PBD Guidelines ASCE 41-23
PBD Guidelines ASCE 41-23
Figure 1. Mapping of ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 41-13 seismic performance objectives based on risk category.
20 STRUCTURE magazine
Similarly, performance-based design is also a limit
state design. In particular, for PBSD, a building is
designed with defined reliability levels so as not to
be damaged beyond certain limit states at specified
seismic hazard levels. These limit states are determined
based on fundamental mechanics, experimental and
field observations, and engineering judgment con-
sidering the consequences of the damage associated
with these limit states. Generally, consequences are
categorized in terms of deaths, dollars, and downtime
to assess the following risks implicitly or explicitly:
• total or partial collapse of a building;
• loss of life or life-threatening injuries to build-
ing occupants or the public-at-large;
• interruption of building function or occupant
mission, either short- or long-term; and
•d irect economic losses from damage to the
building and/or its contents and indirect losses
by interruption of provided services.
In the heuristic sense, PBSD provides a way to
understand the design of a building and the associ-
ated risks that such a design may pose, thus giving a Figure 2. Illustration of building performance when subjected to increased earthquake intensities.
rational estimate of building performance in a future
earthquake. PBSD explicitly enables the upfront selection of per- standardization of first-generation PBSD principles in ASCE 41 can
formance targets at specific earthquake hazard levels, which results be traced from FEMA 273 as follows:
in a clearer expectation of the outcome and greater flexibility in the • FEMA 356, Prestandard and Commentary for Seismic
design process (Figure 1). Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 2000)
Understanding the link between the performance objectives of ASCE 7 • ASCE/SEI 41-06 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings
and ASCE 41 is an integral part of the discussion. In Figure 1, the • ASCE/SEI 41-13 and 41-17 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
seismic hazard used by ASCE 7 (2010 edition and later) is ground Existing Buildings
motions producing a 1% probability of total or partial collapse in 50 • ASCE/SEI 41-23 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
years, referred to as the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake Buildings (under development)
(MCER). This hazard has a conditional probability of 10% collapse, The performance continuum utilized in ASCE 41 is illustrated in
given that an MCER event occurs. As such, protection against loss of Figure 2, with each performance level associated with a damage state.
life by preventing a collapse of the structural system is the primary In practice, ASCE 41 is one of the referenced standards in the
life safety objective (referred to as collapse prevention). ASCE 7 then International Existing Building Code (IEBC) (ICC 2021) to assess the
takes two-thirds of this hazard as the “design earthquake.” At this seismic performance of an existing building. ASCE 41 is also utilized
level, the secondary life safety objective is that the performance of in some cases in the design of new buildings. For example, ASCE 41
non-structural components is critical to protect life and injuries, is referenced in the following documents:
and there exists a margin of safety against collapse (referred to as life • ASCE 7-16, Chapter 16
safety). It is inferred that a building will have a higher performance • An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall
level than life safety for earthquakes occurring more frequently than Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region (LATBSDC 2020)
the design earthquake. • Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings
ASCE 41 uses the same terms to define the target performance of (PEER 2017)
the structural system but uses different terms to define the target • PBS-P100: Facility Standards for the Public Buildings Service
performance of the non-structural system. Therefore, if one wants to (GSA 2018)
equate the objectives of the two standards, collapse prevention at the ASCE 41 is a deterministic type assessment procedure; either some-
MCER is the common performance objective, as the two-thirds factor thing does or does not satisfy the criteria. In recognition of this, FEMA
does not result in uniform risk across the nation. Furthermore, ASCE supported the development of “next-generation” PBSD principles,
7 focuses on the performance at the system level, whereas ASCE 41 published in FEMA P-58, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings
focuses on the performance at the component level. Consequently, (FEMA 2015). FEMA P-58 focuses on evaluating performance “in
in the context of linking the two standards, a valid question is what terms of the probability of incurring casualties, repair and replace-
percentage of components need to fail the collapse prevention per- ment costs, repair time, selected environmental impacts, and unsafe
formance level defined in ASCE 41 to achieve a 10% probability of placarding.” FEMA P-58 provides a probabilistic performance assess-
collapse given an MCER event? Questions like this may help enhance ment framework that can be used to explicitly evaluate seismic risks,
how PBSD can support risk assessment. relying on fragility and consequence data.
Both ASCE 41 and FEMA P-58 continue to evolve to advance PBSD
of buildings. For example, ASCE 41 is currently making refinements
State-of-Practice of PBSD to component modeling parameters and capacities for buildings iden-
ASCE 41 continues to be the go-to standard for implementing tified in Recommended Modeling Parameters and Acceptance Criteria
first-generation PBSD principles to evaluate existing buildings. The for Nonlinear Analysis in Support of Seismic Evaluation, Retrofit, and
O C T O B E R 2 0 21 21
Figure 3. Example workflow and results for ASCE 41 nonlinear dynamic analysis.
22 STRUCTURE magazine
References
FEMA (1997). NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA 273. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2012). Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. FEMA P-58. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2009). Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. FEMA P695. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Washington, D.C.
GSA (2018). Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service. PBS-P100. General Services Administration. Washington, D.C., U.S.
Harris, JL, Speicher, MS (2015). Assessment of First Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Methods for New Steel Buildings
Volume 1: Special Moment Frames, NIST TN 1863-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. February
2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1863-1
Harris, JL, Speicher, MS (2015). Assessment of First Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Methods for New Steel Buildings
Volume 2: Special Concentrically Braced Frames, NIST TN 1863-2, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD. http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1863-2
Harris, JL, Speicher, MS (2015). Assessment of First Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Methods for New Steel Buildings
Volume 3: Eccentrically Braced Frames, NIST TN 1863-3, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1863-3
ICC (2021). International Existing Building Code (IEBC). International Building Code (IBC), Inc. Country Club Hills, IL.
LATBSDC (2020). An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region.
Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council. 2020 Edition. Los Angeles, CA.
NIST (2009). Research Required to Support Full Implementation of Performance-Based Seismic Design, NIST GCR 09-917-2. Prepared
by the Building Seismic Safety Council, Gaithersburg, MD. www.nehrp.gov/pdf/NISTGCR09-917-2.pdf
NIST (2017). Implementation Guidelines for Executive Order 13717: Establishing a Federal Earthquake Risk Management Standard:
ICSSC Recommended Practice (RP) 9. NIST TN 1922. Gaithersburg, MD. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1922
PEER (2017). Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings. The Tall Buildings Initiative. Report No. 2017/06.
Version 2.03. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center. Berkeley, CA.
Speicher, MS, Dukes, JD, Wong, KF (2020). Collapse Risk of Steel Special Moment Frames per FEMA P695. NIST TN 2084.
National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg, MD. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2084
Speicher, MS, Harris, JL (2020). Assessment of First Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Methods for New Steel Buildings,
Volume 4: Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames. NIST TN 1863-4. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg, MD.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1863-4
O C T O B E R 2 0 21 23