12-917-20, [3])
Seismic Performance Objectives
Generic Risk
Subject

Design Criteria

Probability
Facility Performance

50-Year Risk

Conditional
(on GMs)

Ground
Motions

Primary
Design
Factor1

Risk Category I (structures posing low risk to life safety)

Life Safety
Economic
Function

No Collapse
None
None

20

MCER

RM /Ie

Risk Category II (structures not in Risk Categories I, III or IV)

Life Safety

No Collapse
Green Tag
10% Loss Ratio

1
10
50

10
10
10

MCER
FLER
Function
SLER
Economic3
Risk Cat. III (structures posing high risk to life safety, economics, etc.)

RM /Ie

Life Safety

No Collapse
Green Tag
10% Loss Ratio

0.5
7
40

5
5
5

RM /Ie

No Collapse
Green Tag
10% Loss Ratio

0.3
5
30

2.5
2.5
2.5

Function2
Economic
Life Safety
Function
Economic3

MCER
FLER
SLER
Risk Cat IV (essential facilities required to maintain functionality)
MCER
FLER
SLER

New4
RM /Ie
New4

1. Other criteria include minimum value of the base shear coefficient, Cs, stability criteria, etc.
2. In this example, protection against loss of function is assumed to be provided implicitly by
response limits of Life Safety criteria for MCER ground motions (Risk Category II) by
economic loss criteria for SLER ground motions (Risk Category III).
3. In this example, protection against unacceptable economic loss is assumed to be provided
implicitly by response limits of Life Safety criteria for MCER ground motions (for Risk
Cat. II), and by loss of function criteria for FLER ground motions (for Risk Cat. IV).
4. New design factors would likely need to be developed to meet functional and economic
risk objectives (e.g., current story drift limits of Table 12.12-1 of ASCE 7-10 do not
provide adequate damage control to meet functional and/or economic loss objectives).

It is important to note the interdependency of 50-year risk and conditional probabilities, and
ground motion intensity (including the importance factor). Specifying both the 50-year risk
probability (e.g., 1 percent probability of collapse in 50 years) and the conditional probability
(e.g., 10 percent probability of collapse given MCER ground motions) defines a specific ground
motion intensity (e.g., MCER ground motions, Ie = 1.0), in this case for Risk Category II
structures. The more stringent life-safety risk objectives of Risk Category III and IV structures
are achieved by increasing design forces by the value of the Ie factor, where the value of Ie factor
is selected on the basis of the specified values of the absolute collapse probability and the
conditional collapse probability for these risk categories.
In Table 2, FLER and SLER ground motion are based on the same conditional probability of 10
percent as that of MCER ground motions for Risk Category II structures (i.e., the most common
risk category). Unlike the 1 percent in 50-year collapse risk of MCER ground motions, however,
FLER ground motions are based on 10 percent in 50-year risk of loss of function, and SLER
ground motions are based on a 50 percent in 50-year risk of economic loss. That is, the
hypothetical values of 50-year risk shown in Table 2 establish a risk-based hierarchy; collapse
should be very unlikely (1 percent probability), loss of function should be unlikely (10 percent
probability), but modest economic loss could be likely and still be acceptable (50 percent
probability of 10 percent economic loss).
Although risk objectives are defined for each of the three risk categories for Risk Category II
structure, Table 2 requires explicit design for life safety only, assuming that economic and
functional objectives would be met implicitly (i.e., single-level design approach, like that of
ASCE 7-10). In contrast, Table 2 requires consideration of dual risk objectives for design of
Risk Category III and Risk Category IV structures. In this example, Risk Category III structures
would be designed for the more critical of life-safety and economic loss objectives (to avoid
adverse economic impacts as well as structure collapse); and Risk Category IV structures would
be designed for the more critical of life-safety and functional loss objectives (to maintain
functionality of critical facilities as well as to avoid structure collapse). Again, the hypothetical
criteria of Table 2 are intended solely to illustrate risk-based concepts, and future code criteria
could be quite different.
Table 2 includes a column listing the primary design factor that relates the risk-based
performance objectives to applicable design requirements of seismic codes. In this example, the
primary design factor for life-safety design is shown as the RM factor (divided by the importance
factor, Ie), where the RM factor would be developed by FEMA P-695 collapse evaluations. Note,
the symbol, RM, implies a new definition of the R factor that applies directly to MCER ground
motions, rather design ground motions (e.g., RM = 1.5 x R). FEMA P-695 provides a rational
basis to define seismic performance factors (e.g., RM factor) and other factors that when properly
implemented with ASCE 7-10 design requirements are expected to achieve acceptable life-safety
risk. At this time, there is no equivalent methodology that addresses economic and functional
risk, and such methodologies would need to be developed to implement the risk-based design to
avoid unacceptable functional or economic loss.
For functional and economic objectives, Table 2 shows New as the primary design parameter
to indicate that controlling damage requires will require new design factors and methods,

