Achieving acceptable performance levels in the

seismic design of buildings

S.R. Uma

GNS Science Report 2012/24

July 2012
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE

Uma, S.R., 2012. Achieving acceptable performance levels in the seismic

design of buildings, GNS Science Report 2012/24. 21 p.

S.R. Uma, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt

© Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited, 2012

ISSN 1177-2425
ISBN 978-1-972192-07-8

i
 2012

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................. III
KEYWORDS ........................................................................................................................... III
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Performance-based approach........................................................................... 1
1.2 Building Regulatory System .............................................................................. 2
2.0 PERFORMANCE –BASED EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (PBEE): CURRENT
STATE OF PRACTICE ................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Performance Levels .......................................................................................... 3
2.2 Tolerable Impact Levels (New Zealand Building Code) .................................... 4
2.3 Limitations in First Generation PBEE Methods ................................................. 6
3.0 DESIGN STANDARDS ................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Acceptable Solutions and Alternative Solutions ................................................ 7
3.2 Relationship between Acceptable Solutions and the Performance
Requirements .................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Limit States of Design ....................................................................................... 8
3.3.1 Consideration of sources of uncertainty ................................................ 9
4.0 FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES .......................................... 10
4.1 Barriers to Performance-based Design ........................................................... 10
5.0 TOWARDS ACHIEVING TOLERABLE PERFORMANCE LEVELS ......................... 11
5.1 Advanced Methods of Reliability Analyses ..................................................... 11
5.2 FEMA 349 ....................................................................................................... 12
5.3 ATC 58 ............................................................................................................ 12
6.0 PROPOSED MEASURES TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN IN
NEW ZEALAND ......................................................................................................... 13
6.1 Communication of Earthquake Risk (ATC 58-1) ............................................. 14
6.2 Methodology Proposed by ATC 58 ................................................................. 14
6.2.1 Stages of development ....................................................................... 15
7.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 17
8.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... 17
9.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 17

FIGURES
Figure 1 Performance system model (PMS) .................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Seismic performance design objective matrix as per SEAOC Vision 2000 [1995] ............................. 4
Figure 3 Typical load-deformation curve .......................................................................................................... 9

TABLES
Table 1 Tolerable impact levels related to building importance level and earthquake intensity ...................... 5
Table 2 Categories of consequences .............................................................................................................. 5
Table 3 Key structural performance ................................................................................................................ 6
Table 4 Action plans to develop and implement performance-based seismic design ................................... 12
Table 5 Proposed tasks for conducting seismic assessment of NZ building types ....................................... 16

GNS Science Report 2012/24 ii

 2012

ABSTRACT

Failures of structures during earthquakes, especially recent events, provide lessons to the
structural engineering profession. In addition, they stimulate engineering professionals to
revisit existing design provisions and to make improvements wherever necessary. More
importantly, uncertainties associated with the occurrence of natural hazards, structural
capacity and ability of existing buildings to withstand future hazards make the profession
more challenging. A natural consequence of uncertainty is risk, and so a primary purpose of
the structural engineering profession is to manage that risk and to maintain the safety of
buildings and other facilities at socially acceptable levels.

A well-established framework includes various components such as: (i) a building regulatory
system to express the public’s expectations in terms performance and cost; (ii) supporting
documents such as design standards that include loading and material standards,
prescriptions of magnitudes of forces for design, and methods of analyses to determine
resistance.

The New Zealand Building Code adopts a performance-based approach and sets the
objectives and goals related to functional and performance requirements of a building
structure, including construction, demolition and alteration work. References are made to
design standards and guidelines which include acceptable solutions and criteria for the
design. However, the current design procedures are not able to fully address the
performance expectation of the client or building owner in terms of acceptable levels of
performance or acceptable levels of loss.

This report discusses the present status of the performance-based approach adopted in New
Zealand design practices, identifies gaps in implementing performance-based design, and
the way forward to achieve tolerable impact levels in buildings under earthquake loading.

KEYWORDS

Seismic performance design objectives; Performance levels; New Zealand design practice;
Reliability; Risk-based design.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 iii

 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In New Zealand the building industry introduced a performance-based approach in the early
1990s. The Building Act 1991 set out a new legislative framework for building controls in
New Zealand. It required design in accordance with the Building Regulations and the
Building Code in a performance-based structure. A more stringent Building Act was framed
in 2004 which essentially adopted 1991 performance-based structure. The Building
Regulations 1992 are those regulations called up by the Building Act 2004. Regulators are
responsible to the public and are empowered to represent public interest and expectations
for how buildings and facilities are expected to perform. The First Schedule to the Building
Regulations is known as the New Zealand Building Code. In accordance with the Building
Act, the Building Code sets the objectives and goals related to functional and performance
requirements of a building structure including construction, demolition and alteration work.
References are made to Standards which describe methods to be used to demonstrate the
performance outcomes of the structure.

The objectives of the report include: (i) discussion on the performance-based approach used
in the current New Zealand Building Code; (ii) identification of current gaps in knowledge and
practices; and (iii) review of existing methodologies to improve performance-based goals in
design practices.

