FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ACTION PLAN FOR PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN
Prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
By the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute FEMA-349 April 2000 
FORWARD 
One of the primary goals of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the prevention, or mitigation, of this country's losses from natural hazards. To achieve this goal, we as a nation need to ask what level of performance do we expect from our buildings during an event such as an earthquake. In order to answer this question, FEMA is exploring the possible development of "performance-based seismic design" criteria. Such criteria could be voluntarily used by this nation's engineers and designers to improve the performance of critical classes of buildings that are currently only designed to a "lifesafety" level to avoid collapse, but would in fact probably still suffer significant damage in a design event.
FEMA contracted with the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) (contract number EMW-92-K-3955, Task 13) to solicit the input of the nation's leading seismic professionals in developing an action plan that could be used to develop performance-based seismic design criteria. This project and the resulting action plan have gone a long way in identifying key issues that will need to be addressed in this process.
This action plan builds upon a similar effort that FEMA funded in 1993 with the Earthquake Engineering Research Center, now the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). The end product of that study was a similar plan, "Performance Based Seismic Design of Buildings" (FEMA-283), published by FEMA in September 1996. The material in that plan had an emphasis on the research that would be required, and has in fact been used by PEER in the last several years as the basis for their research work in this arena.
While this action plan does an excellent job of describing the requirements that would be needed to successfully develop performance based seismic design criteria, FEMA does has some concerns, such as the proposed budget, which exceeds what FEMA is capable of devoting within the recommended time frame. FEMA is planning to identify some of the key elements of the plan and to begin to address them through a series of projects under its Problem Focused Studies program. However, without additional specific funding for this plan, it will be very difficult to accomplish the entire plan. To avoid further delay, FEMA has decided to publish this document as a "final draft for informational purposes only. Publication of this document in no way obligates this or any other Federal agency to any portion of plan contained herein. The information and opinions contained in this document are solely those of EERI and the project participants and do not necessarily represent the views of FEMA.
In closing, FEMA sincerely wishes to express its, gratitude to all who were involved in this project. The results of their hard work will play an important role as this country moves forward towards performance-based seismic design and reducing the losses suffered by this nation's citizens after the next earthquake.
Cover Art: Part of a presentation developed by Ronald 0. Hamburger, EE International 
* ACTION PLAN FOR PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN
Executive Summary Prepare Federal By the Earthquake 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design Table of Contents The Need for Changes in Current Seismic Design Practice i What is Performance Based Seismic Design?. v
Products Necessary to Implement Performance Based Seismic Design 
Vi Schedule and Budget. VI
Conclusion.
EEE.ix
References.
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design The Need for Changes in Current Seismic Design -I Recent decades have seen a dramatic rise in insured and uninsured earthquake related losses. In the past ten years estimated losses were twenty times larger than in the previous 30 years combined. FEMAs expenditures related to earthquake losses have become an increasing percentage of its disaster assistance budget.' Predictions are that future single earthquakes, which will inevitably occur, may result in losses of $50-100 billion each.' Losses are rising due to several factors.
These include: a denser population of buildings being located in seismically active regions. an aging building stock and the increasing cost of business FEMA Disaster Assistance
interruption. Nonstructural and contents 1988-1997
damage are also large contributors to loss, especially in regions with high-technology manufacturing and health-care industries. 
It is this increase in losses from all hazards that has led FEMA to support actions to re- duce future losses. One of these is Project Impact, an initiative to encourage loss reduction activities through partnerships at the local community level. One of the key components of Project Impact is the community's adoption and enforcement of an adequate building code Historically, building codes have required that buildings be built to a minimum level of Earthquakes
safety. Specifically, structures designed to mother I the Uniform Building Code are expected to "resist a minor level of earthquake.
without damage, a moderate level with 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design some nonstructural damage, [and] a major level of earthquake without collapse."3 Deaths in recent California earthquakes have been few, showing that the intent of the code has been met. However, there is a major misperception on the part of many owners, insurers, lending institutions and government agencies about the expected performance of a code conforming building. This has led to losses that were unexpected and in many cases financially ruinous. Building stakeholders--those with a financial or social interest in the built environment-who expect that their buildings are "earthquake proof" because they meet the code, have often been very disappointed. It must be said, too, that none of these recent events has been of an intensity that would typically be considered catastrophic. Catastrophic temblors with a magnitude similar to the 1812 New Madrid or 1906 San Francisco earthquakes will now likely result in losses several times larger than anything previously experienced if they occur in a densely populated area.
Many building owners are unaware of the tradeoffs they face when using the current state of design practice. Interestingly, people make similar tradeoffs with more everyday choices. For example, the number of highway fatalities could be dramatically reduced if everyone drove tanks. Yet most people are unwilling or cannot afford to do so, and instead accept the increased risk of driving a car.
Consciously or not, car buyers perform cost-benefit analyses when weighing the risk of an accident against a car's cost. A careful consumer may decide to spend more to buy a safer car or he may opt to spend the same amount of money, but research much more closely the safety records of similarly priced cars. This consumer is reducing risk either by increasing his investment or by reducing his uncertainty.
Current codes clearly serve an essential and effective role in protecting building occupants. The design basis of the code is intended to provide a basic level of safety and a relatively economical means by which to construct buildings. However, using current code methods to design and build to a higher level of performance may add significantly to a project's cost.
Stakeholders, however, have become painfully aware of the financial and social consequences of earthquakes and are demanding that practical and cost-effective means be developed to address the issues of damage control and loss reduction.
The community of design professionals needs to be able to respond to this demand with the development of design and evaluation methodologies that look at a broad range of building performance and construction techniques.
Current codes represent an evolution of prescriptive rules that have changed every three years as more is learned about building behavior. The expected performance of new code designed buildings is poorly understood, and probably inconsistent among building types. It is currently difficult for rational advanced design techniques and innovative systems to be fit into the code framework. It is also difficult to apply building codes for new buildings to evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings.
Special guidelines have been developed for these purposes, potentially creating a double standard.
Performance Based Seismic Design (PBSD) is a methodology that provides a means to more reliably predict seismic risk in all buildings in terms more useful to building users. It permits owners to: 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design > Make an efficient use of their design and construction budgets, resulting in more reliable performance for the money spent.
> Consider spending more money to achieve quantifiably higher performance than provided for in the code, thereby reducing risk and potential losses.
PBSD will benefit nearly all building users.
The PBSD methodology will be used by code writers to develop building codes that more accurately and consistently reflect the minimum standards desired by the community. A performance based design option in the code will facilitate design of buildings to higher standards and will allow rapid implementation of innovative technology. When performance levels are tied to probable losses in a reliability framework, the building design process can be tied into owner's long-term capital planning strategies, as well as numerical life cycle cost models.
PBSD is not limited to the design of new buildings. With it, existing facilities can be evaluated and/or retrofitted to reliable performance objectives. Sharing the common framework of PBSD, existing buildings and new buildings can be compared equitably. It is expected that a rating system will develop to replace the currently used Probable Maximum Loss (PML) system. Such a system is highly desirable to owners, tenants, insurers, lenders, and others involved with building financial transactions. Despite its inconsistency and lack of transparency, the PML system is widely used and a poor rating often creates the financial incentive needed for retrofit decisions.
PBSD will provide a common base for design of new buildings, evaluation of existing buildings, and prediction of future damages. This will enable the results of regional loss estimates to be directly interpreted in terms of building code and retrofit strategies. PSD will thus support and encourage efficient mitigation on both an individual and a regional scale, resulting in safer and economically stronger communities.
The availability and use of PBSD will also allow building owners and a local community to determine the performance level of buildings within their jurisdiction. This is especially true for structures that are critical to the continued function and livability of a community. For this reason, PBSD can play a significant role in meeting the intent and goals of FEMA's Project Impact initiative to reduce future losses.
This Action Plan presents a rational and cost effective approach by which building stakeholders: owners, financial institutions, engineers, architects, contractors, researchers, the public and governing agencies, will be able to move to a performance based design and evaluation system.
The Plan recognizes that there is a strong demand from stakeholder groups for more reliable, quantifiable and practical means to control building damage. It also recognizes that there is not a focused understanding among these groups as to how these goals can be obtained. This Plan describes how performance based seismic design guidelines can be developed and used to achieve these goals. It will be a vehicle to bring together the diverse sets of demands from within the stakeholder groups and distill them into cohesive and practical guidelines. It engages each of the groups in the development these guidelines, by which future building design will become more efficient and reliable.

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design What is Performance Based Seismic Design (PBSD)? T based seismic design is he basic concept of performance to provide engineers with the capability to design buildings that have a predictable and reliable performance in earthquake^.^ Further, it permits owners and other stakeholders to quantify financially or otherwise the expected risks to their buildings and to select a level of performance that meets their needs while maintaining a basic level of safety.
PBSD employs the concept of performance objectives. A performance objective is the specification of an acceptable level of damage to a building if it experiences an earthquake of a given severity. This creates a “sliding scale” whereby a building can be designed to perform in a manner that meets the owner’s economic and safety goals. A single performance objective that requires buildings remain operational even in the largest events, will result in extraordinarily high costs.
Conversely, a design where life safety is the only consideration may not adequately protect the economic interests of building stakeholders.
A key to knowing how a building will perform in a given earthquake is having the ability to estimate the damage it will sustain and the consequences of that damage.
Current codes do not evaluate a building’s performance after the onset of damage.
Instead, they obtain compliance with a minimum safety standard by specifying a design which historically has protected life safety in earthquakes. In some cases, the code may actually be unconservative. if a building’s irregularities are very substantial, or if a higher performance level such as damage control is the desired.

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design PBSD differs from current codes in that it focuses on a building's individuai performance. It provides a road map that permits design professionals, owners and other stakeholders to learn more about a building's performance in different earthquakes, and implement a design that optimizes design and construction costs with respect to life-cycle performance. In its broadest sense, PBSD creates global planning opportunities for reducing economic and social losses to whole communities, regions and states.
To implement PBSD several issues must be resolved. PBSD will change the way stakeholders look at the built environment.
It will require a comprehensive effort to bring the various interested parties to a consensus. Six challenges to adoption exist. They are: 
* Increasing the current knowledge base of building behavior. This fundamental issue will require that broader and more accurate information be developed and collected on structural and nonstructural performance.
* Raising awareness among stakeholders about how PBSD can address many of the problems they already perceive with current design practice.
* Developing PBSD to be compatible the stakeholders' economic interests.
* Communicating the complex concepts and information in a way that IS understandabie to all stakeholders.
* Reducing uncertainty about how PBSD will effect stakeholders, in terms of cost and possible changes in liability exposures.
* Implementing incremental changes in the current standards, to create a continuum of design improvement rather than a perceived radical change.
This Action Plan identifies the specific tasks required to develop a cohesive set of products and guidelines that will meet these challenges. These products will be more than just technical documents. The Plan calls for going beyond earlier and more purely analytical performance based efforts by creating education and implementation programs to bring all stakeholders on board This Plan is to be used by the teams developing the guidelines. It will provide a mechanism to ensure that the goals of PBSD are being tracked. It encourages creativity while capturing the required elements of a successful program. For each of the products, a proposed budget and schedule are presented. A priority is assigned to individual tasks so that the program can be tailored to an overall funding level.
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design Products Necessary to Implement Performance Based Seismic Design -I S ix "products" are needed to create a
S PBSD standard that is comprehensive and acceptable to stakeholders. They are: 1. A Planning and Management Program. Currently there is a demand within the stakeholder community for more reliable ways to predict and control building performance. These demands, however, are not clearly articulated and are often conflicting.
Clearly, though, there is increasing recognition that problems exist with current design practice. The greatest challenge to creating a successful PBSD program is distilling the most important needs within these demands and synthesizing from them a cohesive guideline for performance based design. A significant effort will be required to ensure that the PBSD guidelines respond to these needs fairly, are accepted by stakeholders and are implemented effectively. The Action Plan must be a vehicle to communicate these needs to the entire community, so that the solutions are appropriate and widely acceptable. A formal program will be necessary to educate people about how PBSD can respond to many of their current demands for more reliable and cost effective performance. The Planning and Management Program will consist of the following components: > A steering committee to shepherd and promote the development of the Guidelines. This group will be responsible for insuring that the efforts by the various working groups are tracking towards the goals laid down in this Action Plan. It will work collaboratively with the stakeholders to create an effective coalition of interests.
It will question stakeholders directly in a series of forums about what they see as concerns and benefits. This group needs to function as facilitators and encouragers to promote adoption.
An education strategy to facilitate the use of the Guidelines. This will require a concentrated effort including conferences, workshops and publications to raise awareness and assist stakeholders in using the guidelines. Integration of the guidelines into codes and practice, and adoption by local and state jurisdictions needs to be accomplished in an incremental way yet with a defined timetable and strategy.
2. Structural Performance Products (SPP) The SPP will form the core reference material for the guidelines.
They will consist of technical documents that quantify performance levels, define how to evaluate a building's performance, and develop methods for designing a structure to meet a performance level with defined reliability. They will present the necessary analytical information needed by engineers. A goal is to address new and existing buildings so that the guidelines will be appropriate for new design as well as retrofit. The creation of these products will require major technical research in order to 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design produce a comprehensive framework for structural design.
3. Nonstructural Performance Products (NPP)The NPP function similarly to the SPP but focus on the nonstructural components of a building: partitions, piping, equipment, contents, etc. In the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, several prominent buildings had significant losses not because of structural damage, but because of nonstructural damage such as broken sprinkler pipes. To truly achieve a desired performance, design of nonstructural components is as critical as the design of the structure itself.
Engineers from many disciplines, architects and manufacturers who design and supply a building's nonstructural components will develop these products. Like the SPP, the NPP will require significant research, especially in the areas of equipment testing and certification. Also like the SPP, the NPP must include research focused on existing building stock.
4. Risk Management Products (RMVP) The RMIP are the key to bringing owners, financial institutions and governing agencies into the PBSD process. These documents will be financially oriented and will develop methodologies for calculating the benefits of designing to various performance objectives and for selecting appropriate design bases for individual and classes of buildings.
The goal will be to provide a basis for stakeholders to make rational economic choices about the level of performance and the comparative costs to reach those levels.
5. The PBSD Guidelines. The PBSD Guidelines will be the actual document used by design professionals, building officials, material suppliers and equipment manufacturers to implement performance based design. It will distill and synthesize information from the SPP, NPP and RMP into one document that is usable by each of the groups. It is intended that this document will be published as a FEMVIA guideline and will serve as a basis for codes and practice thereafter. The guidelines will contain a technical commentary for reference It will address new design as well as retrofit and it will serve as a basis for development of building rating" systems, to provide financial guidance to stakeholders.
6. A Stakeholders' Guide. This document will function as a nontechnical commentary to the Guidelines, explaining PBSD and providing instruction to the nontechnical audience. PBSD will require a shift in the role owners, lending institutions and others play within the design process. These stakeholders will now be a fundamental part of developing the design strategy. The Stakeholders' Guide will help these groups choose objectives that best meet their cost and performance goals.
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design Schedule and Budget: given adequate funding, implementation of the Action Plan can occur over a ten-year period. This is an ambitious schedule, as the products require major research and consensus building efforts. The steering committee will be a constant throughout the process, to facilitate and coordinate the various products. The products will be developed somewhat concurrently, with the Structural and Nonstructural Performance Products and the Risk Management Product leading the Guidelines and the Stakeholders' Guide. At milestones throughout the project, drafts of the Guidelines and Stakeholders' Guide will be prepared using information from the technical products.
The provisions will be verified through example applications and stakeholder review, resulting in refinement or modification of the research efforts. In this way, the project will remain on track and under the scrutiny of the involved stakeholders. Throughout the project, the Planning and Management Program must Cost Product Year 1 2 be developed and employed, in order to gain acceptance from the stakeholders.
