Next-Generation

Performance-Based
Seismic Design Guidelines
Program Plan for New and Existing Buildings

FEMA-445 / August 2006

FEMA nehrp
 FEMA 445 / August 2006

Next-Generation Performance-
Based Seismic Design
Guidelines
Program Plan for New and Existing Buildings

Prepared by
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240
Redwood City, California 94065
www.ATCouncil.org

Prepared for
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Michael Mahoney, Project Officer
Washington, D.C.
 Notice
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) or the Applied Technology Council (ATC). Additionally, neither ATC, DHS, FEMA, nor any
of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, nor assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product, or process
included in this publication. Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising from
such use.

Cover photograph is provided courtesy of Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc., San Francisco.

 Foreword

One of the primary goals of the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) is prevention or mitigation of this country's losses from hazards that affect the built
environment. To achieve this goal, we as a nation must determine what level of performance is expected
from our buildings during a severe event, such as an earthquake, blast, or hurricane. To do this, FEMA
contracted with the Applied Technology Council (ATC) to develop next-generation performance-based
seismic design procedures and guidelines, which would allow engineers and designers to better work with
stakeholders in identifying the probable seismic performance of new and existing buildings. These
procedures could be voluntarily used to: (1) assess and improve the performance of buildings designed to
a building code life safety level, which would, in all likelihood, still suffer significant structural and
nonstructural damage in a severe event; and (2) more effectively meet the performance targets of current
building codes by providing verifiable alternatives to current prescriptive code requirements for new
buildings.

This FEMA 445 Program Plan builds on earlier plans developed for FEMA by the Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, and the Earthquake Engineering Research Center. As a basis for this
plan, FEMA 349 (EERI, 2000) provided a description of the key activities necessary for developing
performance-based seismic design criteria, and FEMA 283 (EERC, 1996) emphasized the research that
would be required.

This Program Plan is based on the results of a workshop soliciting the input of the nation's leading
seismic professionals in preparing a long-term plan to develop new performance-based seismic design
procedures. It does an excellent job of capturing the recommendations from that workshop and
describing the necessary requirements. Execution of the plan, however, is contingent upon funding, and
FEMA had concerns regarding the availability of funding at the levels necessary to achieve the ambitious
goals outlined in the plan. As a result, FEMA and ATC developed a reduced scope and extended
schedule under which the program could proceed with less than full funding. This Program Plan includes
the projected costs for both the original and modified-scope programs.

Publication of this Program Plan does not obligate FEMA or any other federal agency to any portion of the
plan contained herein. The information and opinions contained in this Program Plan are solely those of the
project participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of FEMA.

FEMA wishes to express its sincere gratitude to all who were involved in this project and in the development
of this Program Plan. The result of their hard work and dedication will play an important role in helping the
nation move towards performance-based seismic design and reducing losses suffered by the citizenry in future
earthquakes.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FEMA 445 Foreword iii

 Preface

Advancement of present-generation performance-based seismic design procedures is widely recognized in

the earthquake engineering community as an essential next step in the nations drive to develop resilient,
loss-resistant communities. This Program Plan offers a step-by-step, task-oriented program that will
develop next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures and guidelines for structural and
nonstructural components in new and existing buildings.

This FEMA 445 Program Plan is a refinement and extension of two earlier FEMA plans: FEMA 283
Performance-Based Seismic Design of Buildings an Action Plan, which was prepared by the Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley in 1996, and FEMA 349 Action Plan
for Performance Based Seismic Design, which was prepared by the Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute in 2000. The state of practice for performance-based assessment, performance-based design of
new buildings, and performance-based upgrades of existing buildings will all be significantly advanced
under this Program Plan.

The preparation of this Program Plan, and developmental work completed to date, has been performed by
the Applied Technology Council (ATC) under the ATC-58 project entitled Development of Next-
Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines for New and Existing Buildings. The
technological framework developed under this program is transferable and can be adapted for use in
performance-based design for other extreme hazards including fire, wind, flood, and terrorist attack. The
decision-making tools and guidelines developed under this Program Plan will greatly improve our ability
to develop cost-effective and efficient earthquake loss reduction programs nationwide.

Christopher Rojahn, ATC Executive Director

FEMA 445 Preface v

 Acknowledgments

This FEMA-445 Program Plan was prepared by the Applied Technology Council under FEMA contract
EMW-2001-CO-0378. Ronald O. Hamburger, Project Technical Director, was the principal architect of
the Program Plan and is the principal author of this report. Substantial contributions were also made by
the Product Development Team Leaders and their teams, with review and input by the Project
Management Committee, and the Project Steering Committee.

