SEAOC

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix I
APPENDIX I
Revised Interim Guidelines

Performance-Based Seismic Engineering
Force-Displacement Approach for Performance-Based

Seismic Engineering
These tentative guidelines present a work in progress, are intended for trial use only, and require
significant case studies before they can be recommended for practical use. Readers are encouraged to
provide feedback to the SEAOC Seismology Committee regarding practical application of these Interim
Guidelines.
Performance-Based Seismic Engineering Ad Hoc Subcommittee
Robert E. Bachman (SEAOSC), Chair

Anthony B. Court (SEAOSD), Vice Chair
Ronald O. Hamburger (SEAONC)
Gary C. Hart (SEAOSC)
Saiful M. Islam (SEAOSC)
Mervyn J. Kowalsky (SEAOSD)
Nico Luco (SEAONC)
William Staehlin (SEAOCC)
Robert C. Thacker (SEAOCC)
Observers and Corresponding Members
Matt J. Skokan (Observer)

Vilas Mujumdar (Observer)
Allin C. Cornell (Corresponding Member)
Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy 81

APPENDIX I
Interim Guidelines
Performance-Based Seismic Engineering
Force-Displacement Approach for Performance-Based

Seismic Engineering

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................
List of Tables...................................................................................................................................................
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................
I-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................

I-1.1 General............................................................................................................................
I-1.2 Purpose ...........................................................................................................................
I-1.3 Scope and Applicability..................................................................................................
I-1.4 Significant Features ........................................................................................................
I-1.5 Statement of Limited Reliability ....................................................................................
I-2 Performance Objectives...................................................................................................................

I-2.1 General............................................................................................................................
I-2.2 Seismic Hazard Levels ...................................................................................................
I-2.3 Performance Levels ........................................................................................................
I-2.4 Basic Safety Objective (BSO) ........................................................................................
I-2.5 Enhanced Objective 1 (EO1) (Essential Facilities Objective)........................................
I-2.6 Enhanced Objective 2 (EO2) (Safety Critical Objective)...............................................
I-2.7 Other Enhanced Objectives ............................................................................................
I-3 Site Suitability and Design Ground Motions .................................................................................

I-3.1 General............................................................................................................................
I-3.2 Site Suitability and Siting Restrictions ...........................................................................
I-3.3 Design Ground Motions .................................................................................................
I-3.4 Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra (ADRS) .................................................
I-3.5 Alternate Seismic Hazard Representations.....................................................................
I-4 General Design and Analysis Procedures for PBSE .....................................................................

I-4.1 General............................................................................................................................
I-4.2 Conceptual Design..........................................................................................................
I-4.2.1 General ........................................................................................................
I-4.2.2 System Regularity .......................................................................................
I-4.2.3 Structural System Selection and Ductile Detailing Standards ....................
I-4.2.4 System Yield Mechanisms..........................................................................
I-4.2.5 Drift Compatibility......................................................................................
I-4.3 Structural Systems ..........................................................................................................
I-4.3.1 General ........................................................................................................
I-4.3.2 Reinforced Concrete Systems .....................................................................
I-4.3.3 Reinforced Masonry Systems .....................................................................
I-4.3.4 Steel Systems ..............................................................................................
I-4.3.5 Wood Systems.............................................................................................
I-4.3.6 Base Isolation Systems................................................................................
I-4.3.7 Energy Dissipation Systems........................................................................
I-4.4 Drift Limits .....................................................................................................................
I-4.4.1 General ........................................................................................................
I-4.5 Structural System Design ...............................................................................................

I-4.5.1 General ........................................................................................................
I-4.5.2 Capacity Design Principles .........................................................................
I-4.5.3 System Acceptance Criteria ........................................................................
I-4.6 Structural Element Design and Detailing .......................................................................
I-4.6.1 General ........................................................................................................
I-4.6.2 Element Acceptance Criteria.......................................................................
I-4.7 Soil Structure Interaction and Foundation Design..........................................................
I-4.7.1 Soil Structure Interaction ............................................................................
I-4.7.2 Foundation Design ......................................................................................
I-4.8 Design Verification Analysis..........................................................................................
I-4.8.1 Inelastic Force-Deformation Characteristics of the System........................
I-4.8.2 System Response at Each Hazard Level .....................................................
I-4.8.3 Nonlinear Verification Analysis .................................................................
I-4.8.4 Linear Static Analysis
I-4.9 Nonstructural Systems ....................................................................................................
I-5 Displacement-Based Design and Analysis Procedures..................................................................