In order to achieve wide acceptance of PBSD, it is imperative that participation be sought from a diverse group of stakeholders in broad geographical regions, and from both small and large businesses and municipalities. The participants must have the skills needed to develop each product, and represent as many points of view as possible.
The costs shown below are given as a range, the lower number representing the minimum essential funding level required to obtain a basic framework for PBSD, and the higher number representing the optimal level needed for full and effective implementation. Within the Action Plan a more detailed breakdown of the costs is presented, describing the specific tasks associated with each product, along with a flowchart describing the relationships between the six products. Priorities are attached to each task so that funding decisions can be made more easily.
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 3 4 5 6 7 Q I n Amounts shown are in 1998 dollars viii 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design lives have been lost in major
F seismic events, in buildings designed under modern codes. The economic losses in recent earthquakes, however, have put a strain on communities, owners, lenders, insurers, governments and building users. The process of building design and construction must undergo a significant change in order to reduce future losses to these stakeholders. Current codes simply are not sophisticated or robust enough to allow designs to be refined to the extent that loss prediction and reduction are reliable.
Performance based seismic design has been in development for several years and represents a necessary strategy for reducing earthquake losses. It focuses on the economic and social goals of building stakeholders and integrates financial modeling with the latest engineering research. The various efforts within PBSD, however, have yet to be fully developed and synthesized into a comprehensive workable guideline. This major step is key to fulfilling the promise of PBSD and reaping its benefits.
This Action Plan lays out a rational, cost-effective and achievable program for establishing and implementing PBSD in a manner that will benefit each of the groups with a stake in the built environment. On an individual building basis and on community, county and statewide levels, PBSD offers opportunities to more reliably predict building performance and to reduce the social and economic impacts of earthquakes.
PBSD -A Regional Perspective Stanford University is a microcosm of many large, communities. comprises masonry, concrete, steel, on a campus-wide build new facilities has evolved from an it of hazardous in terms of occupancy investing where the losses is most productive.
s what to expect when it d recovery planning for 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design References Federal Emergency Management Agency, Testimony of James L. Witt, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency Before the Subcommittee on House Water Resources and Environmental Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 1998.
2 Kunreuther, Howard, Role of Mitigation in Managing Catastrophic Risks, Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center, 1997 3 SEAOC 1996, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural Engineers Association of California, 1996.
4 Hamburger, Ronald, An Overview of Performance Based Design, 1997.
5 Hamburger, R.O. and Holmes, W.T., Vision Statement EERI/FEMA Performance Based Seismic Engineering Project, 1997.
See Action Plan for additional references 
ACTION PLAN
FOR PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN
* Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design !Project Participants _i FEMA Project Advisor -Michael Mahoney, FEMA Technical Advisor -Robert D. Hanson, University of Michigan/FEMA Project Manager -John Theiss, EQE International Steering Committee -Donald Anderson, CH2M Hill Alfredo Ang, University of California Michael Bocchicchio, University of California Frederick Herman, city of Palo Alto William Holmes, Rutherford and Chekene John Hooper, Skilfing, Ward, Magnusson, Berkshire Helmut Krawinkler, Stanford University Andrew Merovich, A. T. Merovich Associates Jack Moehle, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Maryann Phipps, Degenkoib Engineers EERI Board Liaison -Ronald Hamburger, ECE International EERI Ex-officio Member -Susan Tubbesing, EER Action Plan Author -Evan Reis, Comartin-Reis Issue Paper Authors -Dan Alesch, University of Wisconsin Alf redo Ang, University of California Tony Court, Curry, Price, Court Structural& Civil Engineers Greg Deierlein, Stanford University John Gillengerten, John A. Martin & Associates Gerald Jones, Engineer Farzad Naeim, John A. Martin & Associates Robert Reitherman, CURE Additional PBSD Workshop Participants Daniel Abrams S. Ahmad Christopher Arnold Deborah Beck Vitelmo Bertero Lawrence Brugger Jacques Cattan Craig Cornartin C. Allin Cornell Chuck Davis Bruce Ellingwood Jeffrey Gee S. K. Ghosh Michael Hagerty Gary Hart Perry Haviland Wilfred Iwan James Jirsa Laurence Kornfield George Lee H. S. Lew Hank Martin Vilas Mujumdar Paul Murray Hidlemi Nakashima Chris Poland Maurice Power Mike Riley Dan Rogers Ronald Sack Phillip Samblanet Sheila Selkregg Paul Somerville Stephen Toth Fred Turner Bill Tryon David Tyree Nabih Youssef 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design i I. Project Participants 
* Table of Contents 2 Introduction 
3 Product Summary 
5 Summary Budget and Schedule 
7
7 Layout of Product Sections 
11 Product I -Planning and Management Program..
13 Product 2 -Structural Performance Products..20Product 3 -Nonstructural Performance Products 
28 Product 4 -Risk Management Products..36Product 5 -PBSD Guidelines 
43 Product 6 -Stakeholders' Guide 
50 Interrelation of Products. 55 Conclusion.
58
References.
59Performance based Design Workshop Participant List.61
2 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design Introduction T his Action Plan provides as its T primary goal: A strategy, definable tasks, a budget and a schedule for the development and implementation of usable and widely-acceptable performance based seismic design (PBSD) guidelines.
The Plan can function as a road map for the teams of people who will eventually create and implement these guidelines.
The guidelines will provide a means for moving from the current practice of building design and construction intended primarily to protect life safety, to a system that also addresses the protection of the economic welfare of the public. It is not intended that this Plan limit the creativity of the development teams. Rather, it should serve as a means to track progress toward the project's goals, and offer guidance about the major challenges along the way. In fact, the Plan encourages innovation in the design and analysis of building systems, and in the way we view the relationships between members of the building development community.
The current state of the art contains valuable and practical information that has been implemented on some individual projects. A goal is to use this information where possible, filling in the gaps with new research and evaluation methods. References are included at the end of the document which describe the historical issues surrounding PBSD.
This document is, as its name implies, an action plan, focusing on the specific tasks that must be accomplished to implement PBSID broadly. The Plan centers about development of six "products," which are considered necessary for the full, effective adoption and implementation of PBSD. Each contributes to meeting a specific portion of the primary goal. The term "product" does not refer exclusively to written documents, but implies any means by which information is delivered to the intended audience. The products may also include presentations, workshops, audiovisual material, ad-hoc committees, teaching materials, etc.
An important challenge to implementing PBSID is overcoming the perception that it is only of benefit and interest to structural engineers and always adds cost to a project. To be successful, PBSD must come from and be embraced by the full spectrum of "stakeholders" within the building development community. The term "stakeholder' refers to owners, engineers, architects, researchers, financial institutions, materials suppliers, contractors, building officials, government agencies, and the building occupants: in essence, society at large.
This obviously is a large group, but buy in from each is vital if PBSD is to work.

Action Plan for Performance In fact, many of these groups are already calling for changes to the current state of design practice, and asking for more reliable ways to predict and control building performance. The Action Plan, therefore, solicits the involvement of each group. The Plan holds as a basic philosophy that the development of the products should not be dominated by one group. Clearly, each will have areas of expertise, but at all levels, an equal measure of respect is important in obtaining broad Based Seismic Design acceptance. PBSD, in its broadest sense, should be used as a global planning tool for large businesses, cities, counties and states.
At its heart, PBSD requires stakeholders to look differently at the built environment. By definition, it implies multidisciplinary collaboration to insure that buildings are built more efficiently, reliably and with predictable performance.

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 1Product Summary ach of the six products and the design and evaluation E tasks and budget associated with methodologies for both new and its development is presented in a existing buildings. A focus of the separate section. It is important to research will be to increase reliability understand how each will come together in the design and analysis process, to build a working framework for PlBSD. thereby reducing uncertainties. Effort will be made to address existing as The six products are described below. well as new construction. Early in The first product tracks through the the development of this product, an entire project, shepherding the effort will be made to address the development of the other products and current state of the art and inherent obtaining stakeholder support. uncertainties and gaps therein, and from that identify research needs >Planning and Management and goals appropriate to reducing Program. A formal program will be these uncertainties and gaps.
developed to educate stakeholders about PBSD. The Planning and > Nonstructural Performance Management Program will be Products (NPP). The NPP function implemented by a steering similar to the SPP but focus on the committee to shepherd and nonstructural components of a promote the development of the building: partitions, piping, Guidelines and an education equipment, contents, etc. The NPP strategy to facilitate their use and should address new components adoption. The goal will be to ensure and components already in place that the project accomplishes its within existing buildings.
purpose and that it is accessible and Development of guidelines for relevant to the stakeholders. component testing and certification will be part of these products. The next three products form the core goals and scope of separately technical basis for the guidelines. They funded programs to collect will require substantial research, information on performance in past analysis, verification and possibly and future earthquakes and to test testing. equipment will also be developed.
Similar to the SPP, an initial effort > Structural Performance Products will be made to assess the state of (SPP). The SPP will quantify the art and develop a research plan.
methods for predicting structural performance for various levels of seismic hazard. They will contain 

Action Plan for Performance 
Risk Management Products 
(RMP). The RMP will be financially 
oriented and will develop 
methodologies for calculating the 
costs and benefits of implementing 
PBSD. A major effort will be to 
combine various levels of risk, 
performance and hazard to allow a 
wide range of design objectives to 
be evaluated as potential bases for 
new procedures. Research will 
include studies on reliability, cost-
benefit modeling, loss reduction, 
capital planning, etc. A focus will be 
to provide owners with tools that can 
reliably be used to select appropriate 
performance objectives for projects. 
The information produced in the 
RMP should also serve as the basis 
for the development of a building 
rating system. 
The last two products-comprise the end 
use documents, which are distilled and 
synthesized from the technical reference 
products. 
Based Seismic Design 
The PBSD Guidelines. The 
Guidelines will be the actual 
document containing the 
performance based design 
procedures. It is intended that this 
document will be published as a 
FEMA guideline and can be 
incorporated into future codes and 
practice. It will form the technical 
basis for design and analysis and be 
written to bring consistency 
throughout the industry. It will be 
usable for both new design and 
existing building retrofit. It will also 
contain a technical commentary to 
the Guidelines. 
A Stakeholders' Guide. This 
document will function as a 
reference and planning guide for 
owners, financial interests and other 
non-technical stakeholders. It will 
include financial tools that permit 
owners to make funding decisions 
about buildings using performance 
based design concepts. The guide 
will be written for a non-technical 
audience and contain graphic aids 
and example applications. 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Summary Budget and 
Schedule 
T his section summarizes the overall 
T funding request for the 
development of the PBSD products, and 
a schedule for completion within ten 
years. Detailed breakdowns of the cost 
and duration of each product are 
contained in the following sections. 
The ten-year timeframe for completing 
the six products is ambitious. It will 
require that teams work concurrently 
where possible to reduce the overall 
schedule. This will mean that the 
number of people involved with the 
project will be large. While this creates 
an administrative challenge, it is 
consistent with the desire to obtain 
broad ownership of the resulting 
guidelines. 
Each product contains "essential" and 
"optimal' funding levels. Material that is 
essential is required to create a basic 
framework for PBSD. Without this 
material, fundamental gaps will be left. 
These gaps may significantly reduce the 
likelihood that PBSD will be widely 
adopted. The optimal material is very 
important if PBSD is to be truly 
effective. The momentum established 
with the framework development should 
be continued, by implementing the 
optimal tasks. This lesson has been 
learned through previous efforts at 
,developing guidelines. In each product 
section, tasks are identified as either 
essential or optimal, and from these the 
summary numbers are drawn. 
Several tasks consist of supporting 
programs of research, testing or 
information gathering. 
The funding requests for these 
tasks represent the costs to set 
up the programs and to identify 
an ongoing source of funding 
for their implementation. 
Several outside sources will be tapped 
for these efforts, including owners' 
groups, materials and equipment 
manufacturers, and government 
agencies. 
The budget also provides a general 
funding breakdown by year. As one of 
its first tasks, the project steering 
committee will refine these allocations 
based on the establishment of the 
working teams. Because work on all six 
products is done somewhat in parallel, 
the steering committee may reschedule 
tasks and funding as the project 
progresses. 
The funding request is shown in 
1998 dollars and will need to be 
escalated over the duration of 
the project. 
Following the budget is a flowchart 
showing the relationships between the 
products. This is a very important part of 
PBSD development. Rather than a 
linear process, where the technical 
documents are developed and the end 
use documents are prepared following, 
the flowchart describes a more parallel 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
process. At milestones during the 
technical research, information is 
gathered and fed into a framework for 
the Guidelines and Stakeholders' Guide. 
The Guidelines are then reviewed and 
verified, and as necessary the direction 
of the technical work is refined-or 
changed. In similar past projects of this 
scale, this has allowed a regular review 
of the material being developed by the 
stakeholders. The steering committee 
will have an important responsibility in 
managing this process. The Planning 
and Management Program continues 
throughout the project to ensure proper 
coordination. The schedule of tasks and 
subtasks within each product should 
generally follow the descriptions within 
the flowchart, but may be revised by the 
steering committee based on 
stakeholder review. 
The goal of this schedule is not 
to rigidly define the process, 
but to identify the relationships 
between the products and their 
tasks. 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
FUNDING REQUEST: SUMMARY TABLE 
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS) 
Range represents essential and essential + optimal tasks 
Values are rounded 
Amounts shown are in 1998 dollars 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
PMP PBSD Guidelines SPP/NPP RMP Stakeholder Guide 
YEAR 1 
YEAR 2 
YEAR 10 
Revision process assessment and 
Revision process
he 100% 
FLOWCHART SHOWING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRODUCTS AND TASKS 
10 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Layout of Product 
Sections 
T he following sections are devoted 
T to the six products described 
above. Each begins with a general 
description of the product. The 
description mentions the core material 
that will be included; however, as 
development occurs additional or 
alternative approaches may be 
desirable. In order to provide some 
flexibility in project funding, the Plan 
describes the material as either 
essential or optimal, as described in the 
previous section. 
A list of tasks follows the product 
description. A list of primary team 
members involved with the task and a 
preliminary budget is shown. Other 
stakeholders with a more indirect 
interest are shown in parenthesis. The 
budget assumes a rate of $130 per 
person-hour (this includes a markup for 
support staff expenses and funding for 
workshops, travel, etc. as required). 
Task duration is listed as well. Most of 
the tasks continue over several years, 
so that the duration is better considered 
using the flowchart in the previous 
section. It is not expected that effort will 
be continuous over the entire duration of 
a task. The task budgets are based on 
teams working at about one-quarter 
time. Some tasks will require that the 
teams be larger or smaller or that the 
effort steps up at some period then 
relaxes during review cycles. Where 
this is the case, the budget has been 
modified accordingly. It will be up to the 
steering committee to monitor this 
carefully. 
Several tasks include the 
identification of additional 
funding sources for the full 
implementation of post 
earthquake data collection, 
instrumentation, component 
testing, future revisions to the 
Guidelines, ongoing education 
efforts, etc. The budget figure 
shown for each of these tasks 
includes the team's effort to 
identify these funding sources 
and to set up the protocols and 
goals for these programs. The 
funds necessary to actually 
implement the programs may 
be high (more than $1 million 
each) and are not part of this 
Action Plan. Sources of 
funding may include 
government agencies, research 
consortia, equipment 
manufacturers, material 
suppliers, professional 
societies, building owner 
groups, etc. 
Many complex issues must be 
researched and resolved when 
developing each of the products. 
Several authors have written issue 
papers in preparation for the 
development of this Action Plan. The 
papers describe some of these issues 
as well as potential paths of resolution. 