The Project Management Committee consisted of Christopher Rojahn (Chair), Ronald O. Hamburger
(Co-Chair), Peter J. May, Jack P. Moehle, Maryann T. Phipps (ATC Board Representative), and Jon
Traw. The Structural Products Development Team consisted of Andrew Whittaker (Team Leader),
Gregory Deierlein, Andre Filiatrault, John Hooper, and Andrew T. Merovich. The Nonstructural
Performance Products Team consisted of Robert E. Bachman (Team Leader), David Bonowitz, Philip J.
Caldwell, Andre Filiatrault, Robert P. Kennedy, Gary McGavin, Eduardo Miranda, and Keith Porter. The
Risk Management Products Team consisted of Craig D. Comartin (Team Leader), Brian J. Meacham
(Associate Team Leader), C. Allin Cornell, and Charles Kircher. Project Steering Committee members
consisted of William T. Holmes (Chair), Daniel P. Abrams, Deborah B. Beck, Randall Berdine, Roger D.
Borcherdt, Jimmy Brothers, Michel Bruneau, Terry Dooley, Mohammed Ettouney, John Gillengerten,
William J. Petak, Randy Schreitmueller, and James W. Sealy. Jon A. Heintz served as Report Editor, and
Peter N. Mork produced the camera-ready document. The affiliations of these individuals are provided in
the list of project participants at the end of this report.

Input to this Program Plan was provided by a broad range of earthquake engineering specialists during a
FEMA-sponsored workshop conducted by ATC in February 2003. Participants included researchers and
practicing structural engineers as well policy makers and regulators. The sage advice provided by these
individuals substantially influenced the direction and scope of this Program Plan.

The vision, insight, and patience provided by the FEMA Project Officer, Michael Mahoney, and the
FEMA Technical Monitor, Robert D. Hanson, are also gratefully acknowledged.

FEMA 445 Acknowledgments vii

 Executive Summary

The Applied Technology Council (ATC), under the sponsorship of the Department of Homeland
Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is currently engaged in a project to
advance the state of practice in performance-based seismic design. This report, FEMA 445 Program Plan,
offers a step-by-step, task-oriented program that will develop next-generation performance-based seismic
design procedures and guidelines for structural and nonstructural components in new and existing
buildings. The preparation of this Program Plan, and developmental work completed to date, has been
performed under the ATC-58 project entitled Development of Next-Generation Performance-Based
Seismic Design Guidelines for New and Existing Buildings.

This Program Plan offers background on current code design procedures, introduces performance-based
seismic design concepts, identifies improvements needed in current seismic design practice, and outlines
the tasks and projected costs for a two-phase program to develop next-generation performance-based
seismic design procedures and guidelines. This plan is a refinement and extension of two earlier FEMA
plans: FEMA 283 Performance-Based Seismic Design of Buildings an Action Plan, which was prepared
by the Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley in 1996, and FEMA
349 Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design, which was prepared by the Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute in 2000.

Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design

Building codes establish minimum requirements for safety through the specification of prescriptive
criteria that regulate acceptable materials of construction, identify approved structural and nonstructural
systems, specify required minimum levels of strength and stiffness, and control the details of how a
building is to be put together. Although these prescriptive criteria are intended to result in buildings
capable of providing certain levels of performance, the actual performance of individual building designs
is not assessed as part of the traditional code design process. As a result, the performance capability of
buildings designed to these prescriptive criteria can be better than the minimum standards anticipated by
the code, while the performance of others could be worse.

Performance-based Design

Performance-based seismic design explicitly evaluates how a building is likely to perform, given the
potential hazard it is likely to experience, considering uncertainties inherent in the quantification of
potential hazard and uncertainties in assessment of the actual building response. It permits design of new
buildings or upgrade of existing buildings with a realistic understanding of the risk of casualties,
occupancy interruption, and economic loss that may occur as a result of future earthquakes.

FEMA 445 Executive Summary ix

It also establishes a vocabulary that facilitates meaningful discussion between stakeholders and design
professionals on the development and selection of design options. It provides a framework for
determining what level of safety and what level of property protection, at what cost, are acceptable to
building owners, tenants, lenders, insurers, regulators and other decision makers based upon the specific
needs of a project.
In contrast to prescriptive design approaches, performance-based design provides a systematic
methodology for assessing the performance capability of a building, system or component. It can be used
to verify the equivalent performance of alternatives, deliver standard performance at a reduced cost, or
confirm higher performance needed for critical facilities.

First-generation procedures introduced the concept of performance in terms of discretely defined

performance levels with names intended to connote the expected level of damage: Collapse, Collapse
Prevention, Life Safety, Immediate Occupancy, and Operational Performance. They also introduced the
concept of performance related to damage of both structural and nonstructural components. Performance
Objectives were developed by linking one of these performance levels to a specific level of earthquake
hazard. Although intended for existing buildings, these procedures are being extrapolated for use in the
performance-based design of new buildings.

The Need for Next-Generation Procedures

As the state of knowledge and experience base advances, limitations in present-generation procedures are
being identified by researchers and practitioners. These include questions regarding the accuracy of
analytical procedures in predicting actual building response, questions regarding the level of conservatism
present in acceptance criteria, the inability to reliably and economically apply performance-based
procedures to the design of new buildings, and the need for alternative ways of communicating
performance to stakeholders that is more meaningful and useful for decision-making purposes. Next-
generation performance-based design procedures are needed to:
Revise the discrete performance levels defined in first-generation procedures to create new
performance measures (e.g. repair costs, casualties, and time of occupancy interruption) that better
relate to the decision-making needs of stakeholders, and that communicate these losses in a way that
is more meaningful to stakeholders.
Create procedures for estimating probable repair costs, casualties, and time of occupancy interruption,
for both new and existing buildings.
Develop a framework for performance assessment that properly accounts for, and adequately
communicates to stakeholders, limitations in our ability to accurately predict response, and
uncertainty in the level of earthquake hazard.