1.1 Performance-based approach

Performance-based approaches in building codes deal with goals and objectives to be

achieved. The goals and objectives can be related to building performance levels expressed
in terms of life-safety, functionality and amenity of the building. These performance levels
can be expressed in terms of structural damage and/or non-structural damage, or in terms of
loss, casualties and downtime that are more meaningful to the client or stakeholders. Prior to
the performance-based codes, design practice followed prescriptive codes that gave
definitive solutions in terms of material, design and construction methods without stating
goals and objectives. A few advantages of codes following the performance-based approach
are highlighted below:

(i) New technologies can be adopted as long as they are able to demonstrate their
performance in compliance with the stated goals and objectives.
(ii) Innovative approaches are encouraged to find optimum ways to meet performance
criteria, including the cost.
(iii) The approach is transparent in clearly stating the goals and objectives in terms of
performance to be achieved. With the prescriptive approach, in contrast, there are no
clearly stated performance achievements related to the design procedures suggested

The prescriptive approach, even though less scientific, reflects practices that have
demonstrated acceptable performance over time. It should be noted that a performance-
based approach requires efforts to demonstrate the ability of the products and services to
meet the goals and objectives. As long as the efforts are not onerous in terms of cost and
complicated testing procedures, the performance-based approach is more promising than
the prescriptive-based solutions.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 1

 2012

1.2 Building Regulatory System

Performance-based regulations specify outcomes rather than specific solutions. The totality
of the building regulatory system is captured in a performance system model (PMS). It is
typically formatted as a hierarchical structure (Figure 1) in which the top level contains goals
and objectives expressed as qualitative statements. Functional statements are stated to
satisfy the objectives. Further, operative and performance requirements that satisfy the
functional requirements, and thereby the objectives, are provided. Note that the above
requirements are considered to be high-level and are descriptive and qualitative. The
building code addresses the above requirements.

Following this, performance criteria satisfying the operative and performance requirements
are stated within the standards. Standards provide quantitative information to enable
achievement of the desired performance criteria. In this regard, acceptable solutions and
verification methods are included within the standards. Acceptable solutions are usually
“deemed to comply” solutions that generally include the former prescriptive solutions, i.e. the
solutions that society has accepted over time as being “acceptable” or “appropriate.”
Verification methods are intended to verify the required performance of new alternative
solutions.

Figure 1 Performance system model (PMS)

Some standards are referred to as mandatory documents by the Building Code. Some
supporting documents remain as guidance documents without being treated as mandatory.
The combination of building regulations, enforcement mechanisms, standards, guidance
documents and related support measures form the building regulatory system.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 2

 2012

2.0 PERFORMANCE –BASED EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (PBEE):

CURRENT STATE OF PRACTICE

Performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) is related to the assessment of system-

level performance of a structure to seismic excitation as well as detailed design of its
structural features to achieve prescribed performance goals. SEAOC Vision 2000, 1995 was
the first document to approach robust performance-based seismic design. Further,
publications such as FEMA 273, 1997, FEMA 274, 1997 (as the commentary for FEMA 273)
addressed rehabilitation of existing structures, followed by comprehensive guidelines for
PBEE, as FEMA 356, 2000. Target building performance levels as mentioned in FEMA 356
were described in terms of the range of damage to structural and non-structural
components. Structural and non-structural damage states are sometimes described in terms
of engineering limit states (for example, drift values) which are assumed to correspond to the
various performance levels for a particular component. It should be noted that these limits
are only indicative of the range that exists for the limit states that typical structures undergo
and should not be considered as acceptance criteria for post-earthquake damage
assessment on a specific building.

The performance levels are related to the post-earthquake condition of a building in terms of
indicative measures of damage or losses, including repair costs, to the structure. In the New
Zealand Building Code (Draft 8), building performance levels are referred to in terms of
tolerable impact levels (TIL) and are categorised into mild, moderate, high/severe and very
severe impacts. They essentially relate to the performance levels of structural and non-
structural systems in a building affecting amenity, functionality, life-safety and downtime
criteria, which are often expressed as economic loss. However, there are no quantitative
details given to model the above mentioned qualitative measures.

2.1 Performance Levels

The assessment procedures from earlier guidelines [SEAOC, 1995; FEMA 273, 1997; FEMA
356, 2000] identify building performance level as the combination of structural and non-
structural components performance levels to form a complete description of an overall
damage level. The component damages are described in discrete forms in terms of one or
multiple structural response indices, usually given by maximum (peak) responses, for
example, maximum roof displacement, maximum inter-story drift, and peak floor
acceleration. Structural damage designations are (S-1 to S-5) and non-structural damage
designations are (N-A to N-D).