As a reference, they are included in an 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
appendix to the Plan. Following the Performance levels and damage 
description of each of the products, a state definition and quantification 
brief discussion of the main challenges > Acceptability evaluation 
is presented. The product teams will procedures and criteria 
need to devote a special effort to > Reliability quantification and 
meeting them. The challenges can be assessment 
grouped topically as follows: Funding 
> Administration 
Analysis and modeling > Education and Incentives 
approaches > Data Acquisition 
> Ground motion characterization 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
PRODUCT I -Planning and 
Management Program 
currently there is a demand within
C the stakeholder community for 
more reliable ways to predict and control 
building performance. These demands, 
however, are not clearly articulated and 
are often conflicting. Clearly, though, 
there is increasing recognition that 
problems exist with current design 
practice. The greatest challenge to 
creating a successful PBSD program is 
distilling the most important needs within 
these demands and synthesizing from 
them a cohesive guideline for 
performance based design. A significant 
effort will be required to ensure that the 
PBSD guidelines respond to these 
needs fairly, are accepted by 
stakeholders and are implemented 
effectively. The Action Plan must be a 
vehicle to communicate these needs to 
the entire community, so that the 
solutions are appropriate and widely 
acceptable. A formal program will be 
necessary to educate people about how 
PBSD can respond to many of their 
current demands for more reliable and 
cost effective performance. The 
Planning and Management Program will 
consist of the following components: 
>An administrative steering 
committee to shepherd and promote 
the development of the Guidelines. 
The steering committee will create 
the teams that are responsible for 
developing the various products 
described in the preceding sections. 
It will establish the overall schedule 
for the project and insure that the 
efforts by the various working groups 
are tracking towards the goals laid 
down in this Action Plan. 
The committee will work 
collaboratively with the stakeholders 
to create an effective coalition of 
interests. It will question 
stakeholders directly in a series of 
forums about what they see as 
concerns and benefits. The 
committee needs to function as 
facilitator, encourager and promoter 
to insure adoption. 
The steering committee will not 
serve as the program manager. It is 
intended that the funding agency will 
either directly assume this effort or 
will assign it to a third party. The 
committee will work closely with the 
program manager to ensure good 
coordination of the project. 
Stakeholder meetings to gain 
Support from the broad range of 
Participants within the built 
environment 
PBSD will have a much greater 
chance of success if, rather than 
being "sold" to an unreceptive 
audience, it is developed from within 
the audience itself. A major goal of 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
this project is to create an end workshops and publications to raise 
product in which all stakeholders awareness and gain acceptance of 
take ownership. To this end, the 
Planning and Management Program 
will establish and facilitate forums 
the guidelines. Integration of the 
guidelines into codes and adoption 
by local jurisdictions needs to be 
where stakeholders are queried accomplished in an incremental way 
about their specific needs and asked yet with a defined timetable and 
to participate in the development of strategy. The steering committee, 
each of the products. stakeholders involved with the 
development of the guidelines and An education strategy to facilitate professional educators will lead 
the use of the Guidelines. seminars, write articles and assist 
with the implementation of the 
The education strategy will require a guidelines nationwide. 
concentrated effort of conferences, 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 1.1 -Team development 
Task 1.1.1 -Create a steering 
committee 
Description: 
The first major task is for a steering 
committee to be created. This group will 
remain together for the duration of the 
project. The goal of the group will be to 
shepherd the development of the PBSD 
Guidelines. The committee will include a 
broad spectrum of people from all 
stakeholder groups. It is important that 
the group not be seen as too heavily 
weighted with any one group. Key to 
successful implementation of PBSD is 
input from all users. The group will 
layout the basic outline for each of the 
product development teams, and will 
select the team members and 
reviewers. These teams will consist of 
experts on the product material, 
although diversity will still be important 
to include different points of view. The 
steering committee will be responsible 
for overall project coordination, ensuring 
that work by each team is produced in a 
timely manner and has been reviewed 
for both technical accuracy and for 
usefulness. The group will develop 
status report formats for each team to 
use on a regular basis. It will act as a 
liaison with other concurrent research 
projects, to facilitate the free exchange 
of ideas. It will hold regular meetings to 
discuss progress of the project and 
resolve any conflicts. It will serve as a 
means to transfer information between 
teams, ensuring that the efforts are 
complimentary and supplementary. 
The committee will coordinate their 
efforts with the program management 
structure established by the funding 
agency. 
The committee will review management 
models for other development projects 
(SAC, NEHRP Guidelines, FEMA 273, 
HAZUS, etc.) and assist FEMA in 
developing the most appropriate model 
for this effort. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, 
'Contractors, Material 
suppliers, Financial 
interests, Owners, 
Building officials, 
Government agencies 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $1,500,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task .12-Establish product 
development teams 
Description: 
The steering committee will provide 
oversight for the selection of teams to 
develop each of the products and 
perform each of the tasks described in 
this Action Plan. The group will 
establish a means to fill the teams with a 
wide range of talented individuals expert 
in their fields. The group will establish 
terms of compensation and job 
responsibilities. The group will review 
the status and progress of the teams on 
a regular basis. It will make changes to 
their composition as necessary to 
maintain effective progress that meets 
budget and scheduling constraints. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Contractors, Material consensus about the style of 
suppliers, Financial presentation. 
interests, Owners, 
Building officials, Personnel: Design professionals, 
Government agencies Researchers, Material 
suppliers, Architects, 
Priority: Essential Contractors, Financial 
Budget: $100,000 (budget for the and insurance interests, 
product development Owners, Building officials, 
teams themselves are Government agencies 
included within 
associated tasks) Priority: Essential 
Duration: Throughout the project Budget: $200,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Task 1.2 -Set goals with i Task 1.3 -Assess project 
: I-stakeholders progress with stakeholders' 
f groups
Description: Description: 
The steering committee will convene a The steering committee will identify 
series of workshops with stakeholder interested parties from all the 
representatives through which several stakeholder communities and bring 
issues will be resolved. These include them into the PBSD development 
identifying the most important concerns process. The team will establish regular 
owners and other financial stakeholders lines of communication and 
have when managing risk, and the dissemination of information. It may tap 
benefits that these stakeholders expect from these parties, people to serve on 
from PBSD (reducing construction other task teams. 
costs, optimizing overall life-cycle costs, 
developing a building rating system, The steering committee will hold a 
minimizing down-time, etc.). The team series of meetings with the 
will also identify the positive and stakeholders' groups throughout the 
negative aspects of current codes and project to gauge and review the 
design standards from design, cost and progress of the project. The goals will 
usability points of view. The workshops be to present the status of the project to 
will also focus on establishing levels of the stakeholders, to insure that the 
analysis and design complexity. This project continues to address their needs 
will require that a broad section of the and to give them a voice in refining the 
stakeholder communities be involved. A project's direction. To achieve the most 
goal is to be able to quantify the level of efficiency, the meetings should be 
effort that will be required of the conducted by professional facilitators. 
designers in terms of cost, time and The team will establish recording 
sophistication, so as to be as flexible as procedures and formats for agendas, 
possible. The team will reach a presentations, minutes, etc. The team 
16 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
will collect and disseminate the 
information developed in the meetings. 
The steering committee will make a 
special effort to remain in contact with 
the stakeholders' groups throughout the 
project with correspondence, ad hoc 
meetings, etc. so that at no point does 
the project disconnect itself from their 
input. Gaining broad acceptance of 
PBSD will only be possible through 
continual interaction with the people 
who will be using it. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Financial 
interests. Owners, 
Contractors, Material 
suppliers, Building 
officials, Government 
agencies 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $600,000 
Duration: On a regular basis 
throughout the project. 
Task 1.4-Develop education 
and incentive programs 
Task 1.4.1 -Develop an 
education program 
Description: 
The steering committee will disseminate 
information about PBSD to users. This 
will be accomplished with a variety of 
teaching tools including, publications, 
tutorials, seminars, workshops, 
continuing education classes, 
multimedia tools, etc. The team will 
make a concerted effort to reach those 
outside the engineering community, 
including architects, contractors, 
owners, financial interests and material 
suppliers. It also must reach users in all 
regions of the country. 
The steering committee will develop 
core teaching materials and identify 
funding sources to provide ongoing 
educational efforts. Training materials 
should be professionally developed and 
be of the highest quality. The team will 
identify and train teachers from a broad 
range of backgrounds to present the 
material. The team will be composed of 
experts with specialization in outreach, 
dissemination, and education. It will 
receive input from the design 
professionals, researchers and others 
who have developed the technical and 
end-use products. 
The steering committee must also reach 
indirect stakeholders such as building 
occupants, regulatory agencies and the 
public at large. Material should utilize 
various media to clearly explain PBSD. 
The team will identify funding sources to 
permit an ongoing outreach effort 
beyond the ten-year duration set forth in 
this Action Plan. 
Personnel: Outside experts with 
specialization in 
outreach, dissemination, 
and education. (Design 
professionals, 
Researchers, 
Contractors, Material 
suppliers, Financial 
interests, Owners, 
Building officials, 
Government agencies) 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $1,300,000 
Duration: 6 years 
17 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 1.4.2 -Develop an 
Incentive program for using 
PBSD 
Description: 
The steering committee will establish a 
collaborative program by which the 
benefits of using PBSD will be spread 
among all the stakeholders involved. It 
will identify funding sources, both private 
and public, which will offer incentives for 
using PBSD, especially in the short term 
when it is still seen as an emerging 
technology. 
The steering committee will establish 
cooperative relationships between 
buyers, sellers and installers, to develop 
better performing nonstructural 
components. Among these three groups 
sources will be identified to create a 
fund for developing innovative designs. 
Personnel: Outside experts, Design 
professionals, 
Researchers, 
Contractors, Material 
suppliers, Financial 
interests, Owners, 
Building officials, 
Government agencies 
Priority:: Optimal 
Budget: $300,000 
Duration: 3 years 
Task 1.5 -Clarify 
responsibilities between 
stakeholders 
Description: 
The steering committee will write a plan 
for the division of responsibility between 
designers, contractors, manufacturers, 
installers and owners so that at all 
:-stages of a building's life, responsibility 
for the seismic performance of the 
structural and nonstructural components 
is maintained. It will identify the effects 
that this division will have on these 
groups, practically, financially and with 
respect to liability. The team will develop 
a "hand-off" program so that information 
is smoothly passed between groups. A 
goal of this task will be to find ways for 
each of these groups to work 
collaboratively toward the same ends. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Contractors, Material 
suppliers, Owners, 
Building officials, 
Government agencies 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $200,000 
Duration: 2 years 
18 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Challenges 
0S 
>Funding part of the process. The steering 
committee must insure that each 
The government cannot and should group is heard and its needs 
not fund all of the research and accounted for. 
support all of the incentive programs 
that will be necessary to implement Understanding changes in liability 
PBSD. Many stakeholders will be a major challenge, as groups 
benefit from PBSD and should share become responsible for different 
in these costs. It will be a challenge things during the entire life of a 
to identify sources of funding for building. The legal ramifications of 
these projects from within the other these changes may affect how 
stakeholder communities. widely PBSD is used. The steering 
Stakeholders will need to be committee must address these 
convinced that spending money on concerns early on and with 
research will be in their long-term compromises that satisfy each group 
financial interests. but do not reduce PBSD to an 
ineffective tool. The group will need 
Administration to bring in legal expertise to help 
resolve this issue. 
The aggressive schedule and need 
for consensus building require that > Education and Incentives 
many people be involved with the 
project. Management of these Overcoming long held beliefs about 
teams and their interests will the nature and importance of design 
perhaps be the most difficult and about its relation to other 
challenge. The steering committee aspects of financing, construction 
will need to be diverse and must be and maintaining a building will be 
able to reach consensus on major difficult. The steering committee and 
issues. Substantial energy should be education groups must be 
devoted to building strong teams 
and developing relationships within 
supporters of the process and its 
expected benefits. 
them. These groups will be together 
for many years, so they need to Many potential PBSD users will be 
work well together. A strong overwhelmed by the changes 
management structure and project required of them. It will be important 
manager will be essential to insure to allow for an incremental infusion 
that this Plan is implemented of the guidelines into general use 
properly and remains on schedule and into building codes. The 
and on budget. steering committee will face the 
challenge of bringing PBSD online 
Issues of equity and responsibility quickly yet in ways which are not 
will be important challenges. Each threatening to users. 
of the stakeholders needs to see 
PBSD as a "win" for them. 
Compromise will be an inevitable 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
PRODUCT 2-Structural 
Performance Products: 
These products will form the core 
reference material of the PBSD 
Guidelines. They will include three main 
areas of focus: 
Methodologies for quantifiably and 
reliably defining structural 
performance and acceptability 
criteria on a building and component 
basis. 
This effort will define performance 
levels in terms of drift, damage, 
ductility or other parameters for each 
building type. The work will-, 
synthesize the results of analytical 
and experimental data. It will 
consider the variability and 
uncertainties involved, with the goal 
of obtaining reliable estimates of 
material, component and system 
performance. 
> Analytical and design procedures by 
which engineers can predict a 
building's expected performance 
with well defined reliability. 
Performance engines will need to be 
developed to permit structural 
evaluation by the entire engineering 
community. It is important that they 
be sophisticated, but broadly usable. 
Methodologies need to be 
developed for design of new and 
retrofit of existing buildings. 
Techniques need to account for 
current computer technology that is 
widely available and that which can 
be expected in the future. 
> Tools that can more reliably predict 
and appropriately quantify expected 
ground motions. 
These tools will characterize the 
seismic demand requirements for 
linear and nonlinear analyses, using 
response spectra and time-histories. 
Ground motion parameters that 
correlate to performance will be 
identified and quantified. Simplified 
representations of these parameters 
into static base shear and lateral 
force distribution formulas will also 
need to be developed. Issues of 
reliability, uncertainty and 
confidence levels need to be 
incorporated into the determination 
and effects of ground motion. The 
information will have to be flexible 
enough to be used by a wide 
audience. A procedure for data 
collection through instrumentation 
will be developed. 
It will be highly desirable to identify other 
sources of funding to promote basic 
research in the areas defined by the 
tasks. These sources may include 
government agencies, the materials 
industry, and others. The budget 
amounts shown for each will likely be 
sufficient to achieve a working 
framework for PBSD, but expanded 
research will broaden its scope and 
usefulness. 
20 
Action Plan or Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 2.1 -Identify current 
PBSD information and 
additional research needs 
Task 2.1.1 -Assess the state of 
the art in structural 
performance and analysis 
Description: 
The team will gather existing information 
on structural analysis and design 
methods and identify gaps in current 
knowledge. A strong effort will be made 
to use available information so that 
research funding can be most efficiently 
spent. The current state of the art 
should not define the scope of this 
project or limit the direction research 
might take, but rather allow researchers 
to avoid unnecessary duplication of 
effort. The team will also assess the 
usefulness of available information on 
material performance, component 
acceptability, geotechnical parameters 
and hazard quantification. An effort will 
be made to characterize the reliability of 
existing procedures and information. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $150,000 
Duration: 1 year 
Task 2.1.2-Develop a research 
plan to advance the state of the 
art 
Description: 
Once gaps in existing knowledge have 
been identified, the group will develop a 
research plan to fill them. The goal will 
be to develop a road map of research by 
which the tasks within this Action Plan 
can be accomplished. The plan will be 
detailed enough to be used by 
stakeholders, laying out tasks and 
schedules. An effort will be made to 
identify outside sources of funding to 
augment the budgets assigned to each 
task within the Plan, considering public 
and private resources. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $150,000 
Duration: 1 year 
Task 2.2 -Develop means by 
which to characterize, quantify 
-and predict performance 
i
_ 
Task 2.2.1 -Develop 
performance characterization 
Description: 
The team will reach consensus on the 
definitions of performance to be used as 
the basis for PBSD. These 
characterizations will be quantified in a 
later task. The goal in this task is to 
agree on concepts such as life safety, 
immediate occupancy, etc. The team 
21 
Action Plan for Performance 
will decide what these terms mean in 
relation to casualties, capital loss, down 
time, and other important parameters. 