Framework for Next-Generation Procedures

The next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures developed under this Program Plan
will express performance directly in terms of quantified risks that a building owner or decision maker will

x Executive Summary FEMA 445

be able to understand. Stakeholders prefer to define these risks in terms of the potential for casualties,
repair costs, and occupancy interruption. Stakeholder guidance will be developed to assist decision
makers in selecting appropriate levels of risk as the basis of design and upgrade projects. Engineering
guidelines will be prepared to assist design professionals in developing building designs that are reliable
and capable of meeting the selected risk criteria.

Program Plan

Work under this Program Plan is divided into two phases:

Phase 1: Developing a Methodology for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Buildings. In this
phase, a methodology will be developed for assessing the probable seismic performance of individual
buildings in future earthquakes.
Phase 2: Developing Performance-Based Seismic Design Procedures and Guidelines. In this phase,
seismic design procedures and guidelines will be developed to assist engineers in designing buildings
to meet desired performance goals, and to assist stakeholders in taking advantage of the benefits of
performance-based design.
Work in each phase is organized around six broad categories of work: Planning and Management Program;
Structural Performance Products; Nonstructural Performance Products; Risk Management Products;
Guidelines Products; and Stakeholders Guide Products. Work in each technical area will be performed by
one of three Product Development Teams, consisting of the Structural Performance Products Team, the
Nonstructural Performance Products Team, and the Risk Management Products Team.

Planning and Management Program tasks will be carried out within a project management structure
consisting of three committees: Project Management Committee, Project Technical Committee, and
Project Steering Committee. Collectively, these committees provide management, technical oversight,
and control of the work performed by the three Product Development Teams.

Projected Costs and Schedule

As originally planned, the total projected project costs of Phase 1 and 2 of this Program Plan are
estimated to be approximately $21 million in 2004 dollars. Estimates of personnel and other costs were
developed using prevailing labor costs common to projects of this type at the time this plan was prepared,
and do not include escalation due to changes in the value of money, labor rates, internal government
costs, or inflation. Phase 1 has a projected cost of approximately $11 million, and Phase 2 has a projected
cost of approximately $10 million. At this funding level, each phase will last approximately five years,
and the work of Phase 1 will be substantially complete before Phase 2 begins.

Since available funding was not adequate to support the full Program Plan, a reduced scope and extended
schedule was developed under which the program could proceed with less than full funding. Projected
costs for the modified-scope program are approximately 50% of those for the original program. Each
phase is planned to be accomplished in approximately five to seven years, and Phase 1 has been
underway for four years. Phase 2 is planned to begin upon completion of Phase 1.

FEMA 445 Executive Summary xi

 Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................ iii

Preface..............................................................................................................v

Acknowledgements....................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary ....................................................................................... ix

List of Figures ............................................................................................. xvii

List of Tables ............................................................................................... xix

1. Introduction.........................................................................................1
1.1 General...................................................................................1
1.2 Current Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design.........1
1.3 Performance-Based Seismic Design ......................................3
1.4 Advantages of Performance-Based Seismic Design ..............5
1.5 First-Generation Performance-Based Procedures ..................6
1.6 Present Second-Generation Performance-Based
Procedures..............................................................................7
1.7 The Need for Next-Generation Performance-Based
Procedures..............................................................................7
1.8 Framework for Next-Generation Performance-Based
Procedures and Relationship to HAZUS ...............................8

2. Program Plan: Goals, Background, Organization,

and the Performance-Based Design Process .....................................11
2.1 Program Goals .....................................................................11
2.2 Program Background ...........................................................11
2.3 Preparatory Work from 2001 to Date ..................................12
2.4 Program Organization..........................................................14
2.5 Performance-Based Seismic Design Process .......................17
2.5.1 Step 1: Select Performance Objectives ...................17
2.5.2 Step 2: Develop Preliminary Building Design........19
2.5.3 Step 3: Assess Performance ....................................19
2.5.4 Step 4: Revise Design .............................................21
2.6 Applicability of Performance-Based Design to Other
Structural Hazards................................................................22

3. Phase 1: Developing a Methodology for Assessing the Seismic

Performance of Buildings .................................................................23
3.1 Phase 1 Objectives ...............................................................23
3.1.1 Expandable Framework ..........................................23
3.1.2 Research Needed From Other Programs.................24

FEMA 445 Contents xiii

 3.2 Phase 1 Organization........................................................... 25
3.3 Phase 1 Project Management .............................................. 23
3.3.1 Project Management Committee ............................ 26
3.3.2 Project Technical Committee ................................. 27
3.3.3 Project Steering Committee ................................... 27
3.4 Summary of Phase 1 Technical Tasks................................. 28
3.4.1 Structural Performance Products Tasks ................. 28
3.4.2 Nonstructural Performance Products Tasks ........... 29
3.4.3 Risk Management Products Tasks ......................... 30
3.5 Phase 1 Projected Program Costs and Schedule ................. 31