including new drift-related design criteria. FEMA P-58 report Seismic Performance Assessment
of Buildings, Volume 1 - Methodology [9] and the HAZUS Earthquake Model Technical Manual
[10] are possible resources for developing a rational design basis to meet functional and
economic objectives. For example, the ATC-63-2/3 project used the Performance Assessment
Calculation Tool (PACT) of FEMA P-58 to investigate functional and economic losses of
representative buildings [11].
As shown in Table 2, the same three hypothetical sets of ground motions (MCER, FLER and
SLER ground motions) are listed for possible use with each risk category. While ground motions
are the same, design values vary by risk category in accordance with the value of the importance
factor, Ie, as required to meet 50-year risk and conditional probabilities. Example values of 1second ground motions are shown in Table 3 for three 50-year risk probabilities (i.e., 1 percent,
10 percent and 50 percent of 50-year risk). Ground motions are provided for each of 14 cities
located in high seismic areas and/or densely populated regions of the continental United States.
In all cases, ground motion values are based on a conditional probability of 10 percent (i.e., Risk
Category II structures) and are adjusted to represent Site Class D conditions. Ground motions
corresponding to a 1 percent in 50-year risk are the same as the probabilistic MCER ground
motions of ASCE 7-10. The other two risk levels illustrate the reduction in ground motion
spectral acceleration and return period with increase in 50-year risk probability.
Table 3.

Example Values of 1-Second SLER and FLER Ground Motions and ASCE
7-10 Values of Short-Period Probabilistic MCER Ground Motions for
Selected United States Cities Assuming Site Class D Conditions based on
a Conditional Risk Probability of 10 Percent (from Table 4-8, NIST GCR
12-917-20 [3] , values developed by N. Luco of the USGS)

City
(Site Location)
Los Angeles
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
Oakland
Sacramento
Seattle
Portland
Salt Lake City
St. Louis
Memphis
Charleston
Chicago
New York

MCER (1%-50 yrs)

SA (g)
2.30
2.99
1.29
1.90
2.67
0.79
1.29
1.08
1.62
0.65
1.15
1.26
0.23
0.47

RP (yrs)
1,861
1,999
1,894
2,112
2,015
2,393
1,979
1,897
1,826
1,937
1,842
1,989
2,308
2,274

FLER (10%-50yrs)
SA (g)
0.93
1.19
0.50
0.91
1.13
0.40
0.64
0.44
0.50
0.16
0.28
0.25
0.05
0.08

RP (yrs)
195
178
237
175
172
185
189
207
250
239
284
294
225
250

SLER (50%-50yrs)
SA (g)
0.29
0.37
0.17
0.31
0.35
0.16
0.20
0.10
0.09
0.026
0.032
0.014
0.008
0.011

RP (yrs)
33
35
31
33
34
29
33
39
38
40
41
48
40
42

Of particular note in Table 3 is the significant reduction in SLER ground motions (based on 50
percent risk of 10 percent economic loss) and, to a lesser degree, FLER ground motions (based on
10 percent risk of loss of function) for sites of low and moderate seismicity in the central and
eastern United States (CEUS). Figure 2 illustrates this point by comparing MCER, FLER and