Reaching a firm decision on 
performance definitions is critical to the 
rest of the project. It therefore must 
incorporate the opinions of all 
stakeholders. Meetings among 
stakeholder groups will be held to 
determine which measures of 
performance are considered the most 
important and how they relate to 
analytically predictable behavior. These 
performance measures will later be 
coupled with hazard information from 
Task 2.3, to obtain performance and 
overall design criteria. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Owners, 
Building officials. 
Government agencies, 
Financial interests 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $250,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Task 2.2.2 -Develop building 
and component acceptable rice 
criteria 
Description: 
The team will gather and review existing 
information on acceptance criteria, and 
identify gaps in current knowledge. 
Research will be targeted, to fill in these 
gaps and will include both analytical and 
empirical processes. Collaboration with 
testing programs will be important to 
obtain useful information on component 
behavior. 
Results of this task should be verified 
with current knowledge about material 
behavior. 
Based Seismic Design 
A strong effort will be dedicated to 
extrapolating component behavior, 
which is more clearly known, to building 
behavior, which currently contains more 
uncertainty. A goal will be to identify and 
quantify in practical terms criteria for 
overall building performance. 
Personnel: Engineers, Researchers, 
Material suppliers 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $1,000,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 2.2.3 -Develop 
geotechnical predictors of 
building performance. 
Description: 
The team will gather and review existing 
information on the effects on building 
performance of subsurface conditions. 
These will include the effects of soils, 
soil-structure interaction, and 
foundations. The team will identify gaps 
in current knowledge. Research will be 
targeted to fill in these gaps and will 
include both analytical and empirical 
processes. A strong effort will be 
dedicated to identifying ways to reduce 
uncertainties related to geotechnical and 
substructure analysis and design. 
Personnel: Engineers, Researchers, 
Material suppliers 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $650,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 2.2.4 -Quantify 
performance levels. 
Description: 
Using the definitions developed in Tasks 
2.2.1 and 2.2.2, the team will quantify 
performance levels using appropriate 
parameters (drift, damage, loss, 
business interruption, casualties, etc.). 
The goal in this task is to set the 
performance parameters so that the 
evaluation and design methodologies 
developed in the PBSD Guidelines 
product can be targeted to definitive 
numerical quantities. 
Personnel. Engineers, Researchers, 
Government agencies, 
Building officials, 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $450,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 22.5 -Develop analytic 
methodologies for achieving 
performance levels 
Description: 
The team will fill in the gaps in existing 
knowledge identified in Task 2.1.1. 
Research will consist primarily of 
analytical efforts and development of 
practical tools. The team will identify 
promising new techniques and devote 
research to making them usable within 
the PBSD framework. A forum will be 
held, bringing together engineers and 
building officials to discuss design and 
analysis methodologies. The purpose of 
this activity is to understand the broad 
range of engineering styles used 
throughout the country. 
Following this, the team will develop 
design and analysis methodologies, 
which will be usable by the entire design 
community. A focus will be on 
developing comprehensive and accurate 
methods that can be refined and made 
more practical within the Guidelines 
product. The methods will include 
consideration of geotechnical conditions 
and design of foundations as well as 
methods for practical assessment of 
reliability and safety. Modeling 
strategies will also be developed in this 
task. The team will keep in mind the 
limitations of computer applications 
currently available and anticipated in the 
future. It will account for the financial 
investments the design community is 
able to make in obtaining modeling 
technology. It will also consider 
architectural interests in the design 
process and the engineering limitations 
that may result. 
Personnel: Engineers, Researchers 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $1,100,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 2.2.6 -Develop analytical 
predictors of existing building 
performance 
Description: 
This effort will proceed in a similar 
manner to Task 2.2.5, but will focus on 
existing buildings. The team will 
research successful examples of retrofit 
and identify features that should be 
employed typically. It will quantify 
uncertainties within the existing built 
environment. 
Personnel: Engineers, Researchers 
(Material suppliers) 
Action Plan for Performance 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $650,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 2.3 -Develop hazard 
quantification and prediction 
methodologies 
Description: 
The team will develop processes to 
obtain ground motion information for use 
in PBSD. It will identify and describe in 
measurable terms the parameters of 
ground motion which have the most 
important effects on buildings. The 
team will create a standard for 
characterizing ground motion and will 
include issues of damping, nonlinearity, 
duration effects, etc. The team will 
develop rules for applying ground 
motion information, to create uniformity 
of use. Working with members of the 
earth sciences community, the team will 
put substantial effort into understanding, 
quantifying and building a consensus on 
the effects of edges and basins, soft 
soils, soil-structure interaction and near-
fault ground motion. Similarly, methods 
to quantify the amount of and 
consequences of permanent ground 
displacement will be developed. 
Personnel: Engineers, Researchers 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $650,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Based Seismic Design 
Task 2.4 -Identify uncertainties 
and develop practical means to 
assess and increase 
performance reliability 
= 
Task 2.4.1 -Develop means to 
check and increase reliability 
Description: 
The team will identify and quantify 
uncertainties in quantifying seismic 
hazards, building response and the 
variability of construction quality. This 
information will be developed in 
conjunction with the Risk Management 
Products, which will focus on the cost 
implications of these uncertainties. The 
team will research existing reliability 
techniques, identifying usable 
information and gaps. The team will use 
reliability theory to select and refine the 
design events and material 
acceptability. The team will develop 
simplified methods of reliability analysis, 
or identify software needs, 
understandable and usable by 
engineers. These may include 
equations, fragility curves for building 
classes and performance levels, and 
other tools to help the engineer prepare 
a design with a defined level of reliability 
and confidence. The team will also 
evaluate and reach consensus on 
appropriate target levels of reliability for 
specific performance levels (such as life 
safety or immediate occupancy) and for 
various building classes and uses. 
Personnel: Researchers, Financial 
interests 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $650,000 
Duration: 6 years 
24 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 2.4.2 -Identify methods 
that optimize constructability, 
repairability and OAIQC 
Description: 
The team will evaluate design 
methodologies focusing on 
constructability and repairability. The 
goal will be to identify structural systems 
that have predictable building 
performance and can be well controlled 
in terms of quality. The team will also 
make a strong effort to identify structural 
systems that minimize repairability costs 
following a major event, the goal being 
to reduce an owners overall life-cycle 
costs and downtime. 
The team will identify design processes 
and construction techniques that reduce 
quality or increase uncertainty in 
building performance to discourage their 
use. It will develop specifications and 
aids to assist designers, owners and 
contractors in controlling quality during 
construction. It will develop sample 
QA/QC programs using existing 
information where possible. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Owners, 
Building officials, 
Contractors 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $500,000 
Duration: 6 years 
Task 2.4.3 -Establish a 
separately funded effort for 
materials and component 
testing 
Description: 
The team will identify separate sources 
of funding, focusing on materials 
suppliers, to perform materials testing to 
fill in gaps in the current state of 
knowledge. The effort will include 
evaluating and investigating component 
performance in terms of quantifiable 
parameters such as stress, strain, 
ductility, methods of preparation, etc. 
The goal is to establish measures of 
performance that can be used in the 
analysis and design methodologies 
described in previous tasks. The team 
will develop testing protocols for 
obtaining and cataloguing information. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Materials 
suppliers 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $400,000 (does not 
include testing) 
Duration: 3 years 

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 2.5 -Establish a program Task 2.6 -Prepare documents 
and reports for use in PBSD--for 
post earthquake damage AX 
assessment : Guidelines 
Description: Description: 
The team will establish a program by This task will occur at milestones within 
which information can be obtained from the research plan developed in Task 
existing databases of structural 2.1.2 and in preparation for each of the 
performance. The team will extract Guidelines development phases. The 
relevant information and incorporate it team will gather the technical 
into the study of component and system information and prepare reports and 
acceptability criteria. The program will documents for the writers of the 
be suitable to extend to future Guidelines. Coordination with the RMP 
earthquakes, so that current information and NPP will occur to insure that 
can continually be updated. The team information is presented in a consistent 
will research existing building manner. Once the Guidelines teams 
instrumentation efforts and identify have reviewed the work and identified 
knowledge bases that can be accessed changes or refinements to the research 
to retrieve information. An effort will be plan, this team will work with the 
made to identify means by which research team for Task 2.1.2 to set out 
important ground motion information can the goals for the next phase of research. 
be extracted from existing and future 
earthquake records. Personnel: Engineers, Researchers, 
Material suppliers, 
Personnel: Design professionals, Building officials, 
Government agencies, Government agencies 
Researchers, Earth 
sciences community Priority: Essential 
Budget: $500,000 
Priority: Optimal Duration: Throughout the project 
Budget: $300,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Challenges 
The following list of issues will certainly 
not encompass all the challenges 
surrounding the development of the 
SPP, but they should be made a special 
focus of the development teams. 
> Analysis and modeling 
it will be important to identify 
techniques for analysis that can be 
applied by a broad spectrum of 
engineering offices. Different 
methods will need to be calibrated 
so that results are consistent. 
Modeling procedures, especially 
nonlinear methods, will require that 
software be developed that most 
designers can obtain and use with 
reliability and consistency. 
Academic research has to be 
translated into formats that can meet 
the budget and scheduling 
constraints of design professionals. 
It may be advisable to collaborate 
with software houses to develop 
programs or algorithms based on the 
procedures. 
Developing consistent approaches 
for new and existing buildings will 
also be a challenge. 
> Ground motion 
Engineers must be able to obtain 
reliable ground motion information to 
reduce uncertainty in PBSD design. 
Error in ground motion assumptions, 
common in current practice, can 
quickly overshadow the increased 
accuracy of the design 
methodologies. Nonlinear time 
history analysis has the potential to 
play a significant role in PBSD. 
Therefore, procedures for obtaining 
a robust suite of records suitable for 
individual sites will be an important 
part of the overall effort. 
Understanding the interaction of 
earthquake sources, travel paths, 
the site and the structure will also be 
a difficult challenge. 
Performance levels and damage 
states, Acceptability 
Developing performance indices that 
are valuable to building stakeholders 
will be a crucial first step. Engineers 
may face the challenge of having to 
develop very specific performance 
levels and damage states to meet 
owners' needs. 
Translating elemental damage into 
global damage will require review of 
past efforts, research and perhaps 
significant modeling studies. 
Reliability 
Quantifying reliability and uncertainty 
in component behavior will be a 
challenge due to the relatively small 
amount of data from past 
earthquakes and testing. It will also 
be a challenge to develop reliability 
methods that can be adopted and 
applied by design professionals. 
Data Acquisition 
Developing a program for extracting 
performance data from past and 
future earthquakes will be a logistical 
and financial challenge. It will take 
discipline to maintain the program 
that is established and to make use 
of the data that are obtained. 
27 
: Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
: PRODUCT 3 -Nonstructural 
: Performance Products 0 
These products will form an broad enough to account for the 
important reference component of placement of equipment and 
the PBSD guidelines. They will include contents in different areas within 
information similar to that developed in various building types. It will also 
the Structural Performance Products, need to allow certification of 
but relating to nonstructural building equipment and contents bracing for 
components. They will also include the an expected performance objective. 
following concentrations: 
> Post-earthquake data acquisition 
> Prediction of the demands on and analysis. 
nonstructural components and the 
evaluation of their performance A detailed plan is needed for 
under these demands. acquiring and analyzing 
performance data from future 
Just as forces on a structure are earthquakes. The nature of this data 
developed due to ground shaking needs to be defined. Following a 
and are affected by the interaction major earthquake, the data will be 
between the soil and the structure, processed and compared to the 
nonstructural component demands Guideline provisions. The Guidelines 
are developed due to the building will be modified in future editions by
shaking and are affected by the using lessons learned from 
interaction between the structure performance of nonstructural 
and the components. It will be components. This program is 
necessary to study and develop considered optimal for the effective 
methods by which these demands development of PBSD. 
can be predicted. It will also be 
important to develop techniques for > Evaluation of nonstructural 
evaluating the performance of the components in existing buildings 
components under these demands. 
In addition to developing procedures 
> Testing and certification programs to for the installation of nonstructural 
bring uniformity to the design of elements in new buildings, it will be 
manufactured components. important to devise methods for 
assessing and increasing the 
More so than buildings, modeling of performance of components already 
nonstructural performance is difficult installed within existing buildings. 
at best and needs to be 
supplemented with testing. The nonstructural performance products 
testing program will have to be will be developed by a team of design 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
professionals, scientists, equipment 
manufacturers and researches expert in 
the behavior of nonstructural 
components. Testing agencies will be 
employed as part of the certification 
program. User groups will be brought in 
to develop goals and strategies and to 
assist in the verification process. 
Successful development of the NPP will 
require outside funding of testing. A 
comprehensive program will cost 
millions of dollars and will be an ongoing 
effort. Funding identified herein must be 
augmented by research dollars provided 
by industries-and manufacturers which 
have a stake in the performance of 
nonstructural systems. 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 3.1 Identify initial 
parameters' and current 
state of the art 
Task 3.1.1 -Identify 
nonstructural components and 
their impacts on performance 
Description: 
The team will identify the various types 
of nonstructural components and 
systems that are vulnerable to loss. It 
will utilize existing efforts in this area. In 
addition to looking at individual 
components, a goal will be to 
understand how the components fit 
together into systems (i.e. pumps and 
fans are parts of a chiller system), and 
what the effects of damage to one 
component means to the system. 
Identifying weak links in systems is 
important. The team will then identify 
what systems are typically present in 
various building types, and what the 
weak links are when considering overall 
building performance. 
Another focus of this task will be to 
identify the scope of the Nonstructural 
Performance Products. The team will 
determine the detail with which issues of 
design, installation and maintenance of 
nonstructural components will be 
Task 3.1.2 -Evaluate effectiveness 
of current nonstructural 
and contents installation 
standards and practice, 
Description: 
With the list of components and systems 
from task 3.1.1, the team will identify 
information on performance in past 
earthquakes. It will catalogue and 
quantify performance of components 
and systems by themselves and in 
relation to overall building performance, 
in terms of capital and contents loss and 
down time. The team will compare the 
effectiveness of different designs of the 
same components. Issues which play 
the greatest role in performance will be 
prioritized (i.e. anchorage design vs. 
installation quality, equipment 
ruggedness, etc.). A goal will be to 
assess the current state of the art and 
identify gaps in existing knowledge. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Material suppliers 
(Researchers, Owners) 
Priority: Essential 
Budget$300,000 
Duration: 2 years 
evaluated. 
Personnel: 
Priority: 
Budget: 
Duration: 
Design professionals, 
Material suppliers, 
Owners 
Essential 
$250,000 
2 years 
30 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 3.1.3 -Develop a research 
plan to advance the state-of-the 
art 
Description: 
Once gaps in existing knowledge have 
been identified, the group will develop a 
research plan to fill them. The goal will 
be to develop a road map by which the 
tasks within this Action Plan can be 
accomplished. The plan will be detailed 
enough to be used by stakeholders, 
laying out tasks and schedules. An 
effort will be made to identify outside 
sources of funding to augment the 
budgets assigned to each task with the 
Plan, considering public and private 
resources. 
Personnel: Researchers, Design 
professionals, Material 
suppliers 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $150,000 
Duration: 1 year 
Task 3.2 -Develop analysis 
and design methodologies 
Task 3.2.1 -Quantify 
nonstructural performance 
levels 
Description: 
Working With the performance 
definitions developed in the SPP, the 
team will quantify nonstructural 
performance levels using appropriate 
parameters (drift, damage, loss, 
business interruption, casualties, etc.). 