I-5.1 General............................................................................................................................
I-5.2 Conceptual Design Limitations ......................................................................................
I-5.2.1 Structural System Selection ........................................................................
I-5.2.2 System Regularity .......................................................................................
I-5.2.3 Short Period Structures ...............................................................................
I-5.2.4 Soil Structure Interaction ............................................................................
I-5.3 Direct Displacement-Based Design (DDBD) Procedure................................................
I-5.4 Equal Displacement-Based Design (EBD) Procedure....................................................
I-5.5 Verification Analysis Using Nonlinear Analysis Procedures.........................................
I.5.5.1 Pushover Analysis Procedures ....................................................................
I.5.5.2 Dynamic Analysis Procedures ....................................................................
I-5.6 Final Design and Detailing Procedures ..........................................................................
I-5.7 Nonstructural Systems ....................................................................................................
I-6 Nonstructural Systems Design ........................................................................................................

I-6.1 General............................................................................................................................
I-6.2 Design Strategies ............................................................................................................
I-6.3 Nonstructural Systems Design and Analysis Procedures ...............................................
I-6.3.1 Method 1 -
Performance specification for design-build of nonstructural systems ........
I-6.3.2 Method 2 -
Design to accommodate structural response envelope................................
I-6.3.3 Method 3 -
Detailed design of the nonstructural systems..............................................
I-6.3.4 Method 4 -
Pre-qualification of Nonstructural-systems.................................................
I-6.4 Drift and Acceleration Criteria for Nonstructural Design ..............................................
I-7 Design and Construction Documents .............................................................................................

I-7.1 Scope of Services and Responsibility.............................................................................
I-7.2 Design Documents..........................................................................................................
I-7.3 Construction Documents ................................................................................................

I-8 Design Review Procedures...............................................................................................................

I-8.1 Project Design Peer Review ...........................................................................................
I-8.1.1 General ........................................................................................................
I-8.1.2 Scope of Services ........................................................................................
I-8.1.3 Qualifications ..............................................................................................
I-8.1.4 Responsibility..............................................................................................
I-8.2 Design Plan Check..........................................................................................................
8.2.1 General ........................................................................................................
8.2.2 Scope...........................................................................................................
8.2.3 Qualifications and Responsibility ...............................................................
I-9 Construction Quality Assurance Procedures.................................................................................

I-9.1 Structural Observation ....................................................................................................
I-9.1.1 General .......................................................................................................
I-9.1.2 Scope...........................................................................................................
I-9.1.3 Qualifications ..............................................................................................
I-9.1.4 Responsibility..............................................................................................
I-9.2 Testing and Inspection Program .....................................................................................
I-10 Building Seismic Maintenance ........................................................................................................

List of Tables
Table I-1 Recommended Design Ground Motions

Table I-2 Recommended Siting Restrictions for PBSE
Table I-3 Recommended Yield Mechanisms
Table I-4 Recommended Drift Ratio Limits for Preliminary Design
Table I-5 Recommended Displacement Ductility Limits for Systems and Elements for
Preliminary Design
Table I-6 Recommended Damping Design Values for Preliminary Design
Table I-7 ‘k’ Factors (Shapes 1& 2 for Eqns I-5-1 and I-5-15
Table I-8 Structural wall (Shape 3) ‘k’ factors for Eqns I-5-1 and I-5-15
List of Figures
Figure I-1 Scope & Methodology for PBSE
Figure I-2 Typical Seismic Performance Objectives for Buildings
Figure I-3 Structural and Non-Structural Performance Levels
Figure I-4.1 Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra – EQI
Figure I-4.2 Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra – EQIV
Figure I-4a Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra (5% Damped)
Figure I-4b Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra (20% Damped)
Figure I-4c Displacement Response Spectra (5% Damped)
Figure I-4d Displacement Response Spectra (20% Damped)
Figure I-4e Acceleration Response Spectra (5% Damped)
Figure I-5 Illustratrion of DBD and EBD Concepts
Figure I-6 Direct Displacement Based Design
Figure I-7 Equal Displacement Approximation
Figure I-8 Summary of Design-Verification Concepts