SLER ground motion response spectra for a western United States (WUS) site, San Diego, and a
CEUS site, Memphis, which have comparable MCER ground motions. As shown in Figure 2, the
SLER ground motions and, to a lesser degree, the FLER ground motions of the Memphis site are
significantly lower than those of the San Diego site, effectively eliminating the need for designs
to meet economic and possibly functional objectives. The trend in lower values of SLER and
FLER ground motions in the CEUS reflects the lower frequency of occurrence of potentially
damaging ground motions at CEUS sites and reduced risk of economic and functional loss.
1.4
MCE - San Diego
FLE - San Diego

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.2

SLE - San Diego

MCE - Memphis

1.0

FLE - Memphis
SLE - Memphis

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5
Period (seconds)

2.0

2.5

3.0

Figure 2. Plot of example MCER, FLER and SLER ground motion response
spectra for sites in San Diego and Memphis illustrating the relative
differences in risk-based ground motions for WUS and CEUS sites.
Summary and Conclusion
This paper describes risk-based design concepts for development of future seismic codes. These
concepts are based on quantitative descriptions of performance that are inherently probabilistic in
nature, defining risk in terms of a acceptably small probability of failure in a given period of time
(e.g., 1 percent probability of collapse in 50 years), and by defining an associated acceptably
small probability of failure given the ground motion intensity used as the basis for design (e.g.,
10 percent probability of collapse given MCER ground motions). The paper discusses how the
existing collapse risk-based concepts of FEMA P-695 could be adapted to provide a rational
basis for seismic design of other risks including economic and functional losses.
The risk-based technology is inherently complex, but the end product would be simply improved
values of the design ground motions and design parameters (e.g., R factor) that better achieve
specific seismic performance objectives. The design process would not be substantially affected.
That is, values of design base shear, drift limits, may change as necessary to meet specified

performance objectives, but the implementation of these parameters by the design practitioner
would remain essentially unchanged. In this sense, the risk-based technology is intended
primarily as a tool for use by seismic code committees to improve seismic regulations, but would
also provide the design practitioner with requisite seismic risk information when discussing
design options with building owners and other stakeholders.
Acknowledgements
Work forming the basis of this paper was performed by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture (a
partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research
in Earthquake Engineering), under Contract SB134107CQ0019, Earthquake Structural and
Engineering Research, National Institute of Standards and Technology. The authors are solely
responsible for the accuracy of statements or interpretations contained in this publication.
References
1. ASCE, 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard,
ASCE/SEI 7-10, Amer. Soc. of Civil Engineers, Washington, D.C.
2. FEMA, 2009b. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, FEMA P-695, prepared by
the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
3. NIST, 2012. Tentative Framework for Development of Advanced Seismic Design Criteria for New
Buildings, NIST GCR 12-917-20, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
4. NIST, 2010. Evaluation of the FEMA P-695 Methodology for Quantification of Building Seismic
Performance Factors, NIST GCR 10-917-8, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
5. FEMA, 2009a. NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures,
FEMA P-750, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Wash., D.C.
6. ATC, 1978. Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, ATC 306, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
7. FEMA, 2003b. NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures,
Part 2: Commentary, FEMA 450-2, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
8. Luco, N., B. R. Ellingwood, R. O. Hamburger, J. D. Hooper, J. K. Kimball and C. A. Kircher, 2007.
Risk-Targeted versus Current Seismic Design Maps for the Conterminous United States,
Proceedings, Proceedings of the SEAOC 76th Annual Convention, Structural Engineers Association
of California, Sacramento, CA.
9. FEMA, 2012. Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 1- Methodology, FEMA P-581, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.
10. FEMA, 2003a. HAZUS-MH MR4, Earthquake Model Technical Manual. Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, D.C.
11. FEMA, 2013. Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 5 Evaluation of Seismic
Performance Assessment Methodologies and Investigation of Building Seismic Performance, FEMA
P-58-5, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.