The goal in this task is to set the 
performance parameters so that the 
evaluation and design methodologies 
developed in later tasks can be targeted 
to definitive numerical quantities. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Material 
suppliers (Government 
agencies) 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $350,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 3.2.2 -Develop demand 
prediction methodologies 
Description: 
The team will develop processes to 
calculate the demands on nonstructural 
components based on their location 
within various building types. It will 
identify and describe in measurable 
terms the parameters that have the 
most important effects on these 
demands (height above grade, building 
stiffness, anchorage, etc.). The goal is 
to be able to extrapolate from the basic 
building acceleration, velocity and 
displacement characteristics, the effects 
on nonstructural components. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Material suppliers, 
Researchers 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: S450, 000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
31 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 3.2.3 -Develop analytic 
methodologies for achieving 
performance levels 
Description: 
The team will fill in the gaps in existing 
knowledge identified in earlier tasks. 
Research will consist primarily of 
analytical efforts. The team will identify 
promising new techniques and devote 
research to making them applicable to 
the PBSD framework. A forum will be 
held, bringing together design 
professionals and manufacturers to 
discuss design and analysis 
methodologies. 
Following this, a strong effort will be 
made to develop design and analysis 
methodologies, consistent with the 
efforts in the SPP. 
A focus will be on developing modeling 
or other techniques to lend consistency 
to design and analysis. Modeling will 
account for the range of computer 
applications currently available and 
anticipated in the future. It will also 
account for the financial investments 
various design engineers are able to 
make in obtaining modeling technology. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Material 
suppliers (Government 
agencies) 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $850,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 3.2.4 -Coordinate 
design and analysis methods 
with SPP 
Description: 
The team will compare the design and 
analysis methods of the SPP and NPP 
to ensure that they are compatible and 
that they lead to the same measures 
and prediction of performance. The 
team should check that the level of 
reliability is similar between the two and 
that structural and nonstructural 
performance measures can be 
combined to form overall performance 
goals for buildings. The team will also 
make a focused effort to describe the 
functions of the SPP and NPP in relation 
to the overall goal of PBSD and of the 
guidelines. A task will be to describe 
building behavior from both points of 
view in technical and financial terms and 
identify where structure and 
nonstructure overlap or come in conflict. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Material 
suppliers 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $150,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
32 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 3.3 -Establish separately 
funded testing and data 
collection programs 
-0--
Task 3.3.1 -Establish 
comprehensive testing and 
certification protocols 
Description: 
The team will catalogue all relevant 
testing information to date. It will 
identify gaps in this knowledge with 
respect to nonstructural component 
effects on building performance. 
Research programs will be developed 
and established to fill these gaps. 
A distinction will be made between 
component "ruggedness:" the ability of 
the piece of equipment to stay together 
in a functional black box, and 
"anchorage:" the ability of the equipment 
to remain where it was installed. 
The team will identify sources of funding 
for extensive testing. These sources will 
include equipment manufacturers, 
owners, insurers, government agencies, 
etc. This may include developing 
collaborative efforts between equipment 
buyers and equipment manufacturers, 
for example. The team will develop a 
consensus on the technical description 
of testing protocols. The team will 
develop a means of obtaining 
certification of tested equipment for 
various seismic regions, building types 
and usage, and locations within 
buildings. If financially feasible, some 
testing should be conducted within this 
task to calibrate certification parameters. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Material 
suppliers, Building 
officials, Government 
agencies 
Priority: Optimal (does not include 
funds for extensive 
testing) 
Budget: $1,000,000 
Duration: 5 years 
Task 3.3.2 -Establish a post-
earthquake data collection 
and analysis program 
Description: 
The team will establish a program for 
collecting nonstructural performance 
information after an earthquake. This 
will be coordinated with the efforts in the 
SPP. Existing earthquake performance 
data will be reviewed for its usefulness 
and as appropriate will be assembled 
and catalogued into a database. The 
team will develop ways to distill and use 
this information and identify where gaps 
remain. A workshop will be held to 
identify the types of information that are 
the most valuable. The team will 
develop data collection forms, binders, 
instructions and databases in 
preparation for use. It will establish a 
methodology for creating and 
maintaining a team of inspectors and 
will hold seminars on a regular basis to 
train them. A focus will be to identify 
how the collected information will be 
used within the development and 
refinement of the PBSD Guidelines. The 
team will identify sources of funding for 
post-earthquake data collection, so that 
these groups may be approached in a 
timely fashion after a damaging event. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Material 
suppliers, Building 
officials, Government 
agencies 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $300,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Task 3.3.3 -Establish a 
program for developing 
innovative nonstructural 
design 
Description: 
The team will establish a program for 
encouraging manufacturer's to develop 
innovative nonstructural designs that 
take advantage of the performance-
based criteria developed within this 
project. The team will identify sources 
of funding to implement this program. 
Implementation will include offering 
incentives for use, marketing the 
program and tracking its success. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Material suppliers, 
Owners, (Government 
agencies) I 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $300,000 (includes only 
the establishment of the 
program framework) 
Duration: 1 year 
Task 3.4 -Develop documents 
and reports for use in PBSD 
Guidelines 
a
Description: 
This task will occur at milestones within 
the research plan developed in Task 
3.1.3 and in preparation for each of the 
Guidelines development phases. The 
team will gather the technical 
information and prepare reports and 
documents for the writers of the 
Guidelines. Coordination with the RMP 
and SPP will occur to insure that 
information is presented in a consistent 
manner. The team will coordinate 
verification studies to be run on the 
analysis and design methodologies. 
Once the Guidelines teams have 
reviewed the work and identified 
changes or refinements to the research 
plan, this team will work with the 
research team of Task 3.1.3 to set out 
the goals for the next phase of research. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Material 
suppliers, Building 
officials, Government 
agencies 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $500,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
34 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Challenges 
Analysis and modeling require a major effort to write 
provisions for their use and to 
Developing modeling and analysis educate and train them on the 
techniques for nonstructural systems subject. 
will be a very challenging effort. The 
complexity of these systems may 
> Education and Incentives, Cost 
overwhelm the capacity of most 
office computer systems. Reliable Full scale testing of equipment will 
methods for estimating the prove to be a monumental and very
performance of these elements, expensive effort that will require
however, is vital to reaching higher funding from multiple sources. 
levels of overall building Convincing owners and 
performance. As with the SPP, manufacturers to pay for this testing
software engineers may need to be will be a challenge.
consulted and retained to develop 
programs which can model piping, 
With the idea of certification of 
equipment, ducts, and other equipment will come issues of 
elements which have the potential to liability for performance. It will be 
cause significant loss. difficult to convince manufacturers to 
warrant their equipment and 
> Performance levels and damage contractors to be responsible for 
states installation. Owners may be able to 
provide incentives to convince these 
Understanding a component's stakeholders that certification is in 
anchorage to the structure is only 
their best interests. 
one half of the challenge of 
nonstructural systems. Being able 
to reliably estimate the "ruggedness" > Data Acquisition 
of the piece of equipment is also 
important. A major effort will be As with the SPP, similar challenges 
required of design professionals and will be faced in obtaining useful 
equipment manufacturers to find information and maintaining the data 
ways to define equipment fragility collection program. 
and to test for and design 
ruggedness into equipment. 
> Administration 
Peer review and plan check of 
equipment anchorage is a novel 
concept and will need acceptance 
from building officials. This will 
35 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
: PRODUCT 4-Risk:f.. ....:. 
Management Products 
These products will provide in the SPP and NPP. Ways need to 
financial information for the be found to minimize these sources 
Stakeholders' Guide and the PBSD of inaccuracy. Risk associated with 
Guidelines. The goal will be to identify building performance should be 
cost-benefit and other models by which quantified in relation to other 
PBSD can deliver the most benefit to activities (such as fire, building 
the users. The products will have three maintenance, revenue, etc.). 
main areas of focus: Methods for more accurately 
identifying risk and reaching 
Methodologies for quantifiably acceptable risk levels need to be 
defining performance objectives in developed. 
terms of expected loss, risk and 
stakeholder tolerance. Developing cost/benefit and other 
financial analysis models. 
The work will utilize the efforts of the 
SPP and NPP. It will consider issues The philosophy behind PBSD 
of damage costs, loss of operation, centers on being able to choose 
risk tolerance, etc., with the from a range of performance 
expectation of obtaining realistic objectives, to reliably meet the 
design goals for stakeholders. financial goals and risk tolerance of 
the stakeholders. Techniques for 
Minimum performance objectives will determining and optimizing cost-
be established, considering the benefit ratios and other financial 
broader social and economic drivers representations of construction are 
that affect planning, design and important to achieving 
construction decisions. An effort will implementation. Non-engineering 
be made to consider the effects on groups need to have a complete 
building performance of elements understanding of PBSD and its 
outside the building envelope, such benefits. It is also important for 
as infrastructure, utilities and other design professionals to understand 
lifelines. the concepts of risk management. 
> Identifying and minimizing An effort will be made to emphasize 
uncertainties in the PBSD process. the broader global planning 
opportunities that PBSD presents for 
A key to obtaining wide use of PBSD reducing economic and social losses 
is developing more reliable and to communities, regions and states. 
accurate analysis and design The RMP should provide the basis 
methodologies. Uncertainties, error for economic and social rating 
and randomness must be related systems for buildings. 
numerically through reliability 
measures to the methods developed 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 4.1 -Quantify 
performance objectives 
Task 4.1.1 -Match performance 
levels with hazards to develop 
performance objectives 
Description: 
The team will take the performance 
levels and hazards developed in the 
SPP, NPP and RMP and combine them 
in order to understand expected 
performance over measurable and 
meaningful time spans (building life, a 
typical mortgage, careers, etc.). The 
team will select performance objectives 
for various building types, occupancies, 
construction eras, etc, and develop 
performance expectations for these 
buildings cover their lifetimes. A focus 
will be to define the goals that owners 
and design professionals can utilize for 
capital planning and design purposes. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Owners, 
Financial interests 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $350,000 
Duration: 1 year 
Task 4.1.2 Develop 
minimum 
performance objectives 
considering social and 
economic drivers 
Description: 
The team will identify the various social 
and economic drivers that affect 
decisions about designing to a particular 
performance objective. The team will 
evaluate issues of cost, safety, 
construction duration, building function, 
etc. and will consider how each affect 
the various stakeholders. The goal will 
be to establish a set of minimum 
performance goals that protect the 
interests of all the parties involved in the 
building environment and provide for the 
protection of the public welfare. The 
team will discuss minimum performance 
standards for external elements that 
affect building performance, such as 
infrastructure, utilities and lifelines. 
Personnel: 
Priority: 
Budget: 
Duration: 
Design professionals, 
Researchers, Financial 
interests, Owners, 
Building officials, 
Government agencies 
Essential 
$350,'000 
1 year 
Task 4.1.3 -Quantify 
performance in terms of loss 
and risk 
Description: 
The team will develop a set of 
acceptable risk levels quantified in terms 
of loss (capital, lives, down time, etc.), 
considering building type, usage, age or 
other parameters. It will link 
performance objectives with these 
acceptable risk levels. Risk will be 
defined in agreed upon terminology with 
varying levels of reliability. The team will 
define a set of maximum loss thresholds 
for each performance objective. The 
Stakeholders' groups will be tapped to 
provide input. A methodology will be 
developed to convert loss into financial 
terminology. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Priority: 
Budget: 
Duration: 
Researchers, Financial 
interests, Owners, (Other 
stakeholders) 
Essential 
$400,000 
4 years 
37 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 4.2 -Develop financial: 
modeling tools 
Task 4.2.1 -Develop a 
research plan to advance 
current risk evaluation 
methods 
Description: 
The team will gather existing information 
on risk analysis and financial modeling 
methods and identify gaps in current 
knowledge. A strong effort will be made 
to use available information so that 
future research funding can be most 
efficiently spent. The current state of the 
art should not define the scope of this 
project or limit the direction research 
might take, but rather allow researchers 
to avoid unnecessary duplication of 
effort. 
Once gaps in existing knowledge have 
been identified, the group will develop a 
research plan to fill them. The goal will 
be to develop a road map by which the 
tasks within this Action Plan can be 
accomplished. The plan will be detailed 
enough to be used by stakeholders, 
laying out tasks and schedules. An 
effort will be made to identify outside 
sources of funding to augment the 
budgets assigned to each task with the 
Plan, considering public and private 
resources. 
Personnel: Financial interests, 
Researchers (Design 
professionals, Owners) 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $150,000 
Duration: 1 year 
Task 4.2.2 -Develop financial 
life cycle and damage cost 
models 
Description: 
The team will use the structural and 
nonstructural performance acceptability 
criteria in the SPP and NPP to calculate 
life-cycle and annualized losses relative 
to each performance objective. 
Combinations of performance objectives 
will be evaluated to help users minimize 
overall life-cycle and damage costs. The 
team will extrapolate costs for individual 
buildings, to look at classes of buildings 
and regional implications for cities, 
states and the federal government. 
Costs of repair, business interruption 
and casualties will also be developed. 
The goal is to quantify expected losses 
in a manner that stakeholders can use 
in long term capital planning. Example 
applications will be developed. The 
information developed within this and 
other tasks should also form the basis 
for building rating systems, which will 
integrate structural and nonstructural 
quality with financial and social 
performance measures. 
Personnel: Researchers, Financial 
interests, Owners, 
Government agencies 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $650,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
38 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 4.2.3 -Define cost-
benefit relationships for 
improving performance 
Description: 
The team will develop tools by which the 
costs of different retrofit measures 
(existing buildings) or design criteria 
(new buildings) can be weighed against 
the expected reduction in loss and life-
cycle costs. A comparison of individual 
components will be necessary (such as 
bolting down a wood building vs. bracing 
sprinkler pipes). The combination of 
components into design systems will 
also be considered. Cost-benefit 
relationships need to be developed in 
ways that can be calculated by design 
professionals and are meaningful to 
owners and financial interests. Cost-
benefit ratios should be applicable to 
individual buildings or portfolios. The 
goal should be to provide owners with 
methods for performing economic loss 
management of their facilities. Efforts 
will be made to look at how this can be 
expanded to a regional basis. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Financial 
interests, Owners, 
Government agencies 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $500,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 4.2.4 -Calibrate financial 
models 
Description: 
The team will develop a series of 
example applications and will calibrate 
and compare them against current 
design techniques. Calibration 
parameters will include cost, duration, 
responsibility, liability, etc. The team will 
establish subgroups to carry out these 
studies, and will develop a standard 
reporting method by which the results 
can be quantitatively compared. Ifthe 
team decides that the results diverge 
too significantly from existing 
methodologies, revisions to the 
procedures will be made, or a schedule 
for incremental application of the 
procedures will be developed. The team 
will develop methodologies to project 
costs and other data into the future. In 
this way, the information can function as 
a capital planning tool. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Financial 
interests 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $500,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
39 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 4.2.5 -Develop cost-
effective design strategies 
Description: 
With information from previous tasks the 
SPP and the NPP, the team will develop 
strategies to improve performance 
based on building class, usage, location, 
etc. The team will consider components 
and systems, identifying which 
individually and which combinations 
typically will provide the minimum 
expected life-cycle cost involving 
tradeoffs between the initial cost and 
potential damage costs. The 
information will be presented in a 
manner that is usable by engineers for 
design and will give owners and 
financial interests a numerical valuation 
of the money spent. The team may use 
information obtained in past 
earthquakes, coupled with testing 
research previously done. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Financial 
interests, Owners 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $500,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 4.3 -Educate users about 
0risk management concepts 
Description: 
The team will establish a program to 
teach stakeholders about risk 
management. Representatives of 
lending agencies, insurance and 
financial institutions and researchers will 
write papers and create tools to apply 
the concepts developed in the above 
tasks. The team will hold workshops 
and seminars to discuss this 
information. The goals for design 
professionals, contractors, material 
suppliers and building officials are to 
recognize that PBSD involves choices 
about risk, and to be able to use the risk 
management tools provided in the 
Guidelines. For building owners, the 
goal is to bring awareness of how these 
tools fit in with current risk management 
techniques they use when purchasing 
space, making renovations, considering 
deferred maintenance, etc. A strong 
effort will be made to identify ways to 
coordinate current risk analysis 
techniques used by owners and 
financial institutions (probable maximum 
loss, ratings, etc.) with these new tools. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, 
Contractors, Material 
suppliers, Financial 
interests, Owners, 
Building officials, 
Government agencies 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $500,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 4.4 -Identify legal 
implications of PBSD 
Description: 
The team will contract with attorneys to 
address the legal implications of moving 
towards PBSD oriented building codes. 