A performance objective is typically defined when a set of structural and non-structural

performance levels is coupled with different intensities of seismic input. For example, with
reference to Figure 1, a ‘Basic objective’ for buildings having importance level 2, is for the
fully operational performance level to be achieved at 43-year return period intensity
earthquake shaking, and life-safety is expected to be satisfied at 475-year return period
intensity earthquake shaking. In probabilistic terms it can be expressed as 50% exceedence
in 30 years corresponds to a ‘Frequent event’ and 10% exceedence in 50 years to a ‘Rare
event’. Buildings are designed for a chosen objective that should satisfy related performance
requirements.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 3

 2012

Figure 2 Seismic performance design objective matrix as per SEAOC Vision 2000 [1995]

2.2 Tolerable Impact Levels (New Zealand Building Code)

The main objectives of the New Zealand Building Code for Structure are: (i) to safeguard
people against unacceptable injury caused by structural failure, representing ‘life-safety’
performance criteria; and (ii) to safeguard people from an unacceptable loss of amenity and
functionality, representing serviceability performance criteria. Within the Building Code, the
impact (performance) levels are expressed at high level and in qualitative terms relating to
the damage suffered by the structure, non-structural components and contents, and also
downtime period. Functional and performance requirements of a structure are related to two
limit states mentioned before. To satisfy the life-safety criteria, various measures in terms of
loss of stability and strength and avoidance of progressive collapse at earthquake intensities
with low probability of occurrence are stated. The importance of accounting for variability and
uncertainty in design and construction methods is emphasized. It is stated that there shall be
a low probability of demand exceeding structural capacity.

The ‘amenity and functionality’ criteria are to be satisfied at earthquake intensities with
higher probabilities of occurrence. However, for buildings with higher importance level (say,
IL4 buildings where post-earthquake functionality is to be maintained), the amenity and
functionality levels are set at earthquake intensities different from ordinary buildings with
importance level 2 (IL2).

A performance objective matrix is presented for buildings with different importance levels in
Table 1 which relates tolerable impact levels (TIL) to intensities of earthquake. Impact levels
are categorised into performance affecting: (i) amenity (TIL1) indicating mild impact; (ii)
functionality (TIL2) indicating moderate impact; and (iii) strength and stability (TIL4 for
earthquake and TIL3 for other types of natural hazards) indicating severe impact, at various
specified intensities of earthquake. The impact at collapse condition is referred to as TIL5
indicating very severe impact. However, in New Zealand, the design addresses only the life-
safety issue with maximum impact corresponding to TIL4. The impacts are described in
terms of consequences and key structural performance as listed in Table 2 and Table 3.
Note that there is no direct mapping of key structural performance to the likely
consequences or quantification of these measures.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 4

 2012

Table 1 Tolerable impact levels related to building importance level and earthquake intensity

Building importance level (IL)

Probability of
Return
exceedence in 50 IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5
period
years (%)

5000 1 TIL4

2500 2 TIL4

1000 5 TIL4 TIL2

500 10 TIL4 TIL2

250 18 TIL2 TIL1

100 39 TIL4 TIL2 TIL1

50 65 TIL1

25 87 TIL1

Note: Amenity, TIL1; Functionality, TIL2; Strength & stability (Other hazards, TIL3; Earthquakes TIL4)
Table 2 Categories of consequences
TIL 1 TIL 2 TIL 3 TIL 4 TIL 5
Mild Moderate High Severe Very severe
Building
Safe to occupy Building unsafe
Occupational Safe to Safe to unsafe to
after clearance to occupy for
safety occupy occupy occupy more
by authority one year
than one year
Moderate but Major and
Structural Little or no Minor repairable Major damage extensive
damage damage damage damage to but repairable damage,
structure irreparable
Damage,
Major damage,
mostly Major and
Minor some
Moderate repairable, extensive
Fabric damage damage to repairable, most
damage some damage.
fabric requiring
replacement irreparable
replacement
required
Contents Some Most seriously Contents not
Affected Most affected
damage affected affected salvageable
Function
Function
Functional affected Extensively
Maintained affected for up Ceases
continuity less than 1 affected
to 7 days
hour
Evacuation
with no Unassisted
Evacuation Easy Easy difficulty; evacuation
Access un- possible;
inhibited
Moderate
Some deaths
No deaths / number of
Deaths/ No deaths/ No deaths; likely; moderate
injuries deaths/ high
Casualties No injuries some injuries. number of
unlikely number of
injuries
injuries

GNS Science Report 2012/24 5

 2012

Table 3 Key structural performance

TIL 5
TIL 1 TIL 2 TIL 3 TIL 4 TIL 6
(Very
(Mild) (Moderate) (High) (Severe) (Extreme)
severe)
Not
Not
Maintained maintained
Structural Fully maintained
Maintained except for for Gone
integrity maintained for most
minor areas significant
parts
parts
Not
Not
Maintained maintained
Fully maintained
Stability Maintained except for for Gone
maintained for most
minor areas significant
parts
parts
Not
Not
Maintained maintained
Fully maintained
Support Maintained except for for Gone
maintained for most
minor areas significant
parts
parts
Progressive
None None Unlikely Possible Extensive Complete
collapse
Damage /
Not
Loss of Minor Moderate Significant Extensive Total
significant
amenity
Damage to
other Unlikely Possible Likely Moderate Significant Extensive
properties

2.3 Limitations in First Generation PBEE Methods

Documents like FEMA 356 have addressed building target performance levels in terms of
structural and non-structural damage. The procedures are focussed on assessing the
performance of the individual structural and non-structural components that comprise a
building, as opposed to the global performance of the building as a whole. In FEMA 356,
system performance is related to structural component criteria and it is judged based on the
most critical (localised) component in the structure. Thereby the nonlinear interaction of
structural components is not effectively considered in the assessment of building
performance. Most significantly, the reliability of the procedures in delivering the design
performance has neither been characterised nor quantitatively and rationally evaluated.
Such PBEE methods heavily rely on discrete component-level acceptance criteria, as
opposed to probabilistic system-level performance metrics. Qualitative descriptions of
structural damage are not helpful in quantifying performance measures that are directly
useful to building stakeholders.

