Basic Concepts: Performance-based

Earthquake Engineering
Seismic Performance

What are our goals?

A design framework for expressing performance goals

Performance vs. Engineering Response parameters

Nonlinear response - Is it desirable feature or a problem to overcome?

Some engineering approaches to improve performance

Quantifying performance

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

Performance Expectations

Current codes - What are their stated
objectives?

Ideal situation - A simple limit states
framework for design.

Current directions - Vision 2000
(SEAOC), SAC LRFD approach, etc.

Future directions - reliability based

approaches, PEER performance-based

evaluation strategy
References

UC Regents

1-1

Model codes
Vision 2000
FEMA 273/356
FEMA 350-353

PEER PBEE
FEMA PBEE

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-2

References: Performance-Based Design Codes

Hamburger, R.O., Performance-Based Analysis and Design

Procedure for Moment Resisting Steel Frames, Background

Document, SAC Steel Project, Sept. 1998.
SEAOC, Vision 2000: Performance Based Seismic Engineering of
Buildings, San Francisco, April 1995.
Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel MomentFrame Buildings, FEMA 350, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington DC, July 2000
FEMA, Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Vol. 1:
Guidelines, FEMA 356, Washington DC, 2002 (formerly FEMA 273).
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Performance-based
Seismic Design of Buildings: An Action Plan , U.C., Berkeley, 1995.
FEMA/EERI, Action Plan for Performance -Based Seismic Design,
FEMA 349, Washington DC, 2000.
ATC, Development of Performance-based Earthquake Design
Guidelines, ATC-58, Redwood City, 2002.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-3

Current Model Codes

CBC, IBC and UBC

Stated purpose:

Provide minimum provisions

for design and construction of

structures to resist effects of
seismic ground motions

to safeguard against major
structural failures and loss of
life, not to limit damage or
maintain function.

(UBC, 1997 ed., Section 1626)

Structurally undamaged building astride fault

Shear failures in short captive columns

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-4

SEAOC Blue Book Recommendations

Commentary states:

Three
Tiers

Earthquake
Intensity

F requency of
Occurrence

Desired
Performance

Minor

Several times
during service
life

No damage to
structure or
nonstructural
contents

Moderate

One or more
times during
service live

Limited damage to
nonstructural
components and
no significant
damage to
structure

Major
(Catastrophic)

Rare and
unusual event
as large as any
experienced in
vicinity of site.

No collapse of
structure or other
damage that
would create a life
safety hazard.

(10%
exceedence
in 50 years)

(After: Lateral Force Recommendations and Commentary, SEAOC.)

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-5

Current code goals are ambiguous

Definitions are nonEa rthquake
I ntensity

Fre que ncy of

Occurre nce

Desired
Performa nce

Minor

Several times
during service
life

Moderate

One or more
times during
service live

Major
(Catastrophic)
(10%
exceedence
in 50 years)

Rare and
unusual event
as large as any
experienced in
vicinity of site.

No damage to
structure or
nonstructural
contents
Limited damage to
nonstructural
components and
no significant
damage to
structure
No collapse of
structure or other
damage that
would create a life
safety hazard.

(After: Lateral Force Recommendations and Commentary, SEAOC.)

quantitative (e.g.,
damage, one
times,
etc.)

Three tiers, but
 Only one design earthquake
 Provisions not specifically
associated with any particular
performance level.

Leads to wide variation in
interpretation and
performance.
limited

or more

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-6

Vision 2000 - Trends toward

Performance-Based Seismic Engineering
of Buildings
Seminal Document - some powerful new concepts

The definitions of performance states developed are:

 incorporated in the appendices of the SEAOC Recommended
Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary
 Refined by other groups in later documents

Focuses on:
 defining what constitutes a frequent, rare or very rare
earthquake, and
 describing in detail what are the performance states that one
wants for different types of events and structures.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-7

Vision 2000 - Basic Approach

Relationship developed
between:

Performance objective

Type of facility

Probability of earthquake

and

Response parameters related

to each performance
objective.

Specific demand parameters

identified, and

Initial acceptance criteria are

Performance objective
increases (i.e., less damage):

for a high probability earthquake

(one that may occur several times

during the life of a structure), or
for an important structure or
dangerous occupancy (i.e., a
hospital or dynamite plant)

Conversely, more damage is

acceptable:

for a rare, severe earthquake,

for less critical or temporary
facilities.

established.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-8

Vision 2000 - Performance States

Fully operational Continuous

service. Negligible structural
and non-structural damage.