Force-Displacement Approach for

Performance-Based Seismic
Engineering
I-1 Introduction
I-1.1 General
The concept of developing performance based seismic engineering guidelines to improve seismic
engineering and performance of buildings was proposed by the SEAOC Seismology Committee in
the early 1990s. After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the California Office of Emergency Services
retained SEAOC to prepare a conceptual framework document and the SEAOC Vision 2000
Committee was assigned that task. The resulting document was the SEAOC Vision 2000 Conceptual
Framework for PBSE (1995). The preliminary guidelines presented herein are a continuation and
selective development of that SEAOC initiative. An extended discussion of the background of
Performance-Based Seismic Engineering and the development of these guidelines is provided in the
Preface portion of the Commentary.
These guidelines provide suggested PBSE procedures for structural engineering of new buildings.
PBSE, as defined in the SEAOC Vision 2000 Conceptual Framework (1995), consists of a set of
engineering procedures for design and construction of structures to achieve predictable levels of
performance in response to specified levels of earthquake, within definable levels of reliability.
These guidelines are a focused extension of the Vision 2000 Conceptual Framework and develop
selected displacement-based structural design and analysis procedures and a framework for non-
structural design and verification.
These preliminary guidelines are initially intended for trial use only, pending further development
and completion of validation studies. User input to the SEAOC Seismology Committee is requested.
Designs resulting from the use of these guideline procedures should be rechecked using established
code procedures to verify that the code-specified minimum design levels are achieved, unless
otherwise approved by the Building Official.
I-1.2 Purpose
These guidelines are intended to define seismic performance in terms of quantifiable engineering
parameters and to provide practical PBSE procedures for development and use in the next several
years. It is intended that development of the procedures will provide the engineer with tools to both
better understand and better control the seismic response of buildings.
The guidelines present a general design procedure and two displacement-based design procedures.
The general design procedure is intended to outline a general PBSE conceptual approach for
application to a wide range of structural systems and configurations. The general procedure
emphasizes use of conceptually sound seismic engineering design principles and relies on sound
engineering judgment, thorough verification analysis and peer review to be effective and reliable.
The two displacement-based procedures are intended to provide useable and effective procedures for
implementing PBSE for selected seismic resisting systems utilizing established ductile detailing
standards. These displacement-based procedures focus on displacement, both in terms of drift and
element deformation, as the key seismic response parameter for performance prediction.
With further development, these guideline procedures are intended to achieve significantly improved
reliability in control and prediction of the seismic performance of buildings compared to that
achieved using traditional seismic design codes.
I-1.3 Scope and Applicability
The guidelines encompass the full scope of seismic engineering procedures outlined in Figure I-1,
including selection of performance objectives, design and analysis, and quality assurance procedures.
The scope of the guidelines includes the engineering of both structural and nonstructural systems, but
does not address assuring that external service of utilities and lifelines essential to post-earthquake
operation of a facility is uninterrupted. For those facilities intended to provide post-earthquake
operational capability, the service of utilities and lifelines can be critical, but is generally beyond the
control of an individual building design team unless facility-specific provisions for hardened utilities
is provided. Unless there is reasonable assurance that critical utilities and lifelines will remain in
service after earthquake events for which it is intended to provide for post-earthquake operability,
facility-specific provisions of these utilities is recommended.
The guidelines are written specifically to apply to new building design, though they may be adapted
to design of other structures. Performance-based engineering guidelines developed specifically for
existing structures can be found in reference documents FEMA 356 and ATC 40. The force-
displacement procedures presented in this document are intended primarily for the design of ductile
building structures with rigid floor diaphragms and with elastic periods greater than Ts, typically
about 0.5 seconds. The guidelines also provide procedures for the determination of ground motions
and performance levels, design of non-structural components, information to be presented on design
and construction documents, design review, peer review, special inspection and on going
maintenance.
These guidelines and performance-based engineering in general, are most effectively applied to
structures having regular framing systems, because the behavior of regular structures is inherently
more predictable than that of irregular structures. However, the guidelines can also be applied to
irregular structures, with appropriate enhancements in the level and rigor of the analysis and design
procedures.
I-1.4 Significant Features
Several significant features of the guidelines distinguish them from the traditional SEAOC Blue
Book provisions and similar seismic design code documents. These features including the following:

1. Tentative nature of the guidelines. These guidelines are not recommended for immediate
adoption into the building codes, but only for provisional use.
2. Quantitatively defined performance levels and objectives (adapted from Vision 2000).
3. Quantified definitions of structural performance levels, in terms of global response.
4. Multilevel seismic design, for multiple seismic hazard levels.
5. Explicit incorporation of capacity design or similar yield-control design procedures.
6. Design focus on the full inelastic response rather than reduced elastic response.
7. Emphasis on displacement-based rather than force-based design procedures.
8. Focus on drift and element deformation as key seismic response parameters.
9. Recommended system drift limits and component displacement/rotation limits to be based on test
data for selected framing systems.
10. Design verification using nonlinear analysis procedures.
11. Recommendations for nonstructural component performance levels and procedures for achieving
nonstructural design verification.
I-1.5 Statement of Limited Reliability
Appropriate use of these guidelines is intended to provide greater reliability in predicting and
controlling seismic performance than is currently achieved using the Blue Book provisions or other
current seismic design codes. It is intended that most structures designed in accordance with these
guidelines will meet their respective design performance objectives in a given seismic event. Due to
the uncertainties inherent in ground motion prediction and in seismic engineering of buildings, it can
not be expected that all structures will meet their performance objectives in a given seismic event. It
must be recognized that the reliability of PBSE is limited and that design performance objectives can
not be achieved with certainty.
In the future, it is envisioned that procedures for measuring the reliability of PBSE designs will be
developed. Thereafter, predictions of seismic performance can be accompanied by statements of the
associated levels of reliability.
I-2 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

I-2.1 General
Performance objectives are defined in terms of performance levels to be achieved at several specified
seismic hazard levels (design earthquake levels). In these guidelines, three typical performance
objectives are defined based on common occupancy considerations, as illustrated in Figure I-2. Other
enhanced performance objectives that exceed code minimums can be defined by the engineer in
consultation with the client/owner.
The performance objective for a given project should be selected by the engineer and owner prior to
design. In addition to meeting selected performance objectives, the design must meet or exceed the
minimum requirements of the applicable building code unless otherwise permitted by the building
offical.

I-2.2 Seismic Hazard Levels

A set of seismic hazard levels, or ground motion levels, should be established for design. In these
guidelines, four hazard levels, equivalent to frequent, occasional, rare, and maximum considered
events, are defined in Section I-3.3 and are designated as EQ-I, EQ-II, EQ-III, and EQ-IV,
respectively.
I-2.3 Performance Levels

System performance levels can be defined to describe the desired structural and nonstructural
performance of a building at specified hazard levels. A set of performance levels is defined in Figure
I-3. Structural performance (SP) levels are defined in terms of the structural system displacement
response as measured by the inelastic displacement demand ratio (IDDR). The IDDR is the ratio of
total inelastic displacement of the structure to the inelastic displacement at which collapse would be
anticipated to initiate and has a value of 0 at incipient yielding of the structure and 1 at incipient
collapse. Corresponding nonstructural performance (NP) levels are defined in terms of expected
loss-to-value ratios for the nonstructural systems. Building performance can be described in terms of
combinations of the structural performance levels and nonstructural performance levels. For
example, a building performance target may be specified as SP1-NP3, meaning Structural
Performance Level 1 and Nonstructural Performance Level 3, for a given seismic hazard level.
The design process starts with configuring a structure such that ultimate behavior consists of collapse
in a well-defined mechanism, termed herein the admissible collapse mechanism. The structural
performance is said to meet an SP level if the structural system IDDR is less than or equal to the
specified ratio for that performance level. A substantial portion of the elements required for the
admissible collapse mechanism should meet the limiting criteria defined for that performance level.
Similarly, the nonstructural performance is said to meet an NP level if the damage to the
nonstructural system falls within the indicated loss-to-value range for that level.
Structural Performance Levels

SP1 Structural response at this level corresponds to the effective yield point, or yield limit state,
of the structural system; the system yield mechanism is partially developed but the inelastic
displacement capacity of the structure is substantially unused (IDDR=0 approx.);
approximately half of the hinges required to form the admissible collapse mechanism have
reached yield (maximum strains at hinges should not exceed 150% yield). Structural damage
is expected to be minimal and should not require repair, for other than cosmetic reasons.
SP2 Up to 30% of the usable inelastic displacement capacity of the structure is used (IDDR=0.3).
Damage is minor to moderate; some structural repair is required..
SP3 For structural systems, up to 60% of the usable inelastic displacement capacity of the
structure is used (IDDR=0.6). Damage is moderate to major; extensive structural repairs are
required.
SP4 Up to 80% of usable inelastic displacement capacity of the structure is expended