However, some recent works [e.g. Haselton et al., 2008] provides a methodology to quantify
performance in terms of repair costs, life-safety, and post-earthquake functionality or
downtime and to express as probabilistic measures. These measures are more meaningful
to building stakeholders and owners.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 6

 2012

3.0 DESIGN STANDARDS

The purpose of design standards is to provide detailed criteria for acceptability or

compliance with the intent of the regulations. Standards support scientifically rigorous
design methods and recommendations in order to link explicitly to both the performance
goals and operative requirements stated as regulatory requirements. Design standards that
include loading and materials standards enable engineering professionals to design
buildings that exhibit consistency in expected performance when designed according to the
procedures and the recommendations within the standards.

3.1 Acceptable Solutions and Alternative Solutions

Acceptable and alternative solutions are an integral part of a well-functioning performance-

based regulatory system. Acceptable solutions provide a dimension of stability for those who
remain confident in the way things are being done while alternative solutions give the
freedom to deal with innovative ideas or difficult rehabilitation. Design standards provide at
least one set of acceptable solutions which are deemed to deliver the required performance
as required by the Building Code. Also, an alternative solution different from the
corresponding acceptable solution is supported provided the new solution demonstrates the
expected performance. This is an important feature supported by the regulatory system for
those wanting to encourage innovation and the advancement of new technologies. There are
two ways these alternative solutions can be assessed for compliance against the code:
comparing against the stated acceptable solutions (benchmark approach) or assessed
against the objectives and performance requirements (first principles approach).

The first official acceptable solutions were usually the old prescriptive codes. So when
performance-based regulations were first introduced the old code frequently became the
acceptable solution. Over time the identification of these solutions became more explicit and
tied to the objectives and performance requirements they were satisfying. What has
happened in the transition to performance-based regulations is a majority of the designers
and builders continue to want to follow the acceptable solutions they were most familiar with.
Even though there is greater flexibility if a performance-based design is chosen, anything
more than comparatively minor departures from the acceptable solutions is viewed as a
higher risk or more costly approach and is only used in certain kinds of projects.
Consequently, when looking at performance-based regulations today, most countries will
have some form of a prescriptive option available for their stakeholders [Bergeron et al.,
2001].

3.2 Relationship between Acceptable Solutions and the Performance

Requirements

In most cases the acceptable solution is deemed to meet the objectives and performance
requirements without a precise analytical relationship being established. Such acceptable
solutions are frequently deemed to meet the objectives and performance requirements
because they are what people are used to and accept as being adequately safe, especially
when they formed part of the previous prescriptive code. This kind of ‘benchmark’ approach
is more conservative by recognizing that objectives and performance requirements are
predominantly qualitative and that the societal performance expectations are reflected in the

GNS Science Report 2012/24 7

 2012

acceptable solutions. This approach tends to be used where a more evolutionary change is
being introduced to the system and may perhaps be a reflection of the concern for liability.
However, there is a risk in trying to elicit all performance expectations that have become
inherent in the acceptable solutions that have evolved in the design standards. In other
words, the relationship between the acceptable solutions and the expected performance
requirements are neither well proven nor established. Therefore, there is a degree of
uncertainty and deviation in performance levels that can be expected to be achieved.

3.3 Limit States of Design

The Building Code specifies various tolerable impact levels related to a number of
earthquake intensity levels and the impacts in terms of consequences and key structural
performances (ref. Table 2 and Table 3). However, it will be an onerous task on design
engineers to satisfy all the stated performance criteria under the specified earthquake
intensities. The New Zealand earthquake loading standards NZS 1170.5:2004, aims to
satisfy two performance levels related to: (i) life-safety; and (ii) serviceability. The
corresponding limit states of design are referred to as ultimate limit state and serviceability
limit state. By satisfying these two limit states, it is expected that the intermediate TILs will
also be achieved satisfactorily by the building.

Figure 3 shows a typical load-deformation curve in which the vertical axis represents the
base shear coefficient and horizontal axis represents the drift ratio. The target design level,
for example in IL2 buildings, is aimed at an earthquake intensity having a 500-year return
period. For a given site condition, the base shear derived from an elastic design spectrum
(Ce) is reduced to account for the structural ductility, and the structural performance factor
(Sp) which is dependent on the level of ductility. This design level (Cs) possibly denotes the
1st significant yield point in the load deformation curve. This is checked against the
serviceability design level which corresponds to an earthquake intensity of 25-year return
period. The structure is designed for the greater of the two base shears so derived.

Materials standards provide guidance on detailing needed to achieve local (or section)
ductility. It is expected that by realising local ductility, there will be a degree of confidence
that the structure will achieve the structural ductility (kµ) while resisting the design base
shear (ref. Figure 3). Note that the redundancy and expected strengths of materials will give
rise to an overstrength factor (Ωo) and result in increased base shear strength.