Operational Most
operations and functions can resume
immediately. Structure safe for occupancy.

Life Safe

Near Collapse

Essential operations protected, non-essential

operations disrupted. Repair required to restore
some non-essential services. Damage is light.
Damage is moderate, but structure remains
stable. Selected building systems, features or
contents may be protected from damage. Life
safety is generally protected. Building may be
evacuated following earthquake. Repair possible,
but may be economically impractical.
Damage severe, but structural collapse
prevented. Non-structural elements may fall.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-9

Occupancy or Use of Building Considered

Three occupancy types considered in Vision
2000.

Safety Critical Facilities:

Large quantities of hazardous materials (toxins, radioactive

materials, explosives) with significant external effects of damage to

building.

Essential/Hazardous Facilities

Critical post-earthquake facilities (hospitals, communications

centers, police, fire stations, etc.)

Hazardous materials with limited impact outside of immediate
vicinity of building. (Refineries, etc.)

Basic Facilities

One can argue with

or adapt these definitions.

All other structures.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-10

Quantitative Indexing of Earthquake

The earthquake intensity is now described quantitatively
in probabilistic terms for Vision 2000.
Earthquake
Claassification

Recurrance Interval

Probability of Occurance
50% in 30 years

Frequent

43 years

Occasional

72 years

50% in 50 years

Rare

475 years

10% in 50 years

Very Rare

970 years*

10% in 100 years

* need not exceed mean + 1 standard deviation

for the maximum deterministic event

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-11

Schematic Relation Between Performance

Objective and Earthquake Probability
Earthquake
Probability

Performance Objective
Operational
Life Safe

Fully
Operational

Frequent
Occasional
Rare
Very Rare

Ess

Saf
e

ent

ty C

ial/
Haz

Ba s
i
ard

riti
ca l
F

cF

ous

Near Collapse

Unacceptable
Performance

ac i
litie
s

Fac
iliti
es

aci
li ti
es

adapted from Vision 2000, SEAOC

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-12

Comments on Relationship

Thus, a building
Earthquake
Probability

Fully
Operational

Performance Objective
Operational
Life Safe

Frequent

Ess
e

Occasional
Rare

Sa
fety

ntia
l /Ha

Cr i
ti

Very Rare

cal
F

Ba
si c
zar
dou
s

aci

Fac
il

Near Collapse

Unacceptable
Performance
itie
s

Fa c
ilitie

litie
s
adapted from Vision 2000, SEAOC

would be expected to
suffer more damage if
it were subjected to a
more severe, less
likely earthquake.
A more critical
building would be
expected to have less
damage for the same
earthquake
probability.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-13

Comments on Approach.
A basic structure would be expected to:
have essentially no damage if subjected to an
earthquake with a 30% probability of occurrence
in 30 years, whereas it would be
be near collapse if subjected to an event with a
10% probability within 100 years.

One can substitute more appropriate numbers for a

particular project, or upgrade the characterization of
the structure (to an essential facility, for instance,
where the structure would be designed to remain
life safe during the very rare event.)
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-14

Some More Comments

This method removes some of the ambiguity from
current recommendations.

Geotechnical engineers (seismologists and structural

engineers) are able to and do regularly develop

estimates of peak ground motion parameters
(acceleration, velocity, etc.), elastic response spectrum
and even time histories corresponding to:
x% probability of occurrence in y years
We will look at how this is done later in the course.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-15

Quantification of Earthquake Hazard

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-16

Acceptance Criteria

Vision 2000 introduces engineering response

parameters to consider (drift, stress, plastic

hinge rotation angle, acceleration, etc.) and
what limits are acceptable for a particular
performance objective.

These criteria were for the most part based on
consensus, rather than on test data or
quantitative field observation.
For example, ...
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-17

Drift Limits in Vision 2000

NEW
Permissible Ma ximum
Drift, %

Permissible Pe rma ne nt
D rift, %

Fully Ope ra tiona l

0.2

ne gligible

Ope ra tiona l

0.5

ne gligible

Life S a fe

1.5

0 .5

Ne a r C olla pse

2.5

2 .5

After, Vision 2000, SEAOC

Vision 2000 does not describe acceptable analysis methods. So,

how do we calculate the maximum drift (or maximum permanent
drift) and prove we satisfy these criteria?
Why are these criteria selected? Will a building at 2.6% drift
collapse? Can all buildings with drifts of 0.4% remain operational?