The team will develop a list of issues 
that need to be evaluated, including: 
liability in the event of unexpected 
performance, cost allocation, long-term 
responsibility for the building or 
components, definitions of terms such 
as "significant," "reliable," etc. The goal 
will be to develop strategies to make 
40 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
PBSD more attractive to stakeholders 
from a legal standpoint. 
Personnel: Attorneys, Design 
professionals, Financial 
interests, Owners, 
Building officials, 
Government agencies 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $250,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Task 4.5-Develop documents 
and reports for use in 
PBSD Guidelines and 
Stakeholders' Guide 
Description: 
This task will occur at milestones within 
the research plan developed in Task 
4.2.1 and in preparation for each of the 
Guidelines development phases. The 
team will gather the technical 
information and prepare reports and 
documents for the writers of the 
Guidelines. Coordination with the SPP 
and NPP will occur to insure that 
information is presented in a consistent 
manner. The team will coordinate 
verification studies to be run on the 
analysis and design methodologies. 
Once the Guidelines teams have 
reviewed the work and identified 
changes or refinements to the research 
plan, this team will work with the 
research team for Task 4.2.1 to set out 
the goals for the next phase of research. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Financial 
interests, Owners, 
(Government agencies) 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $400,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
41 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Analysis and modeling emergency food supplies after a 
damaging event --will complicate 
A major effort will be required to the consideration of minimum 
develop financial tools relating costs performance objectives and liability. 
to structural and nonstructural 
performance. This will require close Data Acquisition 
collaboration between design 
professionals and Financial A challenge will be to obtain useful 
interests. information on performance versus 
loss and performance versus design 
> Acceptability and construction costs. A major 
effort may be warranted to cost 
It will be important to define estimate example designs using the 
acceptable risk. The challenge will 
be in quantifying stakeholders' 
PBSD procedures. This information 
will be needed to calibrate cost 
tendencies to be either risk adverse models. 
or risk tolerant. A key to successful 
implementation of PBSD is the > Reliability 
ability to match a design with the 
owners' risk tolerance. Identifying uncertainties in 
Considering broader social and 
quantifying costs, damage, hazard 
and risk will be a major challenge. 
economic factors affecting a building New methods for integrating 
--such as a hospital remaining engineering design and analysis with 
functional to treat injuries within the financial and social modeling will 
community, or even of a grocery need to be developed and tested. 
store being able to provide 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
i PRODUCT 5 -PB;D 
T he Guidelines form the most These will need to be defined and 
T* important product resulting from incorporated into the performance 
this project. They distill the information objectives. They should be based on 
developed in the SPP, the NPP and the considerations of acceptable risk 
RMVIP into the application document used and should be based on input from 
by design professionals, manufacturers, multiple stakeholders. In addition, 
government agencies and building the desired reliability level in 
officials in design and construction. achieving these objectives needs to 
These guidelines can form the basis for be specified. 
the next generation of building codes 
and earthquake resistant design > Characterizing performance and 
practice. When implemented, these hazard levels consistent with the 
guidelines should permit economical objective-
design that can reliably attain desired 
seismic performance. The performance objectives must be 
quantified in engineering terms. 
The Guidelines Will have to be broad in This includes defining specific 
scope yet deep in level of detail. They acceptable 'damage levels for 
need to be usable by a wide range of various elements, both structural 
design professionals. They will focus on: and nonstructural as well as 
permissible global behavior of the 
> Selecting and quantifying structure itself. Characterization of 
Performance objectives, including ground motion will also, be important. 
cost performance. 
> Performance prediction and 
A set of consistent performance evaluation methods. 
levels for new and existing buildings 
is essential. To be useful and The methods in the guidelines will 
reliable, predictors of structural and facilitate design of structures of any 
nonstructural performance must be configuration for any desired 
characterized in a manner that can performance and can be used to 
be understood by building owners. calibrate building codes for new 
buildings or develop new codes. 
> Defining minimum and standard Methodologies used for evaluation 
Performance objectives. and retrofit of existing buildings can 
also be calibrated. Lastly, the 
Although the concept of financial industry can use the 
performance based design permits guidelines as a basis to develop 
owners to specify custom objectives methods of ranking the design 
for each building, presumably codes performance of buildings for 
will need to have a single set of underwriting purposes. 
minimum and standard objectives 
used for enforcement purposes. 
Action Plan for Performance 
Means of verification. 
The various analytical procedures 
used to evaluate performance and 
demonstrate acceptability, together 
with suitable modeling rules and 
prescriptive requirements on 
configuration and detailing must be 
verified. The uncertainty inherent in 
each of these procedures for 
buildings of different sizes, types, 
and configurations, and for different 
performance levels must be 
quantified. While a minimum level 
review is essential, a broad program 
of verification will be optimal. 
Procedures for installing and 
maintaining nonstructural 
components and contents in 
buildings. 
This information will focus on the 
issues related to installation and 
maintenance of nonstructural 
components. Not least among these 
is the division of responsibilities and 
liability between the component 
manufacturer and installer. As the 
design engineer observes building 
construction, equipment installation 
should also be observed for 
compliance to the manufacturer's 
specifications. 
> A technical commentary serving as 
backup for the Guidelines. 
No matter how well stated in the 
PBSD Guidelines, the rationale and 
history behind the provisions will be 
subject to the interpretation of the 
Based Seismic Design 
engineers and building officials 
employing them. A comprehensive 
commentary is necessary to give 
these users a fuller picture of PBSD 
and direction when implementing it. 
The commentary should also include 
a series of example applications of 
the guidelines. 
The Guidelines will involve major 
participation from all stakeholders, 
including design professionals, 
researchers, manufacturers, owners, 
financial institutions, building officials 
and governing agencies. A 
comprehensive program of verification 
will require input and involvement from a 
broad range of users. Technical writers 
and code officials will also be employed 
to produce the highest quality 
document. 
The guidelines will be developed in 
phases. The first, or the 25% phase, 
will include a basic framework for the 
Guidelines, to be filled in with research 
and tools from the SPP, NPP and RMP. 
Review by the Guidelines teams at this 
stage will focus on refining or changing 
the direction of the technical research 
efforts for these products. The next 
phases at 50% and 75% will continue to 
take information from the technical 
products and flesh out the Guidelines, 
again returning comments to refine the 
research. The 100% phase will consist 
of final review, formatting, wordsmithing 
and publication. An important task within 
the Guidelines product is to develop this 
phasing further and to coordinate overall 
efforts with the steering committee. 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 5.1 -Reach consensus on 
Guidelines format and 
development process 
Description: 
The main goal of this effort will be to 
reach a consensus on the format of the 
Guidelines, and to develop a conceptual 
framework. The team will also establish 
a procedure for taking the information 
from the SPP, NPP and RMP and 
writing the guideline provisions. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Priority: 
Budget 
Duration: 
Task 5.2 Researchers, 
Material 
suppliers, Contractors, 
Financial interests, 
Owners, Building officials, 
Government agencies 
Essential 
$150,000 
1 year 
Develop design and 
analysis provisions 
social drivers developed in the RMP. A 
focus will be on developing modeling 
guidelines to lend consistency to the 
design and analysis process. The team 
will work closely with the verification 
team in Task 5.3, to ensure that the 
provisions are tested and are 
acceptable. This team will be 
responsible for suggesting refinements 
or changes to the technical product 
research as necessary to accommodate 
the provisions. A goal should be to 
minimize this as much as possible, to 
maintain the schedule and budget. The 
committees will write the provisions 
using consistent and appropriate 
language, figures, equation styles, 
procedures for implementation, etc. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Material 
suppliers, Building 
officials, Government 
agencies, (Financial 
interests) 
Priority: 
Budget: 
Duration: 
Essential 
'$1,200,000 
Throughout the project 
Task 5.2.1 -Develop 
systematic design and 
analysis processes 
Description: 
Using the analysis and design 
methodologies defined in the SPP and 
NPP, the team will create design and 
analysis processes that take a building 
through concepts into final design, 
identifying major steps along the way. 
Procedures will be developed for new 
and retrofit conditions. The team will 
develop minimum performance 
objectives to be included in the 
standards based on the economic and 
Task 5.2.2 -Write a technical 
commentary to support the 
'Guidelines 
Description: 
The team will write a technical 
commentary to support the information 
in the PBSD Guidelines. It will develop 
the format of the commentary to track 
the outline of the Guidelines. The goal 
of the commentary is to give specific 
background on the development of the 
procedures within the Guidelines and to 
explain the concepts in technical terms. 
It should also contain many references 
to allow users to obtain additional 
guidance. The team will consider the 

Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
advantages of discussing the broader. 
implications of decisions that were made 
in the Guidelines (financial, political, 
based on reliability, etc.). The team will 
have the commentary reviewed for 
accuracy by a panel of experts set up by 
the Steering Committee. This panel will 
include members of the SPP, NPP and 
RMP teams. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $500,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Task 5.2.3 -Develop 
administrative guidelines for 
building officials 
Description: 
The team will establish administrative 
provisions for the use of PBSD by 
building officials. It will detail the process 
by which buildings, including structural 
and nonstructural components, are 
reviewed, plan checked and field 
inspected. The team will also develop 
tools for building officials to ease the 
burden of reviewing PBSD design. The 
team will consider the benefits of third 
party plan check and peer review and 
other means of streamlining the proces3s 
while maintaining quality 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Owners, Building officials, 
Government agencies 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $200,000 
Duration: 1 year 
Task 5.3 -Implement a 
verification program 
Task 5.3.1 -Run examples to 
check accuracy of provisions 
Description: 
The team will establish subgroups to 
verify the accuracy of the design and 
analysis procedures. The subgroups will 
create and test a series of parametric 
examples. The team will set up a means 
by which the results of the testing can 
be checked for accuracy and 
acceptability. The team will identify and 
make necessary changes in the 
procedures in cooperation with the 
technical product teams. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Building 
officials, 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $600,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 5.3.2 -Compare resulting 
designs and costs against 
current methodologies 
Description: 
The team will evaluate the effects of the 
resulting guidelines on each of the major 
stakeholders, looking at costs, level of 
effort and responsibility. A series of 
example applications will be developed 
and compared against current design 
techniques. The various methods that 
are developed will be calibrated against 
each other. Calibration will consider at 
least: the effort to implement, resulting 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
performance and expected construction 
costs. Information from the RMP will be 
incorporated into the calibration study. 
The team will establish subgroups to 
carry out these studies, and will develop 
a standard reporting method by which 
the results can be quantitatively 
compared. If the team decides that the 
results diverge too significantly from 
existing methodologies, revisions to the 
procedures will be made, or a schedule 
for incremental application of the 
procedures will be developed. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Financial 
interests 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $400,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 5.4 -Develop procedures 
for quality control during 
construction 
Description: 
The team will write a set of guidelines 
for maintaining quality during 
construction. Information on reliability 
and uncertainty developed in the SPP 
and NPP will be used to evaluate the 
various stages of construction. The 
team will address such issues as 
material fabrication and inspection, 
installation, testing, uniformity in 
construction practices, field changes, 
etc. The goal is to provide a clear 
statement about the need for a high 
level of construction quality, and to 
provide standard procedures to attain 
this quality. It may be desirable to 
permit different levels of quality control 
based on expected performance or on 
building usage, etc. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Contractors, Material 
Suppliers, Owners, 
Building officials 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $300,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Task 5.5 -Develop a plan for 
verifying nonstructural 
component design and 
installation 
Description: 
The team will develop a standard format 
for checking the adequacy of 
nonstructural component and system 
design, manufacture and installation. 
Much like peer review and inspection 
procedures for the structure, this system 
will be designed to track nonstructural 
elements through a similar process. 
The team will establish a system for 
identifying and training qualified 
inspectors and reviewers. The team will 
use the information developed in the 
NPP to make easier reevaluation of 
existing components and determine 
expected performance. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Contractors, Material 
suppliers, Building 
officials 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $300,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Action Plan for Performance 
Task 5.6 -Publish guidelines 
and create an adoption process 
Description: 
The team will set up milestone 
deliverables at 25%, 50%, 75% and 
100% and will describe the content to be 
included in each. It will establish and 
implement a final review and adoption 
process. A peer review procedure will 
be established at each milestone. A 
technical writing team will be created 
and a consensus reached on the style 
and voice of the guidelines. The 
Guidelines will be written and reviewed. 
A small team of reviewers will focus on 
the presentation of the information, both 
graphically and textually. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Material 
suppliers, Financial 
interests, Owners, 
Building officials, 
Government agencies 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $600,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Based Seismic Design 
Task 5.7 _ Develop a means for 
' future revisions f 
Description: 
After the guidelines are completed, the 
team will assess the project and identify 
future goals, research efforts, etc. that 
will build upon the work completed. The 
team will write a framework for the next 
generation of PBSD related projects. 
The goal of the task is to provide a plan 
for the continuing evolution of PBSD. 
The team will establish a procedure for 
updating the guidelines 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, 
Government agencies 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $150,000 
Duration: 1 year 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Challenges 
> Analysis and modeling be a challenge. Design 
professionals will need to begin to 
Developing general methods for think in terms of probability, 
design and performance prediction uncertainty and risk. Quantifying 
will be a challenge when considering these terms in relation to traditional 
varying performance objectives. structural engineering concepts will 
The procedures must be relatively be difficult but important. 
easy to implement yet still provide 
higher reliability than current design > Administration 
methodologies and be reasonably 
economical. As with any adoption process, 
acceptance from the stakeholders 
Procedures for nonstructural design will be one of the most difficult 
and analysis will have to be greatly challenges. It will require political 
expanded from current standards. and diplomatic skill to bring each of 
This will require a major effort on the parties into enthusiastic 
part of the product team. agreement. The teams should 
consider using professional 
Because modeling will play a more facilitators and negotiators to build a 
significant role in PBSD design than strong consensus about the PBSD 
it currently does, standards for Guidelines and their use. 
computer aided design will be 
necessary. These standards need > Example applications 
to insure consistency while allowing 
creative flexibility. It will be a challenge to develop 
realistic, understandable examples 
> Reliability of the application of the guidelines 
that will achieve sellable conclusions 
The incorporation of reliability and encourage the use of PBSD. 
methods into design procedures will 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
The Stakeholders' Guide will serve stakeholders see as concerns and 
to educate the non-engineering benefits. It will need to specify and 
audience about the benefits of PBSD. It quantify these benefits and provide a 
will be their reference and planning tool mechanism for making incremental 
much as the PBSD Guidelines serve a changes to current practice. 
similar purpose for the engineering 
community. The Guide needs to be > Guidance for implementing PBSD. 
written in a non-technical style, and 
emphasize graphic presentation. The owner and financial 
financial information should be professionals need to be guided 
presented in a way that will be useful to through the process of implementing 
owners and financial professionals. It PBSD. Much more than in current 
needs to communicate the concept and practice these stakeholders will form 
application of PBSD to these primary an integral part of the design team. 
stakeholders. It will include the following They must assist in making 
components: decisions about the direction of a 
project and be involved throughout 
> Background on codes and its implementation. 
performance based design. 