4. Phase 1: Developing a Methodology for Assessing the

Seismic Performance of BuildingsTechnical Tasks ..................... 35
4.1 Phase 1 Structural Performance Products Tasks ................. 35
4.1.1 Structural Input to Performance
Assessment Guidelines (SPP-1) ............................. 36
4.1.2 Identify Structural Engineering
Demand Parameters (SPP-2) .................................. 37
4.1.3 Identify Intensity Measures (SPP-3) ...................... 38
4.1.4 Prepare Analysis Guidelines (SPP-4)..................... 39
4.1.5 Identify Structural Damage Measures (SPP-5) ...... 40
4.1.6 Structural Input to Model
Building Studies (SPP-6) ....................................... 41
4.1.7 Develop Procedures for Input
to Nonstructural Evaluation (SPP-7)...................... 42
4.1.8 Develop Structural Loss Functions (SPP-8)........... 43
4.2 Phase 1 Nonstructural Performance Products Tasks ........... 43
4.2.1 Nonstructural Input to Performance
Assessment Guidelines (NPP-1) ............................ 44
4.2.2 Develop Catalog of Nonstructural
Components and Systems (NPP-2) ........................ 44
4.2.3 Identify Nonstructural Performance
Measures (NPP-3) .................................................. 45
4.2.4 Identify Input Engineering
Demand Parameters (NPP-4) ................................. 46
4.2.5 Develop Performance Database (NPP-5) ............... 46
4.2.6 Develop Nonstructural Performance
Evaluation Protocols (NPP-6) ................................ 47
4.2.7 Simplify Nonstructural Engineering
Demand Parameters (NPP-7) ................................. 47
4.2.8 Develop Procedures for Computing
Nonstructural Damage (NPP-8) ............................. 48
4.2.9 Develop Nonstructural Loss Functions (NPP-9).... 49
4.2.10 Nonstructural Input to Model
Building Studies (NPP-10)..................................... 49
4.3 Phase 1 Risk Management Products Tasks ......................... 49
4.3.1 Develop Input to Performance
Assessment Guidelines (RMP-1) ........................... 51
4.3.2 Develop Structural Loss Functions (RMP-2)......... 51
4.3.3 Develop Nonstructural Loss Functions (RMP-3)... 52

xiv Contents FEMA 445

 4.3.4 Develop Model for Aggregating
Losses (RMP-4) ......................................................53
4.3.5 Formulate Conceptual Aggregation
Procedures (RMP-5) ...............................................55
4.3.6 Procedure for Aggregating Local Effects
to Global (RMP-6) ..................................................56
4.3.7 Develop Loss Integration Procedures (RMP-7)......56
4.3.8 Identify Stakeholder Needs (RMP-8) .....................57
4.3.9 Develop Standard Performance
Level Characterizations (RMP-9) ...........................59

5. Phase 2: Developing Performance-Based Seismic Design

Procedures and Guidelines................................................................61
5.1 Phase 2 Objectives ...............................................................61
5.2 Phase 2 Description of Work ...............................................62
5.3 Summary of Phase 2 Product Tasks.....................................62
5.3.1 Structural Performance Products Tasks ..................63
5.3.2 Nonstructural Performance Products Tasks............63
5.3.3 Risk Management Products Tasks ..........................64
5.4 Phase 2 Project Management ...............................................65
5.5 Phase 2 Projected Program Costs and Schedule ..................65

6. Phase 2: Developing Performance-Based Seismic Design

Procedures and GuidelinesProduct Tasks .....................................69
6.1 Phase 2 Structural Performance Products Tasks..................69
6.1.1 Identify Structural Contribution
to Performance (SPP-9) ..........................................70
6.1.2 Identify Effect of Structural
Parameters (SPP-10) ...............................................70
6.1.3 Identify Preferred Structural Strategies
for New Buildings (SPP-11) ...................................71
6.1.4 Identify Preferred Structural Upgrade
Strategies (SPP-12) .................................................71
6.1.5 Provide Input to Design Guidelines (SPP-13) ........71
6.2 Phase 2 Nonstructural Products Tasks.................................72
6.2.1 Identify Nonstructural Performance
Contributions (NPP-11) ..........................................73
6.2.2 Identify Effectiveness of
Current Practice (NPP-12) ......................................74
6.2.3 Identify Effectiveness of
Alternative Strategies (NPP-13) .............................75
6.2.4 Identify Preferred Strategies (NPP-14)...................75
6.2.5 Provide Input to Design Guidelines (NPP-15)........76
6.3 Phase 2 Risk Management Products Tasks..........................76
6.3.1 Identify Key Performance
Concerns (RMP-10)................................................77
6.3.2 Identify Key Performance
Parameters (RMP-11) .............................................79
6.3.3 Identify Preferred Decision-Making
Models (RMP-12) ...................................................80
6.3.4 Develop Simplified Decision Tools (RMP-13) ......80

FEMA 445 Contents xv

 6.3.5 Evaluate Performance Capability
of Buildings Conforming to Current
Codes (RMP-14) .................................................... 81
6.3.6 Evaluate Performance Capability of
Typical Existing Buildings (RMP-15) ................... 82
6.3.7 Develop Stakeholder Guides (RMP-16) ................ 83
6.3.8 Provide Input to Design Guidelines (RMP-17)...... 83

Appendix A: Seismic Performance Assessment ......................................... 85