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-18

Damage to Steel Moment Frames

Damage Description
Fully Operational Negligible
Operational Minor local yielding at a few places. No
observable fractures. Minor buckling or
observable permanent distortion of
members.
Life Safe Hinges form. Local buckling of some
beam elements. Severe joint distortion.
Isolated connection failures. A few
elements may experience fracture.

Big jump

Near Collapse Extensive distortion of beams and

column panels. Many fractures in
connections.

May need to add intermediate limit state related to reparability where

damage is limited to make repair quick and/or economically feasible.
Since damage difficult to quantify and economics issues are ownersensitive, these intermediate states are difficult to incorporate in a code.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-19

Extending the Vision 2000 approach

The Vision 2000 approach does not suggest analytical

approaches nor methods to assure reliability of structure.

Intermediate limit states difficult to quantify.

The Vision 2000 is an uncoupled approach. That is, we end up

with a deterministic procedure based on a probabilistically

determined spectrum. Load and resistance factors still remain
to be determined to provide desired reliability.
Identification of limit states by subjective name (continued
operation) may lead to legal problems if goal is not realized
following an earthquake. Some codes use a letter system (i.e.,
performance objective A, B, C, etc.). Probabilistic specification
of response parameters may be better.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-20

10

Several Major Advances in FEMA-273/356

Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings

Four Performance Goals:

Collapse Prevention, Life Safe, Continued Occupancy, Operational

National Seismic Hazard Maps developed by USGS

Spectral ordinants (5% damping) for

different probabilities of occurrence and

soil conditions at T= 0.2sec and T=1sec.

Sa

SDS

SD1/T

Displacement-Based Approach with subjective factors to

assess uncertainty
d = C C C C C S

Defines Nonlinear Dynamic and Static Pushover methods
roof

delastic

in addition to conventional elastic methods

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-21

Severity of Damage

Joes

Joes

Joes
Beer!
Food!

Operational

0%

Beer!
Food!

Immediate
Occupancy

Beer!
Food!

Life
Safety

Damage

Collapse
Prevention
99%
(R. Hamburger)

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-22

11

Structural/Nonstructural/Element Criteria

From FEMA 356

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-23

Damage related to demand parameters

Beer!
Food!

Lateral Resistance

Member Capacity

Joes

Joes

Beer!
Food!

Force

Deformation

Joes
Beer!
Food!

Structural Displacement

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-24

12

Relate Probabilities of Exceedence to

Damage States
Occasional
(72 years)

Very Rare
(2500 years)

Joes

Beer!
Food!

Beer!
Food!

Frequent
(25 years)

Rare

(500 years)

10

Joes

0.1

Beer!
Food!

0.01

0.001

0.1

0.01

0.0001

Pea k Ground Acceleration - g

Joes

Annual Probability of Exceedance

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-25

Some limitations of FEMA 356

While ground motion is defined in probabilistic terms,

uncertainty and randomness not considered related to:

structural demands, and

capacities.

Evaluation is made on a member by member basisthe
failure of a few elements might not lead to the failure of
the system.

Performance goals are defined in absolute, but
subjective terms. Structure is either life safe or it is not.
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-26

13

Extending the FEMA 356 concept

Basic Limit States Design Format

Common format in Europe and in other industries.

Explicit list of performance goals, criteria, and usually, a
acceptable probability of reaching or exceeding the goal;

Direct relation between goal and what engineering
demand parameter is checked (and acceptance criteria).

Explicit recognition and consideration of randomness and
uncertainty (e.g., LRFD format implementation)
Limit State

Performance Objective

Name

Goal you are trying to

achieve

Probability of
Evaluation Criteria for
Exceeding
Engineering Parameters Performance Criteria
Response
parameter(s) measured
and acceptance criteria

x 1 % in y 1 years

Many

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-27

For each limit state:

Need to recognize and
manage randomness and
uncertainty.

Not adequate to say

Dmedian < Cmedian
Need probability of failure

Frequency of Occurrence

Dmedian

Failure
Probability

less than a specified

amount.

X % probability in y years (often, y

is the assumed service life)
In LRFD format

Cmedian

Demand

Capacity

Response Parameter

Cmedian
Dmedian

>

For a given
probability of failure
in y years

Dmedian < Cmedian

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-28

14

Large randomness and uncertainty in

earthquake-resistant design

Randomness in both demand and capacity.

Earthquake motions inherently random. Even with increased knowledge there will
be large randomness in excitation and response.

Structural behavior effected by random variations in material properties,
deterioration and construction quality. Capacity is also affected by loading history
and duration which are influenced by randomness of excitation.