To address uncertainty in loadings on the structure and in the resistance developed (in other
words ‘capacity’), a number of factors related to loading as well as the resistance suggested
within the standards. Often the factors are based on reliability analyses [Ellingwood et al.,
1980] or expert judgement as discussed in the section below.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 8

 2012

Figure 3 Typical load-deformation curve

3.3.1 Consideration of sources of uncertainty

It is impossible to predict precisely the value of each of the individual factors that affect
seismic performance. Lots of uncertainties are associated with: (i) the intensity or wave form
of future shaking; (ii) the structural models being used; and (iii) incomplete knowledge
acquired from laboratory tests that purport to represent actual building behaviour. In the
process of performance assessments, consideration should be given to accounting for the
various sources of uncertainties and randomness related to earthquake demand and
structural capacity. The New Zealand Building code insists that these factors are duly
considered within design methods and they are addressed in some form within the current
design procedures. For example, loadings standards use load factors (which are usually
greater than 1) and materials standards use partial safety factors (which are usually less
than 1). These factors are presumably based on statistical data and reliability analyses
[Ellingwood, et al., 1980]. It is therefore believed that buildings designed using such factors
will achieve the target performance levels as intended, however it is not guaranteed.

However, it is possible to assess these performance measures in the form of performance

functions. Performance functions are probability distributions that indicate the probability that
losses of specified or larger magnitude will be incurred as a result of future earthquakes.

To effectively consider the sources of uncertainties within performance-assessment

methods, a probabilistic approach is more suitable than a deterministic approach. Also, the
performance outcomes or performance measures should be expressed in probabilistic terms
and those measures should be useful to the building owners and stakeholders.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 9

 2012

4.0 FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES

Sources of uncertainties related to ‘earthquake demand’ and ‘structural capacity’ could

contribute to deviations between actual and expected performance outcomes of a building.
Buildings are designed for chosen levels of intensity to satisfy the limit states. Very often,
building design practices adopt acceptable solution methods. As mentioned before, there is
no guarantee of achieving expected performance outcomes as a result of adopting
acceptable solutions. This discrepancy is exacerbated by other gaps identified in design
practices. Verification of acceptable solutions and their relationship with expected
performance levels happens when a real earthquake event occurs. A real event can be at
any level and may or may not match the design intensity. It may only be possible to
‘interpolate’ or ‘extrapolate’ the performance outcomes at that intensity experienced.

4.1 Barriers to Performance-based Design

There are many barriers to further development and implementation of performance-based

solutions in building designs as given by [Spekkink, 2005], as follows:
• The suspicion felt by building designers that the application of performance-based
design will undermine the design profession;
• The conviction of most people active in the design process that the most important
quality aspects of buildings cannot possibly be translated into performance specifications
and further into quantifiable performance indicators;
• The conviction of some people that the responsibility for the functional and architectural
design on the one side cannot be separated from the responsibility for the technical
design on the other;
• The segregation and fragmentation of design, engineering and construction; and
• The low level of research and development investment in the construction industry.

In practice designers often start to develop solutions immediately, without proper

understanding the intended performance of a building in-use from the building owner’s point
of view. Performance-based design is all about integral design. Someone has to integrate
the contributions of all parties involved, and the architect is best positioned for that. In many
countries the architect has lost his integrating role in the building process, because he is not
able to cope with all the technical systems. However, it is timely to bring back the position
and responsibilities of architects.

One of the main problems in performance-based design is how to predict the performance of
a building on the basis of a design. For many quality aspects the total building performance
depends on a complex interaction of many influences. On the one hand there are no
validated, standardized assessment methods available to predict the total building
performance, but on the other hand this performance will determine the client’s perception of
the quality delivered to a great extent. Well-developed procedures for design and
assessment as in FEMA 356 are providing only discrete measures of acceptance criteria at
a component level. Further, they are not often supported by quantitative or rational
evaluation of achievable performance levels. Therefore, it is possible that even though being
too conservative, the procedures might not adequately provide the performance capability
expected by the decision makers.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 10

 2012

5.0 TOWARDS ACHIEVING TOLERABLE PERFORMANCE LEVELS

The performance-based approach is an internationally accepted approach in which the

design is focussed on satisfying the performance expectations of building owners and
stakeholders. The potential of this approach has been recognised at various stages of its
development, and on-going research efforts are contributing to its improved benefits and
outcomes. Some such efforts are discussed below:

5.1 Advanced Methods of Reliability Analyses

Structural failures or failures to achieve adequate performance as expected by prescriptive

code design procedures encouraged engineering professionals to identify knowledge gaps
and areas for further improvement. In this regard, uncertainties associated with several
factors in design were recognised as making significant contribution to unsatisfactory
performance of buildings. It was also recognised that the objectives of performance-based
design could also be achieved by adopting reliability-based design formats in which large
uncertainties could be handled in a systematic manner so as to achieve ‘target reliability’.
Note that certain performance-based codes [e.g. Euro Code 0, 2001] provide ‘target
reliability’ measures associated with specific performance goals/levels. Note however that
the target reliability is often based on expert judgement.