A.1 Performance-Based Design Process.................................... 85
A.2 Performance Assessment Process ....................................... 87
A.3 Characterization of Ground Shaking Hazard ...................... 88
A.4 Structural Analysis and Structural Response Functions...... 91
A.5 Formation of Nonstructural Response Functions................ 95
A.6 Evaluation of Structural Fragilities ..................................... 96
A.7 Development of Nonstructural Fragilities......................... 101
A.8 Evaluation of Structural and Nonstructural Loss
Functions ........................................................................... 102
A.9 Predicting Loss as a Function of Damage ......................... 102

Appendix B: Example Application of Seismic Performance

Assessment Using Numerical Integration Techniques...... 105

Appendix C: Example Application of Seismic Performance

Assessment Using Closed Form Solutions........................ 119

References ................................................................................................... 123

Project Participants...................................................................................... 129

xvi Contents FEMA 445

 List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Performance-based design flow diagram...............................4

Figure 2-1 Performance-based design process as it relates

to Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Program Plan ........................17

Figure 3-1 Project management structure..............................................26

Figure 3-2 Summary of tasks and schedule for Phase 1:

Developing a Methodology for Assessing the Seismic
Performance of Buildings ....................................................32

Figure 4-1 Phase 1: Schedule for structural performance

products tasks.......................................................................36

Figure 4-2 Phase 1: Schedule for nonstructural performance

products tasks.......................................................................44

Figure 4-3 Phase 1: Schedule for risk management product tasks ........51

Figure 4-4 Loss aggregation process .....................................................54

Figure 5-1 Summary of tasks and schedule for Phase 2: Developing

Performance-Based Seismic Design Procedures and
Guidelines ............................................................................66

Figure 6-1 Phase 2: Schedule for structural performance products

tasks .....................................................................................68

Figure 6-2 Phase 2: Nonstructural Performance Products task

schedule ...............................................................................73

Figure 6-3 Phase 2: Schedule for Risk Management Products tasks.....75

Figure A-1 Performance-based design flow diagram.............................86

Figure A-2 Performance assessment process .........................................82

Figure A-3 Scenario-based hazard function for hypothetical

building site and earthquake scenario ..................................89

Figure A-4 Scenario-based hazard function for site using Cartesian

coordinates ...........................................................................89

Figure A-5 Probability distribution for structural response,

expressed as interstory drift ratio for a particular
structure and ground shaking intensity ................................92

FEMA 445 List of Figures xvii

 Figure A-6 Cumulative probability distribution for structural
response expressed as interstory drift ratio for a
particular structure and ground shaking intensity ............... 93

Figure A-7 Hypothetical structural response function for building....... 93

Figure A-8 Illustrative nonstructural component demand function

for floor response acceleration at 0.5 second ...................... 95

Figure A-9 Illustrative nonstructural component response

acceleration hazard curve .................................................... 96

Figure A-10 Example fragility function for beam-column

connection behavior .......................................................... 100

Figure A-11 Example fragility function for building-wide structural

behavior............................................................................. 100

Figure A-12 Hypothetical fragility curve for exterior cladding............. 102

Figure A-13 Hypothetical loss curve for repair cost of damaged

beam-column connections................................................. 103

Figure A-14 Hypothetical loss curve for fatalities, given collapse........ 104

Figure B-1 Hazard Curve with intensity at 10% chance of

exceedance in 50 years indicated ...................................... 107

Figure B-2 Response curve for hypothetical structure ........................ 108

Figure B-3 Cumulative probability distribution for interstory

drift response, conditioned on the 10%/50 year
scenario event.................................................................... 110

Figure B-4 Fragilities for local damage to steel moment frame

connection assemblies ....................................................... 111

Figure B-5 Fragilities for global damage to steel moment frame

building ............................................................................. 111

Figure B-6 Probability of Experiencing Various Repair Costs as

Function of Connection Assembly Damage State............. 115

Figure C-1 Median Hazard Curve for Site .......................................... 120

Figure C-2 Global fragility for hypothetical structure......................... 121

Figure C-3 Structural response curve for hypothetical building ......... 121

xviii List of Figures FEMA 445

 List of Tables

Table 3-1 Original Projected Costs by Product Development

Area, Phase 1: Development of Performance
Assessment Guidelines ........................................................33

Table 3-2 Original Projected Program Costs by Task and

Year ($1,000); Phase 1.........................................................33

Table 3-3 Reduced-Scope Projected Costs by Product

Development Area, Phase 1: Development of
Performance Assessment Guidelines ...................................34

Table 3-4 Reduced-Scope Projected Program Costs by

Task and Year ($1,000); Phase 1 .........................................34

Table 4-1 Phase 1: Schedule for Structural Performance

Product Tasks.......................................................................36

Table 5-1 Original Projected Program Costs by Product

Development Area, Phase 2: Development of
Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines..................67

Table 5-2 Original Phase 2 Projected Program Costs by Task and

Year ($1,000) .......................................................................67

Table 5-3 Reduced-Scope Projected Program Costs by Product

Development Area, Phase 2: Development of
Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines..................68

Table 5-4 Reduced-Scope Phase 2 Projected Program Costs by

Task and Year ($1,000) .......................................................68

Table B-1 Peak Ground Acceleration for 10%/50 Year Event, at

Various Confidence Levels................................................107

Table B-2 Central Value of PGA for Scenario Event within

Confidence Bands ..............................................................109