Uncertainty in demand has components related to:

Seismology (what earthquake intensity is expected during a given interval of time) various methods available to improve estimates

Ground motion characteristics (what response spectrum corresponds to an
earthquake motion corresponding to a given intensity and soil conditions)

Structural characteristics (what is the structures actual mass, stiffness, strength,
damping, foundation condition, etc.?)

Modeling (have we accurately modeled the structures: completeness, etc.)

Structural Analysis Method (Elastic, Inelastic; dynamic, static?)

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-29

Uncertainty and randomness in capacity

In the past, strength was
generally primary criterion
related to capacity

Now, focus is increasingly on

strain, deformation and energy
dissipation (fatigue) capacities.

From Marc Eberhard, UW

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-30

15

Capacity estimates may be a problem

Even
Slabforcontributions
flexural strength, there are difficulties:
(composite action)




Connections (panel zone deformations, welds, bar pull out, etc.)

Shear (in members, connections and structural walls)

Non-compliant or marginally ductile elements (existing structures).

Inconsistent development of capacity equations

In complete tests or inadequate documentation

Non-structural components (cladding and other architectural

features may actually behave like structural elements, or alter the
behavior of structural elements)

Both strength & deformation capacity sensitive to:




Loading history (low-cycle fatigue)
Rate of loading effects (effects on strength and deformability)
Ultimately, seismic capacity is related to dynamic aspects of
response of a complete structural system

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-31

Probabilistic PBE Approaches

In general one would want to state the problem as:

w% chance of exceeding performance objective in y

years (life of structure)
This is complex, computationally intensive reliability
problem.

Solve rigorously as a reliability problem.

Results tend to be dominated by uncertainty in ground
motions

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-32

16

Seismic Hazard and Performance Level

Now more common to uncouple the problem, as:

x% chance of exceeding performance level for an earthquake

with an z% probability of occurrence in y years

Treat ground motion and structure separately:

Probabilistic response spectrum used with deterministic conservative selection of
seismic hazard for design.

Develop calibrated load and resistance factors using reliability analysis or Monte Carlo
simulation to have appropriate overall reliability.

Thus, Performance Objective has three parts:





Definition of Performance Level

Statement of associated Seismic Hazard
Statement of desired confidence

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-33

Significance of Confidence Level

Now, engineer can state:

We have a high, moderate, or low confidence that the

performance objective can be met for an earthquake
with a x% probability of occurring in y years
We would say, for instance: there is a 90% (10%)
confidence that a structure will remain stable in earthquakes having a median probability of exceedence of 2% in
50 years.
Powerful evaluation tool, and one that is understandable by
clients and other professionals
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-34

17

FEMA/SAC Steel Project

Builds on FEMA 273/356, but covers new & existing buildings

Two Performance Objectives

Continued Occupancy - damage permitted, so long as it does not reduce future
confidence in buildings ability to achieved performance objectives

Collapse Prevention - local plastic rotations, global instability, avoid premature failure
modes

NEHRP seismic hazard data: 50%, 10% and 2% in 50 years

Consistent system-level reliability approach used. Treats
randomness and uncertainty to focus on confidence of
achieving performance goal during specified period.

Designer/owner can select confidence level.

Rational load, resistance and analysis bias factors

developed for various

forms of uncertainties.

Extensive Monte Carlo simulation used.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-35

Performance-based Design: SAC Approach

LRFD-type format often utilized

Demand
uncertainty divided into several parts;

Ground motion (randomness and uncertainty treated using probabilistically-based
response spectrum and load factors corresponding to geographical location and
soil conditions),

Structural response -- Even for a family of ground motions with similar
characteristics, structural response will have large variations.

Analysis method - ESP, EDP, NSP, NDP

Modeling --Variations in mechanical and dynamic characteristics will make these
uncertainties in response demand larger.

Seismic capacity related to three main components:

Element level effects (stress, plastic hinge rotations)

Global behavior (drifts, static and dynamic instability)

Brittle failure modes (premature column fracture or buckling)

See: R. Hamburger, Performance-Based Analysis and Design Procedure

for Moment-Resisting Steel Frames, SAC Background Report

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-36

18

SAC Approach

Basic approach

1 2 3 ... n D 12 3 .. .n C

or, combining terms and adding confidence level:

con D C

Multi-level design approach

 Standard
default code approach with specified demand, capacity
and confidence values

90% confidence for global instability response parameters

50% confidence for local stability and continued occupancy

 Explicit
methods allowing nonlinear analysis and testing to
develop demand and capacity values, or to specify different
target confidence levels