> Example applications of PBSD 
The Guide should give background 
on the history of code development The guide will contain example 
and the reasons for moving toward applications of the guidelines, 
performance based design. It should covering structural and nonstructural 
describe in general terms the design, and financial planning 
principles of PBSD and its benefits issues. The examples will contain 
over current methods. The goal is to /technical information for the design 
show stakeholders that this move is professionals as well as 
necessary and that performance nontechnical information for building 
based design standards are in their owners and financial interests. 
financial and business interests. 
Financial and other benefits of using 
PBSD. 
Tables, charts, equations, examples 
and text, should convey the 
advantages and appropriate uses of 
PBSD in terms of financial and other 
models. Adoption will require that 
the document include the issues that 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 6.1 -Define content and 
format of Stakeholders' Guide 
Description: 
The team will convene a series of 
workshops with stakeholder 
representatives to create the format and 
content of the Stakeholders. Guide. The 
team will determine the level of 
complexity of the information and 
equations presented. The goal is to 
layout the format for the guide so that it 
is usable to a non-technical audience. A 
strong effort will be made to involve 
owners and financial representatives, as 
these will be the primary users of the 
information. Another goal is to be able to 
quantify the level of effort that will be 
required of these groups in the planning, 
design and construction processes, in 
terms of cost and time. A consensus 
about the style of presentation will also 
be reached. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Financial 
interests, Owners, 
Contractors, Material 
suppliers, Building 
officials, Government 
agencies, Legal 
professionals 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $150,000 
Duration: 1 year 
Task 6.2 Present and explain 
financial modeling techniques 
Description: 
The team will present and explain the 
financial modeling tools developed in 
the Guidelines and the Risk 
Management Products. In the same 
manner as the Guidelines these tools 
should be presented with different levels 
of complexity, so that the user can 
employ the most appropriate to a 
specific situation. The technical and 
financial research will have been done 
as part of the RMP. In this task the goal 
is to provide descriptions of and 
practical ways to employ these tools. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Financial 
interests, Owners 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $300,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 6.3 -Describe the design 
and construction process 
,. 
Description: 
As with the Guidelines, the team will 
develop a road map to move from the 
concept stage to completion of 
construction, identifying major steps 
along the way. Retrofit and new design 
will be considered. The responsibilities 
and qualifications of each of the 
stakeholders (including owners and 
design professionals) throughout the 
design and construction process will be 
identified and described. The team will 
review these responsibilities and 
evaluate their effects on the groups. The 
team will prepare the information using 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
language, figures, equation styles, 
procedures for implementation, etc., 
consistent with the Guidelines. The 
team will consult with legal professionals 
to evaluate possible changes in liability. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Owners, Financial 
interests, Building 
officials, Government 
agencies, Legal 
professionals 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $250,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Description: 
The team will develop a series of 
examples for the financial and 
engineering application of PBSD, which 
will serve as teaching and reference 
tools. The team will set up a verification 
means and check the examples for 
accuracy and acceptability. The 
examples will include photographs and 
other graphic aids to increase 
understanding of the process. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Financial 
interests, Owners 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $400,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Task 6.5 -Develop a plan to 
maintain or monitor the 
designed-performance 
objective 
Description: 
The team will identify maintenance 
needs for nonstructural components, 
based on type, function, age, etc. It will 
develop a program that owners can 
follow, similar to deferred maintenance 
or tenant improvement, for maintaining 
the performance quality of existing 
equipment. A similar program will be 
developed to maintain and monitor the 
overall structural performance goals of a 
building throughout its life, accounting 
for changes in occupancy, 
advancements in the state of the art, 
structural modifications, etc. This 
information will be published as part of 
the Stakeholders' Guide. The team will 
prepare educational material to inform 
owners, contractors, and others about 
the procedures for maintaining a 
building's designed performance. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Contractors, 
Manufacturers, Owners 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $250,000 
Duration: 1 year 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 6.6 -Publish the Task 6.7 -Develop a means for 
stakeholders5: guide future revisions 
Description: Description: 
The team will set up milestone The team will set up dates for 
deliverables at 25%, 50%, 75% and considering revisions to the Guide and a 
100% and will describe the content to be procedure for doing so. 
included in each. It will establish a final 
review and adoption process. The team Personnel: Design professionals, 
will also include a nontechnical Owners, Financial 
background and history of the PBSD interests, Government 
process and of current code evolution. agencies 
The goal will be to show the non-
engineering audience the need for Priority: Optimal 
PBSD and the expected changes with Budget: $100,000 
respect to the current design and Duration: 1 year 
construction practice. A peer review 
procedure will be established at each 
milestone. A writing team will be 
created and a consensus reached on 
the style and voice of the guide. A small 
team of reviewers will focus on the 
presentation of the information, both 
graphically and textually. This group will 
have the responsibility, along with the 
steering committee of ensuring that the 
presentation compliments the 
Guidelines themselves. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Financial interests, 
Owners, Government 
agencies, Outside 
experts in information 
outreach 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $400r000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Challenges 
Cost collaboration of both teams will be 
important. This will present special 
Turning PBSD into a reality will challenges for each because of the 
require substantial investments of differences in their training and 
time and money by all stakeholders. expertise. 
Stakeholders will need to be 
convinced that spending money up > Education and Incentives 
front will be in their long-term 
financial interests. Lessons should A focus of the Guide will be to make 
be taken from other successful the concepts of risk and reliability 
efforts, or from other countries such understandable to all parties. PBSD 
as Japan. incorporates reliability-based design, 
a concept that design professionals 
Administration often only consider peripherally. 
Owners and Financial interests, 
The Stakeholders' Guide will need to however, use risk management on a 
function well with the PBSD regular basis. It will be a challenge 
Guidelines. Owners and other non-to communicate to design 
engineering stakeholders will professionals that uncertainty must 
primarily use the former while design be included in their design 
professionals will use the latter. approaches, and to convince owners 
Each, however, must lead to. that there are limits on what can be 
complimentary results that meet the known or anticipated regarding 
needs of all parties. Close building performance. 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
It is important to consider the six 
products as interrelated. It will not be 
possible to develop PBSD by isolating 
each as an independent project. This 
section describes some of the 
necessary relationships between the 
products and identifies key crossover 
lines between the various product 
teams. 
The Technical Reference 
Products 
The SPP, NPP and RMP will contain the 
bulk of the research, analysis and 
testing necessary to develop PBSD 
guidelines. Generally, these efforts will 
be developed concurrently throughout 
the project. However, there are some 
important commonalties that should be 
developed first, including: 
> Development of performance levels 
And global acceptability criteria. 
This is necessary to establish a 
common basis for analysis and the 
development of the standards. Prior 
to the start of focused research, the 
three teams should reach a 
consensus on the definitions of 
performance and acceptability. 
> Hazard quantification and prediction. 
The identification of hazard 
parameters impacts all three 
products and should be consistent 
between them. Researchers and 
design professionals developing this 
information will to some extent be 
working concurrently With the 
structural, nonstructural and risk 
teams. Before these teams make 
assumptions regarding hazard 
evaluation and characteristics, 
however, agreement on these issues 
is needed. This will require greater 
interaction between design 
professionals and scientists. 
3 Reporting methodologies. 
Each product should report 
information in a consistent manner, 
to make the eventual synthesis into 
the Guidelines and Stakeholders' 
Guide easier. Reporting formats 
should be developed at the 
beginning of the project. Milestones 
should be put in place to compare 
progress and track that basic 
assumptions are consistent between 
the groups. It will be the function of 
the steering committee to make sure 
that each team is meeting its 
schedule. However, several 
members of the technical product 
teams will likely be part of the 
Guidelines teams as well. Conflicts 
about fundamental goals and 
reporting styles may create 
problems in the development of the 
Guidelines. 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
I1 
on the content and style of the 
examples to be included in the 
Stakeholders' Guide.
The End Use Products 
The PBSD Guidelines and the 
Stakeholders' Guide are the products 
that will ultimately be used to implement 
PBSD. They need to compliment and 
supplement each other, not duplicate: 
information, and work toward the same 
overall goal. To this end, both teams 
working together should perform several 
tasks. 
> Set goals with stakeholders. 
While each product will be 
developed for somewhat different 
audiences, many of the goals will be 
the same. Each of the goals 
identified by the stakeholders should 
be accounted for in one or both of 
the products. Stakeholders' forums 
should be held with the product 
teams early on and regularly 
throughout the project, to make sure 
that no important goal is missed. 
> Develop document outlines. 
To insure that these products do not 
miss information or undesirably 
duplicate it, the outlines for each 
should be developed in a unified 
setting. Planning sessions should 
be held to make sure that both will 
be compatible. 
> Coordinate example applications. 
Because of the tight overall project 
schedule, much of the efforts for 
these two products will be done 
concurrently. At the point when the 
Guidelines are technically complete, 
the two teams should meet to agree 
Hand over between the 
Technical and End Use 
Products 
The project schedule requires that work 
be done in a manner that moves forward 
quickly. Obviously, developing 
accurate, reliable and acceptable 
information is of utmost importance. The 
quality of the products should not be 
sacrificed to meet the schedule. 
However, since the consensus process 
typically involves compromise and 
reevaluation, valuable time may be lost 
if the end use products are begun 
before substantial progress is made on 
the technical products. To make the 
hand over more efficient the following 
tasks should be performed: 
> Convene technical acceptance 
workshops. 
Before the process of distilling the 
technical products into the end use 
products at each phase (25%, 50%, 
75% and 100%) begins, review 
should be implemented to "sign-off" 
on the former. A representative 
group of stakeholders needs to 
come to agreement that significant 
research has been completed and 
that there is enough information to 
begin developing the Guidelines. If 
substantial research is needed 
during the writing of the guidelines, 
this could snowball, causing 
reworking of all the technical 
products. This is to be avoided. 
56 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
team for accuracy. 
>Check that the technical products 
are on the right track: > Recruit and train experts to present 
educational material 
At milestones during the technical 
product development, the members The education teams will identify 
people who are gifted in presenting
of the end use product teams should and teaching, and have a strong
confirm that the right information is knowledge of the PBSD products.
being produced to facilitate 
development of the guidelines. To These people may not be members 
this end, early in the development of of the other product development 
the technical products these teams teams. If this is so, the teachers will 
need to have close interaction with
need to prepare outlines of the end the product team members to fully
use products, so that they or the understand the concepts that need 
steering committee can see that 
work is moving on the right track. to be conveyed. The team will 
develop teaching and presentation 
programs and train the teachers on 
presentation methods. The teachers 
Development of Education will eventually receive feedback from 
Program the seminars they give. The 
education team will use this 
_ information to refine the program. 
An effort should be made to bring 
the concepts of PBSD into 
Two keys to the success of the universities, so students in 
education program will be having engineering, architecture and 
valuable information published in an construction management programs
understandable and exciting way, and will be familiar with and embrace 
recruiting experts to present this PBSD concepts when they enter 
information. It may be unrealistic to their professions. 
assume that the members of the product 
development teams will be most suited 
to lead these efforts. 
Translate technical material into 
easy to understand educational and 
promotional material. 
The team responsible for developing 
the education program will meet with 
representatives from the other 
product development teams to 
identify material which would be 
useful. They will work together to 
prepare technically accurate 
information while at the same time, 
keeping the product beneficiaries in 
mind. The representatives will 
review material developed by the 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Conclusion 
Few lives have been lost in major 
American seismic events, in 
buildings designed under modern 
codes. The economic losses in recent 
earthquakes, however, have put a strain 
on communities, owners, lenders, 
insurers, governments and building 
users. It must be said, too, that none of 
these events have been of a level that 
would typically be considered 
catastrophic. Temblors with a magnitude 
similar to the 1812 New Madrid or 1906 
San Francisco earthquakes will likely 
result in losses that are several times 
larger than anything previously 
experienced if they occur in a densely 
populated area. 
There has been much 
miscommunication between design 
professionals, owners and financial 
institutions about the performance that 
buildings built to modern codes are 
expected to deliver. This has led to 
higher than appropriate expectations by 
owners. 
Owners, however, must be able to make 
reliable financial decisions about a 
building's seismic performance. Their 
long-term capital planning strategies 
require that seismic risk be translated 
into meaningful, quantifiable terms. 
Engineers need ways to design 
buildings with a predictable level of 
performance that can be adjusted to 
meet the owner's needs. 
Performance based seismic design 
represents a bold new strategy for 
reducing earthquake losses. It focuses 
on the economic goals of building 
stakeholders and integrates financial 
modeling with the latest engineering 
research. This Action Plan lays out a 
rational, cost-effective and achievable 
program for establishing and 
implementing PBSD in a manner that 
will benefit each of the groups with a 
stake in the built environment. 
The organization of this project around 
six "products" insures that the critical 
areas of research and implementation 
are addressed. It breaks the overall 
effort into manageable units and 
produces valuable, self-contained 
material at regular intervals. It brings 
together a diversity of opinions, interests 
and expertise to produce robust and 
widely acceptable guidelines. The 
products themselves will rely upon 
various media to most effectively 
disseminate information. 
The tasks within each product are 
designed to address the major 
challenges that will arise, and provide 
clear guidance for the development 
teams. Establishing a steering 
committee and education program 
insures that administration and 
promotion of the project are top 
priorities. 
The budget and schedule are both 
ambitious. However, flexibility is built 
into each product by recommending 
essential and optimal funding levels. 
Tasks are devoted to finding sources of 
major funding for long term research, 
testing and education efforts, with the 
intention of spreading these costs 
throughout the stakeholder community. 
The process of building design and 
construction must undergo a significant 
change if it is to meaningfully reduce the 
potential for disastrous earthquake 
losses. This Action Plan represents a 
major step towards fulfilling the potential 
of PBSD and reaping its benefits. 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
References 
ISSUE PAPERS 
Alesch, Daniel J., Education, Initiatives, and Incentives for Adoption of Performance 
Based Seismic Design Standards, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 1998. 
Ang, A. H-S, Risk and Reliability, University of California, Irvine, 1998. 
Court, A. B., SE, Seismic Performance and Cost/Benefit Issues, Curry Price Court, 
1998. 
Delerlein, Gregory CZ., PhD, PE, Structural Acceptance Criteria for Performance Based 
Seismic Design (PBSD), Cornell University. 1998 
Jones, Gerald H., Enforcing and Administering Performance Based Seismic Guidelines, 
1998. 
Naeim, Farzad, PhD, SE, Design Ground Motions and Performance Based Design, John 
A. Martin and Associates, Inc., 1998. 
Reitherman, Robert and Gillengerten, John, Nonstructural Issues that Must Be Resolved 
If Performance Based Seismic Design Is to Be Achieved, 1998. 
OTHER KEY REFERENCES 
Applied Technology Council. Methodology for Seismic evaluation and Upgrade of 
Concrete Structures. Report No. ATC-40, California Seismic Safety Commission. 
Report No. SSC96-01 Sacramento, California. 
FEMA 2731274, NEHRP Guidelines and commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of 
Buildings, 1997. 
FEMA 283, Performance Based Seismic Design of Buildings, 19194. 
Hamburger, Ronald, An Overview of Performance Based Design, 1997. 
Hamburger, R.C. and Holmes, W.T., Vision Statement EERI/FEMA Performance Based 
Seismic Engineering Project, 1997 
Hanson, Robert D., Performance Based Standards and Steel Frame Buildings, 
University of Michigan, 1998. 
59 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
International Workshop on Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Bled, Slovenia, 1997. 