Table B-3 Distribution of Interstory Drift for the 10%/50 Year

Event ..................................................................................109

Table B-4 Calculation of Probability of Each Local Damage State ...112

Table B-5 Calculation of Probability of Each Global Damage

State, Given the 10% - 50 Year Event ...............................114

FEMA 445 List of Tables xix

 Table B-6 Calculation of Probable Repair Cost, Given that a
Connection Damage State is Experienced......................... 115

Table B-7 Calculation of Probable Repair Costs for Global

Damage ............................................................................. 117

Table B-8 Calculation of Expected Repair Cost, Given

10%/50-Year Event ........................................................... 118

Table C-1 Epistemic and Aleatory Uncertainty for Example

Building............................................................................. 122

xx List of Tables FEMA 445

Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 General
This report, FEMA 445 Program Plan, has been prepared to guide the
development of next-generation performance-based seismic design
procedures and guidelines applicable to new and existing buildings. It sets
forth objectives, tasks, recommended budgets, and a schedule to be used as a
basis for the execution of a project that builds on existing concepts for
performance-based seismic design, and formulates a framework for a next-
generation methodology. Work under this plan is being performed for the
Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) under the ATC-
58 project, Development of Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic
Design Guidelines for New and Existing Buildings.

Chapter 1 offers background on current code design procedures,

performance-based seismic design, and improvements needed in current
seismic design practice. Chapter 2 discusses project goals and organization.
Chapters 3 and 4 present the basic work plan for implementing Phase 1,
which will develop guidelines for improved procedures to assess the
probable seismic performance of buildings. Chapters 5 and 6 present the
work plan for implementing Phase 2, which will develop recommended
performance objectives and guidelines for assisting engineers and
stakeholders in implementing the performance-based design process.

Appendix A describes the technical details of the framework for next-

generation seismic performance assessment, and introduces terms discussed
in this Program Plan that may be less familiar to earthquake professionals
who are not structural reliability or seismic risk specialists. Appendices B
and C offer alternative numerical examples for implementing these
procedures.

1.2 Current Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design

Design and construction in the United States is generally regulated at the
state or local level using codes based on national model building codes and
standards. When adopted and enforced by local authorities, building codes
are intended to establish minimum requirements for providing safety to life
and property from fire and other hazards (ICC, 2006).

FEMA 445 1: Introduction 1

 This goal is accomplished through the specification of prescriptive criteria
that regulate acceptable materials of construction, identify approved
structural and nonstructural systems, specify required minimum levels of
strength and stiffness, and control the details of how a building is to be put
together. Prescriptive requirements are based on broad classifications of
buildings and occupancies, and are typically stated in terms of fixed values
such as fire resistance ratings, allowable area and height, and specifications
related to structural design (e.g., dead loads, live loads, snow loads, rain
loads, earthquake loads, wind loads, etc.).

Although the prescriptive criteria of model building codes are intended to

result in buildings capable of providing certain levels of performance, the
actual performance capability of individual building designs is not assessed
as part of the traditional code design process. As a result, the performance
capability of buildings designed to prescriptive criteria can be variable and,
for a given building, may not be specifically known. The performance of
some buildings designed to these prescriptive criteria can be better than the
minimum standards anticipated by the code, while the performance of others
could be worse.

The development of seismic design criteria is an ongoing process of

improvement. The evolution of seismic design provisions in model building
codes can be tracked against the occurrence of damaging earthquakes, both
in the United States and abroad. Earthquakes in the early part of the 20th
century (e.g. the 1925 Santa Barbara and 1933 Long Beach earthquakes) led
to the development of regulations to provide for minimum levels of lateral
strength. In the latter part of the 20th century earthquakes such as the 1971
San Fernando Earthquake led to the realization that, in addition to strength,
buildings needed to have the ability to deform without catastrophic failure (a
characteristic known as ductility).

Building owners and occupants generally believe that adherence to building

codes provides for a safe and habitable environment, and anticipated degrees
of damage are not a normal consideration for owners and most design
professionals. Experience in earthquakes at the end of the 20th century (e.g.
the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe Earthquakes) has forced recognition that
damage, sometimes severe, can occur in buildings designed in accordance
with the code. Property and insured losses as a result of the Northridge
Earthquake, recognized as the most costly earthquake in U.S. history, led to
an awareness that the level of structural and nonstructural damage that could
occur in code-compliant buildings may not be consistent with public notions
of acceptable performance.

2 1: Introduction FEMA 445

Changes in the state of knowledge and the evolution of seismic design
criteria have also led to changes in engineering practice and research. With
an emphasis on providing stakeholders the information needed to make
rational business or safety-related decisions, practice has moved toward
predictive methods for assessing potential seismic performance. At the same
time researchers have been working on the development of new analytical
tools and test data needed to improve assessment techniques. Recognition
that code-based strength and ductility requirements applicable for the design
of new buildings are not suitable for the evaluation and upgrade of existing
buildings has led to the development of performance-based engineering
methods for seismic design.

1.3 Performance-Based Seismic Design

The performance-based seismic design process explicitly evaluates how a

building is likely to perform, given the potential hazard it is likely to
experience, considering uncertainties inherent in the quantification of
potential hazard and uncertainties in assessment of the actual building
response.