In current seismic design procedures, only design-level earthquakes are expressed in

probabilistic terms; the engineering demand parameters such as inter-storey drift are given
in deterministic form corresponding to the limit states chosen for design. To strictly enforce
reliability performance goals, the target probabilities need to be set directly for the limit states
rather than for the design earthquake [Wen et al., 1994; Wen, 2001]. In evaluation, the
performance of the structure is satisfactory if the limit state probabilities are below the target
values. In developing reliability-based design formats, one starts from these target reliability
goals corresponding to physical limit states such as incipient damage and incipient collapse
and develops the required design format, which then will yield a design that satisfies the
goals.

Reliability procedures can adopt target reliabilities involving cost parameters so that
economic design can also be achieved.

Some studies [e.g. Faber and Sorensen, 2002] have suggested methods for code calibration
using reliability principles to increase the confidence in achieving target performance levels.
By means of structural reliability methods the safety formats (load factors and partial safety
factors) of the design codes may be chosen such that the level of reliability of all structures
designed according to the design codes is homogeneous and independent of the choice of
material and the prevailing loading, operational and environmental conditions. This process
including the choice of the desired level of reliability or “target reliability” is commonly
understood as “code calibration”. Reliability-based code calibration has been formulated by
several researchers, [e.g. Ellingwood et al, 1980; Ravindara and Galambos, 1978] and has
also been implemented in several codes, e.g. OHBDC, 1983; NBCC, 1980; and more
recently Eurocode 0, 2001.

In the following sections, developments from abroad are reviewed and potential relevance to
New Zealand is highlighted.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 11

 2012

5.2 FEMA 349

In year 2000, FEMA 349 developed an action plan to implement a performance-based

approach to design and to resolve several issues that were considered as obstacles to its
implementation. FEMA 349 indicated the need for a comprehensive effort to bring the
various interested parties to a consensus. Some of the challenges identified as action plans
are given in Table 4.

Table 4 Action plans to develop and implement performance-based seismic design

Actions Description

Increasing the current knowledge base of building behaviour, particularly to

1
understand and collect information on structural and non-structural performances

Raising awareness among stakeholders about how performance-based design can

2
address many of the problems they already perceive with current design practice

Developing performance-based designs to be compatible with the stakeholder’s

3
economic interests

Communicating the complex concepts and information in a way that is

4
understandable to all stakeholders

Reducing uncertainty about how performance-based seismic design will effect

5
stakeholders, in terms of cost and possible changes in liability exposures

Implementing incremental changes in the current standards, to create a continuum of

6
design improvement rather than a perceived radical change.

Specific tasks were required to be developed that were in alignment with the above action
plans. The tasks were supposed to focus on developing a cohesive set of products and
guidelines that would meet challenges. The products were expected to include creating
education and implementation programs to bring all stakeholders on board. One of the
products was to be a set of guidelines for seismic performance assessment of buildings.

5.3 ATC 58

The Applied Technology Council has undertaken a project “ATC 58” to develop “Guidelines
for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings” in alignment with Next-generation
Performance-based Seismic Design Criteria [FEMA 445, 2006]. The guidelines document
summarises the methodology, procedures and criteria needed to predict the probable
earthquake performance of individual buildings based on their unique structural, non-
structural and occupancy characteristics, and the seismic hazard exposure at a given site.

The Guidelines address the performance assessment process which includes determining
the characteristics of the building, evaluating its response to earthquake shaking, and based
on this response, projecting the amount of damage that might occur and the consequences
of this damage. However, they do not address the selection of appropriate performance
objectives or procedures to develop preliminary designs that are likely to meet those desired
performance objectives.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 12

 2012

The guidelines claim that the methodology can be used for other purposes such as:

(i) by engineers to determine probable performance of buildings (e.g. probable maximum

loss) in support of real estate investment transactions;
(ii) by building product suppliers to determine the performance of building components and
the effects of these components on overall building performance; and
(iii) by building code developers to determine the performance capability of typical buildings
designed using prescriptive code procedures, as means of evaluating the adequacy of
these procedures.

6.0 PROPOSED MEASURES TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE-BASED

DESIGN IN NEW ZEALAND

The performance-based approach is adopted in principle in the New Zealand Building Code
regulations. Design standards include provisions and recommendations in the form of
acceptable solutions and verification methods which are expected to yield performance
outcomes satisfying the intents of regulations. As mentioned before, there are no definitive
levels of reliability associated within the design processes that will ensure the achievement
of the expected outcomes. To improve the current status of ‘performance-based design’ in
New Zealand, there are a number of issues to be addressed and initiatives to be undertaken.

The qualitative descriptions of performance levels used to achieve performance objectives

are yet to be translated to quantitative measures. Performance criteria should be objectively
measurable. However, not all attributes that are important for building design can be
expressed in quantified criteria as yet. R&D projects should be focussed to develop
quantified criteria for up to 75% of the essential building attributes [Spekkink, D 2005].

Clients and end users, who are more and more demanding value for money and fitness for
use of the built environment, form the main driver for performance-based design. Besides
that, performance-based building regulations have proven to be a key success factor in the
implementation of performance-based design [PBD]. Governmental clients should take the
lead in further implementation.