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-37

SAC Approach for New Buildings

1. Select performance objective, confidence levels and earthquake hazard,
e.g. Collapse Prevention, 90% confidence and 2% in 50 year hazard.
2. Determine design seismic earthquake for hazard, e.g. spectral displacement
at the fundamental periods of the building, time histories...
3. Develop a mathematical model of the building.
4. Analyze mathematical model to determine the values of the key design
parameters: maximum and permanent inter-story drift; column load.
5. Apply demand and bias factors to the computed response parameter values
to compensate for the various biases and uncertainties inherent in the
predictive methodology as well as the randomness inherent in seismic
structural response . Apply additional demand factor to achieve desired
confidence level.
6. Compare the factored demand against the factored acceptance criteria value
for the response parameter.

con D C

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-38

19

Fragility curves describe reliability of structure

Minor
Damage
(Park&Ang)

0.9

Dcol = 60", ar = 6, Pr = 0.2

Spalling

0.8

Significant
Damage
(Park&Ang)

0.7

Probability

0.6

0.5
Spalling
Park Ang > 0.4
Park Ang > 1.0
Fatigue Index> 0.5
Fatigue Index> 1.0

0.4

0.3

Fatigue
Failure

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1
Sa/SaARS

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-39

Rapid Evolution of Performance-oriented

Codes and Guidelines expected.

These PBEE guidelines (FEMA 273, SAC, etc.) are being

routinely used for many new and existing buildings.

These are only first steps in developing Performance

Based Codes. Much work is needed to evaluate and

validate methodologies. Lots of changes will be made in
the next few years.

Improved tools needed for analysis and design.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-40

20

Structural Engineering


Tools Improve
Greater demands for quantitative
design and evaluation methods
that realistically and explicitly
account for performance
Improving analysis tools

performance

Capacity
Design
Improved earthquake characterization

Probability

Hazard
Model

Analysis
Engine

 Improving characterization of

Improved proportioning strategies

Sd
Improving control of uncertainties

Demand
Capacity

Probability

Reliability
Model

Improved assessment of losses

Loss
Models

Damage
Models

Fails

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-41

Drift is not ... performance

Engineers must use quantitative engineering demand

parameters (such as drift, plastic rotation, stress) as a

measure of performance.
These are generally not performance indices of interest
to an owner who is concerned about repair cost, loss of
revenue, injuries to occupants, down time, etc.
Many intermediate performance objectives related to
reparable damage or minimization of economic or social
impacts.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-42

21

Structural Engineering


Tools Improve
Greater demands for quantitative
design and evaluation methods
that realistically and explicitly
account for performance
Improving analysis tools

performance

Capacity
Design
Improved earthquake characterization

Probability

Hazard
Model

Analysis
Engine

 Improving characterization of

Improved proportioning strategies

Sd
Improving control of uncertainties

Demand
Capacity

Probability

Reliability
Model

Improved assessment of losses

Loss
Models

Damage
Models

Fails

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-43

Economic, social & operational impacts

In general, we need to consider economic and related

impacts as well. Initial costs need to be compared with

life cycle costs to determine the design that performs
best. Evaluation of economic costs also depend on who
pays for damage (owner, insurance, government).

Perspective varies
*

*
*

Developer
Insurance company
Engineer

* Large institutional owner

* Government decision makers

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-44

22

Performance-Based Design Approaches

Capacity
Design

Damage
Models
Analysis
Engine

Loss
Models

Probability

Demand
Capacity

Reliability
Model

Fails?

Probability

Hazard
Model

Sd

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-45

PEER Probability Framework Equation

v (DV ) = G DV DM | dG DM EDP | dG EDP IM | d ( IM )
Performance (Loss) Models and Simulation

Impact

Hazard

IM Intensity Measure
EDP Implementation
Engineering DemandThrough
Parameter
DM Damage Measure
LRFD-like Format:
DV Decision Variable

D|Sa D

C C

(DV) Probabilistic Description

of Decision Variable
P
(e.g.,

Saf0
Mean Annual Probability $

Loss > 50% Replacement Cost)

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-46

23

FUTURE of PBEE

FEMA is funding a new project to implement a PBEE

framework for all structural systems, not just retrofit or

steel ATC-58 project
PBEE is currently being implemented on many
conventional and important structures
Answers need for more reliable, quantitative information
on performance, utilizing modern capabilities for
characterizing seismic hazard, simulating seismic
response, and assessing impact of response on owner
and society
Validation and refinement needed
How do we design a structure to attain our objectives
reliably?
NEXT.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2003

UC Regents

2-47

24