In performance-based design, identifying and assessing the performance

capability of a building is an integral part of the design process, and guides
the many design decisions that must be made. Figure 1-1 shows a flowchart
that presents the key steps in the performance-based design process. It is an
iterative process that begins with the selection of performance objectives,
followed by the development of a preliminary design, an assessment as to
whether or not the design meets the performance objectives, and finally
redesign and reassessment, if required, until the desired performance level is
achieved.

Performance-based design begins with the selection of design criteria stated

in the form of one or more performance objectives. Each performance
objective is a statement of the acceptable risk of incurring specific levels of
damage, and the consequential losses that occur as a result of this damage, at
a specified level of seismic hazard.

Losses can be associated with structural damage, nonstructural damage, or

both. They can be expressed in the form of casualties, direct economic costs,
and downtime (time out of service), resulting from damage. Methods for
estimating losses and communicating these losses to stakeholders are at the
heart of the evolution of performance-based design, and are discussed in
more detail later in this Program Plan.

FEMA 445 1: Introduction 3

 Figure 1-1 Performance-based design flow diagram

Generally, a team of decision makers, including the building owner, design

professionals, and building officials, will participate in the selection of
performance objectives for a building. This team may consider the needs and
desires of a wider group of stakeholders including prospective tenants,
lenders, insurers and others who have impact on the value or use of a
building, but may not directly participate in the design process.

Stakeholders must evaluate the risk of a hazard event occurring, and must
obtain consensus on the acceptable level of performance. The basic questions
that should be asked are:

What events are anticipated?

What level of loss/damage/casualties is acceptable?

How often might this happen?

While specific performance objectives can vary for each project, the notion
of acceptable performance follows a trend generally corresponding to:

Little or no damage for small, frequently occurring events

Moderate damage for medium-size, less frequent events

4 1: Introduction FEMA 445

 Significant damage for very large, very rare events

Once the performance objectives are set, a series of simulations (analyses of

building response to loading) are performed to estimate the probable
performance of the building under various design scenario events. In the
case of extreme loading, as would be imparted by a severe earthquake,
simulations may be performed using nonlinear analysis techniques.

If the simulated performance meets or exceeds the performance objectives,

the design is complete. If not, the design is revised in an iterative process
until the performance objectives are met. In some cases it may not be
possible to meet the stated objective at reasonable cost, in which case, some
relaxation of the original objectives may be appropriate.

1.4 Advantages of Performance-Based Seismic Design

In contrast to prescriptive design approaches, performance-based design

provides a systematic methodology for assessing the performance capability
of a building, system or component. It can be used to verify the equivalent
performance of alternatives, deliver standard performance at a reduced cost,
or confirm higher performance needed for critical facilities.

It also establishes a vocabulary that facilitates meaningful discussion

between stakeholders and design professionals on the development and
selection of design options. It provides a framework for determining what
level of safety and what level of property protection, at what cost, are
acceptable to stakeholders based upon the specific needs of a project.
Performance-based seismic design can be used to:
Design individual buildings with a higher level of confidence that the
performance intended by present building codes will be achieved.
Design individual buildings that are capable of meeting the performance
intended by present building codes, but with lower construction costs.
Design individual buildings to achieve higher performance (and lower
potential losses) than intended by present building codes.
Design individual buildings that fall outside of code-prescribed limits
with regard to configuration, materials, and systems to meet the
performance intended by present building codes.
Assess the potential seismic performance of existing structures and
estimate potential losses in the event of a seismic event.
Assess the potential performance of current prescriptive code
requirements for new buildings, and serve as the basis for improvements

FEMA 445 1: Introduction 5

 to code-based seismic design criteria so that future buildings can perform
more consistently and reliably.

Performance-based seismic design offers society the potential to be both

more efficient and effective in the investment of financial resources to avoid
future earthquake losses. Further, the technology used to implement
performance-based seismic design is transferable, and can be adapted for use
in performance-based design for other extreme hazards including fire, wind,
flood, snow, blast, and terrorist attack.

1.5 First-Generation Performance-Based Procedures

Performance-based design as a formal process originated in response to the

seismic design problem in the 1990s, in which code-based strength and
ductility requirements applicable for the design of new buildings could not be
practically or reliably applied to the evaluation and upgrade of existing
buildings.

Preparation of the initial set of procedures for performance-based seismic

design commenced in 1992, as the capstone project in the FEMA program to
reduce the seismic hazards of existing buildings. That initial effort
culminated with the publication of the FEMA 273 Report, NEHRP
Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC, 1997a), and its
companion document the FEMA 274 NEHRP Commentary on the
Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC, 1997b), which
addressed seismic upgrade of existing buildings. Concurrently, the Structural
Engineers Association of California developed the Vision 2000 Report,
Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings (SEAOC, 1995),
which described a performance-based seismic design framework for design
of new buildings. These documents outlined the initial concepts of
performance levels related to damageability, and varying levels of hazard.

These first-generation procedures introduced the concept of performance in

terms of discretely defined performance levels with names intended to
connote the expected level of damage: Collapse, Collapse Prevention, Life
Safety, Immediate Occupancy, and Operational Performance. They also
introduced the concept of performance related to damage of both structural
and nonstructural components. Performance Objectives were developed by
linking one of these performance levels to a specific level of earthquake
hazard.