Other drawbacks include the segregation and fragmentation of design, engineering and
construction, the uncertainty about risk and liability, the (lack of) professionalism of clients,
and lack of experience. It seems appropriate that actions should be started to increase the
awareness of PBD.

At this juncture, it is worth considering and revisiting some of the measures undertaken by
overseas organisations (through FEMA funded projects) to encourage the development and
implementation of performance-based design. The goal of ATC 58 project is development of
performance-based seismic design guidelines. Some of the stages considered within the
project that could be relevant from New Zealand perspective are discussed below:

GNS Science Report 2012/24 13

 2012

6.1 Communication of Earthquake Risk (ATC 58-1)

The purpose 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 could most usefully deal with issues of earthquake risk. A workshop was
conducted to deal with three important issues such as:

• identification of those aspects of earthquake related risk that are of most concern to the
stakeholders;
• appropriate means of communicating the low-probability but potentially highly significant
consequences of earthquakes; and
• appropriate means of communicating the considerable uncertainties associated with
predictions of the effects of earthquakes and the performance of individual structures.

The potential attendees suggested included:

• Attorneys
• Building design professionals, including architects and engineers
• Building regulators
• Corporate facility managers
• Commercial real estate developers
• Commercial lenders
• University facility managers
• Development planning consultants
• Earthquake engineering researchers
• Health care providers
• Insurers
• Property underwriters
• Social scientists

The framework has been documented in the ATC 58-1 report. The feedback from the
workshop was used to evaluate performance-based design criteria as reported in ATC 58-2.
The suggested framework and evaluations can be revisited from a New Zealand
perspective. The outcomes of the workshop may lead to better understanding what might be
considered tolerable impacts from earthquakes and also derivation of ‘target reliability levels’
that are accepted by various sectors of the public and which can be included in the building
code.

6.2 Methodology Proposed by ATC 58

The methodology for seismic performance assessment of buildings proposed by the ATC 58
project appears to be a suitable tool to for determining the performance that a building
design is capable of achieving. The performance outcomes are obtained in terms of
economic loss, casualties and downtime. This methodology is applicable to specific building
types, but not for a regional building stock.

According to the ATC-58 specification, engineers would conduct a series of structural

analyses to predict the building’s response when subjected to the earthquake hazards
identified as part of the performance objectives and then use the information obtained from

GNS Science Report 2012/24 14

 2012

the analyses to assess the amount of damage that may occur and the probable
consequences of this damage. Following the performance assessment, the engineer
compares the predicted performance with the desired performance. If the assessed
performance matches or exceeds the stated performance objectives, the design is adequate
and the project can be completed, assuming that the cost of completion is acceptable. If the
assessed performance does not meet the performance objectives, the design team must
either revise the design or alter the performance objectives in an iterative process, until the
assessed performance meets acceptable objectives.

It is reported that the methodology presented can be applied to the performance of any
building type and occupancy. However, in order to effectively implement the methodology
and procedures, basic data are needed on the damageability of components that comprise
the building, and the consequences of this damage in terms of potential casualties, direct
economic loss and downtime. The appropriate data to use for a given building are
dependent on the type of structural system, the specific details of its construction, the type,
location and means of installation of the non-structural components and systems, and the
occupancy and use of the building. Sources of such data can include laboratory testing of
individual building components, analytical evaluation, statistical information on the actual
performance of similar buildings in past earthquakes, and expert judgement.

Software, namely PACT (Performance Assessment Calculation Tool) is designed to

integrate the various steps involved in the methodology. Procedures are available to develop
and incorporate additional data into the methodology, and additional building types with
different structural systems or occupancies. This feature makes it promising for us to apply
this tool to New Zealand requirements.

6.2.1 Stages of development

A model for implementing the ATC 58 methodology to perform seismic assessment of New
Zealand building typologies is proposed. An important feature of the model is to encourage
different organisations and sectors to participate and to contribute towards the seismic
assessment process, and to give feedback that can be used to update the status of
performance-based design in New Zealand. The tasks and the contributors are listed in
Table 5.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 15

 2012

Table 5 Proposed tasks for conducting seismic assessment of NZ building types

No Task Contributors

(1) Identification of building typologies to be included with Advisory panel

specific details for each of structural system, non-
structural fittings, occupancy, year of construction,
location

(2) Design of buildings Design consultants

(3) Identification of suites of ground motion records GNS, Universities

(4) Performance of non-linear analyses to derive structural GNS, University

responses

(5) Compilation of a database of typical non-structural BRANZ, GNS, Interior product

elements including their fitting/ installation information designers, suppliers
that is used in New Zealand building construction

(6) Definition of damage states related to structural and GNS, University

non-structural elements, and whole-building
performance

(7) Building up of fragility data for various structural and Universities, BRANZ, GNS,
non-structural components Published literature

(8) Obtaining consequence functions related to damage Loss adjusters, Published

described in (7) literature

(9) Tolerable or acceptable impact levels in terms of loss Advisory panel

(10) Building up of PACT models GNS

(11) Iterations of analyses GNS

(12) Update of engineering parameters for improved design Advisory panel

within standards

It is proposed that an advisory committee will be formed to direct and monitor the project.
The advisory panel would include representatives from regulatory boards, design engineers,
university researchers, and the construction industry.