Kunreuther, Howard, Role of Mitigation in Managing Catastrophic Risks, Wharton Risk 
Management and Decision Processes Center, 1997. 
Mahoney, Michael and Hanson, Robert, An Action Plan for Performance Based Design 
SEAOC, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural 
Engineers Association of California, 1996. 
SEAOC, Vision 2000, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, 
California, 1996. 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Performance based Design 
Workshop Participant List
July 27-28 
San Diego, 
Daniel Abrams 
Professor 
University of Illinois 
1245 Newmark Civil 
Engineering Lab 
MC 250 
205 N. Mathews Avenue 
Urbana, IL61801-2397 
Tel. 2171333-0565 
Fax 217/333-3821 
E-mail d-abrams@uiuc.edu 
Randall Allen 
Director of Design and 
Construction 
State of Missouri 
Office of Administration 
301 West High Street 
P. O. Box 809 
Jefferson City, MO 65102 
Tel. 573f751-4174 
Fax 573/526-3665 
E-mail 
allenr@mail.oa.state.mo.us 
Christopher Arnold 
President 
Building Systems 
Development 
P. 0. Box 51950 
Palo Alto, CA 94303 
Phone 650/462-1812 
Fax 650/462-1817 
E-mail chrisarno@aol.com 
1998 
California 
S. Ahmad 
American Concrete Institute 
38800 Country Club Drive 
Farmington Hills, Ml 48331 
Tel. 2481848-3700 
Fax 2481848-3700 
E-mail SAhmad~aci-int.org 
Donald Anderson 
Senior Geotechnical 
Engineer 
CH21M Hill 
777 -108th Avenue NE 
Bellevue, WA 98004-5118 
Tel. 425/453-5000 
Fax 4251462-5957 
E-mail 
dandersooch2m.com 
Deborah Beck 
Real Estate Board of New 
York 
12 East 41st Street 
New York, NY 10017 
Tel: 212/532-3100 
Fax 212/779-8774 
Dan Alesch 
Professor 
University of Wisconsin 
Rose Hall, Suite 324 
2420 Nicolet Dr. 
Green Bay, WI 54311-7001 
Tel. 920/465-2355 
Fax 920/465-2791 
E-mail: aleschd@uwcfb.edu 
Alfredo Ang 
Professor 
University of California 
Dept. of Civil & 
Environmental Engineering 
4157 Engineering Gateway 
Irvine, CA 92697-2175 
Tel. 714/824-8528 
Fax 714/824-5051 
E-mail: ahanq@uci.edu 
Vitelmo Bertero 
Professor Emeritus 
1106 Colusa Avenue 
Berkeley, CA 94707 
Tel. 510/231-9586 
Fax 5101527-8178 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Michael Bocchicchio Lawrence Brugger Jacques Cattan 
Assistant Vice President ICC Building Performance American Institute of 
Facilities Administration Committee Steel Construction 
University of California 3131 Donnie Ann Road 1 East Wacker Drive, Suite 
Office of the President Rossmoor, CA 90720 3100 
1111 Franklin Street, 6th Tel: 213/977-6446 Chicago, IL 60601-2001 
Floor Fax 213/977-6468 Tel. 312/670-5430 
Oakland, CA 94607-5200 Fax 312/670-5403 
Tel. 510/987-0777 
Fax 510/987-0752. 
E-mail: 
mike.bocchicchio@ucop.edu 
C. Allin Cornell Craig Comartin Anthony Court 
Professor President, Comartin-Reis Vice President 
Stanford University 7683 Andrea Avenue Curry Price Court Structural 
Terman Engineering Center 
Stanford, CA 94305-4020 
Stockton, CA 95207-1705 
Tel: 209/472-1221 
& Civil Engineers 
444 Camino del Rio South 
Tel. 650/854-8053 Fax: 209/472-7294 #201 
Fax 650/854-8075 E-mail: San Diego, CA 92108 
E-mail: comartin@cornartin-reis.com Tel. 619/291-2800 
cornell@ce.stanford.edu Fax 619/291-0613 
E-mail: cpcenq@aol.com 
Chuck Davis Greg Deierlein Bruce Ellingwood 
Esherick Homsey Dodge Professor Johns Hopkins University 
and Davis Stanford University Dept. of Civil Engineering . 
2789 25th Street Dept. of Civil & 3400 N. Charles Street 
San Francisco, CA 94110-Environmental Engineering Baltimore, MD 21218 
3597 Terman Engineering Center Tel: 410/516-8443 
Tel. 415/285-9193 -M 4020 Fax 410/516-7473 
Fax 415/285-3866 Stanford, CA 94305-4020 
Tel. 650/723-0453 
Fax 6500/723-7514 
E-mail: 
ggd@cive.stanford.edu 
Jeffrey Gee, AIA S. K. Ghosh John Gillengerten 
Director of Design & Project Portland Cement John A. Martin & Associates 
Management 
University of California 
2000 Carleton Street 
Association 
1811 Cree Lane 
Mt. Prospect, IL 60077 
1212 S. Flower Street 
Los Angeles, CA 90015 
Tel. 213/483-6490 
Berkeley, CA 94720-1380 Tel: 847/297-5640 Fax 213/483-3084 
Phone 510/643-9363 Fax 847/297-9144 E-mail: JGjama@aol.com 
Fax 510/642-7271 E-mail skghosh@aol.com 
E-mail 
gee@dofm.berkeley.edu 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Michael Hagerty 
Chief Engineer 
City of Portland 
Bureau of Buildings 
1120 SW 5th, Room 930 
Portland, OR 97204 
Tel. 5031823-7538 
Fax 5031823-7692 
E-mail 
haciertvm@oi.portland.or.us 
Gary Hart 
University of California at 
Los Angeles 
Civil & Environmental 
Engineering Dept. 
5731 Boelter Hall 
Los Angeles, CA 90095Tel: 
310/825-1377 
Fax: 3101206-2000 
E-mail qhart@ucla.edu 
William Holmes 
Vice President 
Rutherford & Chekene 
Consulting Engineers 
303 Second Street, Suite 
800 North 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
Tel: 415/495-4222 
Fax 415/546-7536 
E-mail: 
wholmes@ruthchek.com 
Ronald Hamburger 
Senior Vice President 
EQE International, Inc. 
1111 Broadway, 1 0 ,1h Floor 
Pakland, CA 94607 
Tel. 510/817-31 00 
E-mail: roh@ eoe.com 
Perry Haviland, FAIA 
Building Standards Seismic 
Safety Advisory Committee 
Haviland Associates 
Architects 
27 Embarcadero Cove 
Oakland, CA 94606 
Phone 510/532-6996 
Fax 5101532-6998 
John Hooper 
Skilling Ward Magnusson 
Barkshire Inc. 
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 
3200 
Seattle, WA 98101-2699 
Tel. 206/292-1200 
Fax 206/292-1201 
E-mail: Jdh@skillino.com 
Robert 0. Hanson 
Senior Earthquake Engineer 
University of Michigan/ 
FEMA CA-1008-DR 
74 North Pasadena Avenue 
Parsons Bldg. West Annex 
Room 308 
Pasadena, CA 91103 
Tel. 626/431-3079 
Fax 626/431-3859 
E-mail: 
robert.hanson@femagov 
Frederick Herman 
City of Palo Alto 
250 Hamilton 
P. 0.Box 10250 
Palo Alto, CA 94303 
Tel. 41 51329-2550 
Fax 415/3229-2240, 
E-mail: 
fredherman@citv.oalo
alto.oa.us 
Laurence Kornfield 
Chief Building Inspector 
City and County of San 
Francisco 
Dept. of Building Inspection 
1660 Mission Street, 3rd 
Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941032414 
Tel. 415/558-6244 
Fax 415/558-6474 
63 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Wilfred Iwan 
Professor/Director 
Earthquake Engineering 
Research Laboratory 
California Institute of 
Technology 
223 Thomas Laboratory 
Pasadena, CA 91125 
Tel. 626/395-4144 
Fax 626/568-2719 
E-mail: 
wdiwan Scco.caltech.edu 
Helmut Krawinkler 
Professor 
Stanford University 
Dept. of Civil Engineering 
Terman Engineering Center 
Stanford, CA 94305-4020 
Tel. 650/723-4129 
Fax 650/723-7514 
E-mail: 
krawinkler@ce.stanford.edu. 
Michael Mahoney 
Senior Geophysicist 
FEMA 
National Earthquake 
Program Office 
500 'C" Street SW, Room 
Washington, D.C. 20472 
Tel. 202/646-2794 
Fax 202/646-3990 
E-mail: 
Mike.Mahonev~fema.gov 
Jack Moehle 
Professor & Director 
Pacific Earthquake 
Engineering Research 
Center 
1301 S. 46th Street 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
Tel. 510/231-9554 
Fax 510/231-9471 
E-mail: 
moehle~eerc.berkelev.edu 
James Jirsa 
Professor 
University of Texas 
Ferguson Structural 
Engineering Lab 
10100 Burnet Road, PRC 
Bldg. 177 
Austin, TX 78758-4497 
Tel: 512/471-4582 
Fax: 512/471-1944 
E-mail: 
iirsa uts.cc.utexas.edu 
George Lee 
Director 
MCEER 
SUNY at Buffalo 
100 Red Jacket Quadrangle 
Box 610025 
Buffalo, NY 14261-0025 
Tel. 716/645-3391 
Fax 716/645-3399 
E-mail 
aclee@acsu.buffalo.edu 
Hank Martin 
American Iron and Steel 
Institute 
11899 Edgewood Road, 
Suite G 
Auburn, CA 95603 
Tel. 530/ 887-8335 
Fax 530/887-0713 
Hmartin(steel.org 
Vilas Mujumdar 
Chief. 
Division of the State 
Architect 
Office of Regulation 
Services 
1300 I Street, Suite 800 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Tel. 916/445-1304 
Fax 916/327-3371 
E-mail 
vmuiumda@d s.ca.gov 
Gerald Jones 
1100 West 122nd Street 
Kansas City, MO 64145 
Tel. 816/942-3167 
Fax 816/941-8743 
E-mail: 
qhiones@prodipv.net 
H. S. Lew 
National Institute of 
Standards and Technology 
Building and Fire Research 
Lab 
Building 226, Room B168 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 
Tel: 301/975-6060 
Fax: 301/869-6275 
E-mail: hsl@nist.gov 
Andrew Merovich 
President 
A. T. Merovich & 
Associates, Inc. 
1163 Francisco Blvd., 2nd 
Floor 
San Rafael, CA 94901 
Tel. 415/457-0932 
Fax 415/457-1718 
E-mail: 
atmerovich@aol.com 
Paul Murray 
Structural Engineer 
Stanley D. Lindsey & Assoc. 
Ltd. 
1801 West End Avenue, 
Suite 400 
Nashville, TN 37203-2509 
Tel. 615/320-1735 
Fax 615/320-0387 
E-mail: pmurraysdl
nash.com 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Farzad Naeim 
Director 
Research/Development 
John A. Martin & Associates 
1212 S. Flower Street 
Los Angeles, CA 90015 
Tel. 213/483-6490 
Fax 2131483-3084 
E-mail: 
farzad iohnmartin.com 
Chris Poland 
President 
Degenkolb Engineers 
225 Bush Street #1 000 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Tel: 4151392-6952 
Fax: 4151981-3157 
E-mail: 
cooland@deqenkolb.com 
Evan Reis 
Vice President, Comartin-
Reis 
356 King Street 
Redwood City, CA 94062 
Tel. 650/725-7016 
Fax 650/723-7444 
E-mail: 
reis@comartin-reis.corn 
Dan Rogers 
Stanford University 
University Facilities Projects 
655 Serra Street, 2nd Floor 
Stanford, CA 94305-6114 
Tel. 650/723-3928 
Fax 650/725-9475 
Hidemi Nakashima 
Visiting Scholar 
PEER Center 
1301 South 46th Street 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
Tel. 5101231-9597 
Fax 51O1231-9471 
E-mail 
hidemi@poo.bekkoame.or.iP 
Maurice Power 
Principal Engineer 
Geomatrix Consultants 
100 Pine Street, Suite 1000 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
Tel. 4151434-9400 
Fax 4151434-1365 
Robert Reitherman 
Executive Director 
CUREe 
1301 S. 46th St. 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
Tel. 510/231-9557 
Fax 510/231-5664 
E-mail: 
reitherm@nisee.ce.berkeley.edu 
Ronald Sack 
Director 
National Science 
Foundation 
Division of Civil and 
Mechanical Systems 
4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 
545 
Arlington, VA 22230 
Tel. 703/306-1360 
Fax 703/306-0291 
E-mail: rsack~nsf.gov 
Maryann Phipps 
Principal 
Degenkolb Engineers 
225 Bush Street, Suite 1000 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Tel: 4151392-6952 
Fax 4151981-3157 
E-mail: 
mphipps@decenkolb.com 
Andrei Reinhorn 
Professor 
SUNY at Buffalo 
Civil Engineering 
Department 
231 Ketter Hall 
Buffalo, NY 14260 
Tel. 7161645-3491 x 2419 
Fax 716/645-3733 
E-mail: 
reinhorn@eng.buffalo.edu 
Mike Riley 
National Institute of 
Standards & Technology 
Earthquake Equipment 
Group 
Route 270 & Quince 
Orchard Rd. 
Building 226, Room B158 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 
Tel. 301/975-6065 
Fax 301/869-6275 
Phillip Samblanet 
Structural Engineer 
National Concrete Masonry 
Association 
2302 Horse Pen Road 
Herndon, VA 20171-3499 
Tel. 703/713-1900 
Fax 703/713-1910 
E-mail 
PSamblanet@ NCMA.orq 
65 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Sheila Selkregg 
Planning Director 
Municipality of Anchorage 
Community Planning and 
Development 
632 West 6th Avenue, 
Room 210 
Anchorage, AK 99501 
Tel. 907-343-4303 
Fax 907-343-4220 
Stephen Toth 
Chief Engineering Officer 
Teachers Insurance & 
Annuity Ass'n/College 
Retiremt. Equities Fund 
730 Third Avenue 
New York, NY 10017-3206 
Tel. 212/916-4445 
Fax 212/916-6207 
E-mail stoth@tiaa-cref.org 
Fred Turner 
Staff Structural Engineer 
California Seismic Safety 
Commission 
1900 K Street #100 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Tel: 916/322-4917 
Fax: 916/322-9476 
E-mail: fredt5@aol.com 
Paul Somerville 
Senior Associate 
Woodward-Clyde Federal 
Services 
566 El Dorado Street 
Pasadena, CA 91101 
Tel. 626/449-7650 
Fax 626/449-3536 
E-mail pgsomerO@wcc.corr 
Bill Tryon 
Wells Fargo Bank 
540 Oak Street 
Petaluma, CA 94952 
Tel. 707/773-2868 
Fax 707/773-2879 
E-mail: 
trvoncw@wellsfarno.com 
David Tyree 
Regional Manager 
American Forest & Paper 
Association 
1080 Mesa Road 
Colorado Springs, CO 
80904 
Tel. 719/633-7471 
Fax 719/633-7439 
E-mail: dptvree@aol.com 
John Theiss 
208 St. Georges Drive 
P. 0. Box 102 
St. Albans, MO 63073 
Tel. 314/458-2453 
Fax 314/994-0722 (EQE) 
E-mail: ct29@aol.com 
Susan Tubbesing 
Executive Director 
EERI 
499 -14th Street, Suite 320 
Oakland, CA 94612-1934 
Tel. 510/451-0905 
Fax 510/451-5411 
E-mail: eeri@eeri.orq 
Nabih Youssef 
President 
Nabih Youssef & Associates 
800 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 
510 
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
Tel: 213/362-0707 
Fax 213/688-3018 
E-mail: nvoussef@qnn.com