First-generation procedures also introduced a set of analytical procedures of

varying levels of complexity that could be used to simulate the seismic
response of buildings, and provided a comprehensive set of guidelines on

6 1: Introduction FEMA 445

nonlinear analysis techniques and acceptance criteria. These first-generation
procedures represented an important improvement over then-current building
code procedures in that they provided a systematic means of designing
buildings to achieve a desired level of performance.

1.6 Present Second-Generation Performance-Based

Procedures

At present, performance-based seismic design practice is generally based on

implementation of procedures and criteria contained within the FEMA 356
Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
(ASCE, 2000). FEMA 356 represents an incremental improvement to the
first-generation procedures of FEMA 273. The development of FEMA 356
included technical updates to the analytical requirements and acceptance
criteria of FEMA 273 based on information gained from the use of the
procedures in engineering practice, and from the FEMA 343 Report, Case
Studies: An Assessment of the NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings (BSSC, 1999).

With the development of second-generation performance-based procedures,

engineering practitioners have become more familiar with its concepts.
Performance-based seismic design has become a staple in engineering
practice, and the use of advanced nonlinear analysis techniques is becoming
more commonplace. Although intended for existing buildings, the
procedures are being extrapolated for use in the performance-based design of
new buildings.

The expanded use of performance-based procedures in the present second-

generation has resulted in a knowledge base of practical experience on
designing with performance-based criteria and communicating with
stakeholders on performance-based design issues.

1.7 The Need for Next-Generation Performance-Based

Procedures

As the state of knowledge and experience base advances, limitations in

second-generation procedures are being identified by researchers and
practitioners. These limitations include: (1) questions regarding the accuracy
of second-generation analytical procedures in predicting actual building
response; (2) questions regarding the level of conservatism present in
second-generation acceptance criteria; (3) the inability to reliably and
economically apply second-generation performance-based procedures to the
design of new buildings; and (4) the need for alternative ways of

FEMA 445 1: Introduction 7

 communicating performance to stakeholders that is more meaningful and
useful for decision-making purposes.

In order to fulfill the promise of performance-based engineering and help

ensure that performance-based seismic design delivers on its full potential for
reducing future losses from earthquakes, next-generation performance-based
design procedures are needed to:
Revise the discrete performance levels defined in first-generation
procedures to create new performance measures (e.g. repair costs,
casualties, and time of occupancy interruption) that better relate to the
decision-making needs of stakeholders, and that communicate these
losses in a way that is more meaningful to stakeholders;
Create procedures for estimating probable repair costs, casualties, and
time of occupancy interruption, for both new and existing buildings;
Expand current nonstructural procedures to explicitly assess the
damageability and post-earthquake functionality of nonstructural
components and systems, which can constitute a significant percentage
of the economic loss associated with damaging earthquakes;
Develop a framework for performance assessment that properly accounts
for, and adequately communicates to stakeholders, limitations in our
ability to accurately predict response, and uncertainty in the level of
earthquake hazard;
Refine current analytical techniques to improve our ability to more
accurately simulate building response;
Fill knowledge gaps and investigate the conservatism and reliability of
present second-generation acceptance criteria; and
Modify current structural procedures to assess performance based more
on global response parameters, so that the response of individual
components does not unnecessarily control the prediction of overall
structural performance.

1.8 Framework for Next-Generation Performance-Based

Procedures and Relationship to HAZUS
Next-generation performance-based design procedures will be developed
using an analytical framework for estimating risk that is well developed and
has precedent in a variety of proprietary risk analysis software packages
commonly used by the insurance industry and others. The framework will be
used to estimate the possibility of incurring earthquake-induced direct losses
(repair costs), casualties, and downtime (time of occupancy interruption) for

8 1: Introduction FEMA 445

individual buildings of interest, and will address both new buildings and
existing buildings. The technical details of the framework for next-
generation building-specific loss estimation procedures are described in
Appendix A.

Under contract with the FEMA, the National Institute of Building Sciences
has implemented a form of this methodology in the Hazards U.S. (HAZUS)
loss estimation software. HAZUS was developed primarily for providing
policy makers and local planners with the ability to project the potential
impacts of earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods on large portfolios of
buildings.

HAZUS includes a methodology for developing a performance estimate on a

specific building. Known as the HAZUS Advanced Engineering Building
Module (AEBM), it enables an experienced engineer with considerable
expertise to develop building-specific relationships between earthquake
intensity, damage, and loss. These relationships, however, depend on first-
and second-generation performance-based analytical techniques for which
limitations have been identified and improvement is needed. Also, the
method of characterizing the performance of nonstructural components in
HAZUS AEBM is very general, and cannot readily account for the various
installation details of such components inherent in an individual building
design. Therefore, it cannot be used to assist designers in evaluating the
potential benefits of design decisions related to improving nonstructural
performance.

Together these factors limit the usefulness of HAZUS platform in taking

advantage of the benefits of performance-based design. As a result, HAZUS
is most applicable to performing global estimates of loss on the general
building stock in a region, and is not directly applicable to the performance-
based evaluation or design of individual buildings. To the extent that
information contained within HAZUS platform can be used for performing
individual building assessments, that information will be incorporated within
the framework of next-generation performance-based procedures developed
under this Program Plan.

FEMA 445 1: Introduction 9