It is believed that a workshop to communicate risk within the community is vital to educate
the community and to get opinion on the acceptable or tolerable impact levels for buildings.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 16

 2012

7.0 SUMMARY

This report discusses the present status of the performance-based approach adopted in
New Zealand building design practices, identifies gaps in implementing performance-based
design and proposes the way forward to achieve tolerable impact levels in buildings under
earthquakes.

Performance-based approaches described in the current building code are qualitative in

nature. The qualitative descriptions are to be translated into quantifiable performance
criteria that can be more helpful to design engineers. Currently, design practices do not
explicitly relate to performance outcomes that are meaningful to stakeholders and building
owners; however they are expected to satisfy performance criteria such as ‘life-safety’ and
‘serviceability’. Such performance criteria are not accompanied by target reliability levels
within the building code.

Some of the gaps in knowledge about and barriers to uptake of performance-based design
are highlighted. Research efforts need to be taken to translate some of the qualitative
description into quantifiable engineering design parameters. Cost/consequence functions are
to be developed for New Zealand building components in addition to damage descriptions
and fragility functions. Improving the current status of performance-based design can be
achieved only through the integrated effort and contributions from various organisations
responsible for engineering profession.

In all these efforts, it is recognised that risk should be effectively communicated to the public
to give them a better understanding of the aims and scope of engineering profession in
building design under earthquakes.

8.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is thankful to Andrew King and Mostafa Nayyerloo for helpful discussions.
Review comments from Mostafa Nayyerloo and Jim Cousins are gratefully acknowledged.
The work is supported by Department Core Funding Programme: “Post-earthquake
Functioning of Cities”.

9.0 REFERENCES

ATC 58 (75% Draft). 2011. Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Prepared by

Applied Technology Council. Prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Washington D.C.

ATC 58-1. 2002. Workshop on communicating earthquake risk, Proceedings. Chicago,

Illinois. Prepared by Applied Technology Council. Prepared for Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Washington D.C.

Bergeron, D., Bowen, B., Tubbs, B., Rackliffe, T. 2001. Acceptable solutions. CIB World
Building Congress, April 2001, Wellington, New Zealand, Paper number: 257.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 17

 2012

Ellingwood, B. Galambos, T.V., MacGregor, J.G., Cornell, C.A. 1980. Development of a

probability-based load criterion for American National Standard A58. NBS special
publication 577, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.

Eurocode 0. 2001. Basics of structural Eurocodes, Eurocode 0. EN 1990.

Faber, M.H., Sorensen, J.D. 2002. Reliability based code calibration. Paper for the Joint
Committee on Structural Safety. Draft. March.

FEMA 273. 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal
Emergency Management Agency. Washington D.C.

FEMA 274. 1997. NEHRP Commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington D.C.

FEMA 356. 2000. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington D.C.

FEMA 349. 2000. Action plan for performance based seismic design. EERI report. Prepared
for Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington D.C.

FEMA 445. 2006. Next-generation performance based design guidelines: Program plan for
new and existing buildings. Prepared by Applied Technology Council. Prepared for
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington D.C.

Haselton, C.B., Goulet, C.A., Mitrani-Reiser, J., Beck, J.L, Deierlein, G.G., Porter, K.A.,
Stewart, J.P., Taciroglu, E., (2008). An assessment to benchmark the seismic
performance of a code-conforming reinforced concrete moment-frame building. PEER
Report 2007/12. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of
Engineering, University of Berkeley.

NBCC. 1980. National Building Code of Canada. National Research Council of Canada.

NZS 1170.5:2004. Structural design actions - Earthquake actions. New Zealand Standards.

OHBDC. 1983. Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communication. Ontario.

Ravindra, M.K., Galambos, T.V. 1978. Load and resistance factors design for steel. ASCE,
Journal of the Structural Division, 104 (9). Pp. 1337-1353.

SEAOC Vision 2000. Committee. 1995. ‘Performance based seismic engineering. Structural
Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.

Spekkink, D., 2005. Performance based design of buildings. PeBBU Domain 3. Final report.
Performance-based Building Network (PeBBu). Funded by EU 5th Framework Research
Programme. Netherlands.

Wen, Y.K., Hwang, H., Shinozuka, M. 1994. Development of reliability-based design criteria
for buildings under seismic load. Technical Report 94-0023. National Center for
Earthquake Engineering. University of Buffalo.

Wen, Y.K. 2001. Reliability and performance-based design. Structural Safety, 23,
pp. 407-428.

GNS Science Report 2012/24 18

 Principal Location Other Locations

1 Fairway Drive Dunedin Research Centre Wairakei Research Centre National Isotope Centre
Avalon 764 Cumberland Street 114 Karetoto Road 30 Gracefield Road
PO Box 30368 Private Bag 1930 Wairakei PO Box 31312
Lower Hutt Dunedin Private Bag 2000, Taupo Lower Hutt
New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand
T +64-4-570 1444 T +64-3-477 4050 T +64-7-374 8211 T +64-4-570 1444
www.gns.cri.nz F +64-4-570 4600 F +64-3-477 5232 F +64-7-374 8199 F +64-4-570 4657