(IDDR=0.8). Damage is major; residual strength and stiffness of the structure and margin

against collapse are significantly reduced. Extensive repairs are required and may not be
economically feasible.
SP5 Up to 100% of usable inelastic displacement capacity of the structure is used (IDDR=1.0). As
a result, collapse is imminent.
Nonstructural Performance Levels

NP1 The response of nonstructural systems results in negligible to light damage. Economic loss-
to-value ratio to the nonstructural systems is expected to be in the range of 0% to 10%.
Mechanical and electrical equipment is expected to continue to function provided utilities are
also operable.
NP2 Nonstructural damage is light to moderate. Expected loss-to-value in the nonstructural

systems is 10% to 30%. Mechanical and electrical equipment may continue to function if
utilities are available but continued operation should not be expected.
NP3 Nonstructural elements are secure but may be extensively damaged. Economic loss-to-value
ratios are expected to be in the 20% to 50% range.
NP4 Nonstructural elements are extensively damaged but are generally restrained to prevent
collapse. Loss-to-value ratios in the nonstructural systems are expected to be in the 40% to
80% range.
NP5 Nonstructural elements have lost restraint against collapse or have collapsed.
Building Performance
Building performance can be defined in terms of combinations of the structural performance levels
and nonstructural performance levels. Any SP-NP combination can be specified; however, for
economic reasons, it is expected that the structural performance levels will typically be specified to
meet or exceed the specified nonstructural performance.
Generally, buildings that meet performance levels SP1-NP1 (Level 1) remain operational; buildings
that meet at least SP2-NP2 (Level 2) are structurally safe but are not operational and will require
some level of repair, though this repair may not be extensive and could potentially occur rapidly;
buildings that meet at least SP3-NP3 (Level 3) are life safe may need to be evacuated for repairs;
buildings at SP4-NP4 (Level 4) have a substantially reduced margin against collapse and should be
evacuated for shoring and repairs; and buildings at SP5-NP5 (Level 5) may be a total loss.
Again, note that building performance can be targeted for different levels of structural versus
nonstructural performance, such as SP1-NP3, for a specific level of ground motion. In the following
sections, specific design performance objectives are recommended by coupling series of structural
and nonstructural performance levels with specific hazard levels. For each of these performance
objectives, multiple such pairs are provided. It should be noted that the design of most buildings will
be controlled by the specified performance for a single earthquake hazard level, even though
performance for other hazard levels are also stated. Typically the controlling hazard level will be a
function of the seismicity in a region and the type of structure being designed. For example, the
requirement that a structure provide SP1-NP1 performance at EQ-I may control the design in areas of
high seismicity, while a requirement that a structure provide SP4-NP4 performance at EQ-IV may
govern in regions of low seismicity. It is anticipated that designers using these provisions will
quickly become familiar with the controlling design objectives in a given region.
I-2.4 Basic Safety Objective (BSO)

The BSO is the performance objective recommended for PBSE design of standard occupancy
structures. The BSO exceeds traditional code level design objectives. In terms of structural
systems, it is similar to the implied performance objective in traditional seismic codes, as articulated
in the Blue Book Commentary. In terms of nonstructural systems, it exceeds the implied objective of
the code by systematically addressing the nonstructural systems. The BSO is similar to the implied
performance objectives for school buildings in the State of California. It encompasses SP1-NP1
performance in the EQ-I, SP2-NP2 performance in the EQ-II, SP3-NP3 performance in the EQ-III,
and SP4-NP4 performance for EQ-IV.
I-2.5 Enhanced Objective 1 (EO1) (Essential Facilities Objective)

Enhanced Objective 1 is a higher objective than the BSO, providing for operational performance
(SP1-NP1) in EQ-II, SP2-NP2 performance in EQ-III, and SP3-NP3 performance in the EQ-IV. This
objective is comparable to the one for acute care hospital facilities and non-base-isolated emergency
command and control centers. It may be considered for higher occupancy facilities such as large
assembly spaces or other facilities where the owner expects greater than code level protection for a
facility.
I-2.6 Enhanced Objective 2 (EO2) (Safety Critical Objective)

Enhanced Objective 2 is similar to the one typically considered for mission- or safety- critical
facilities such as emergency command and control centers, liquefied natural gas terminals or
plutonium processing facilities. This objective encompasses SP1-NP1 performance in EQ-III, and
SP2-NP2 performance for EQ-IV.
I-2.7 Other Enhanced Objectives

Other enhanced objectives include any objective higher than the BSO and may consist of any
combination of performance levels and seismic hazard levels for structural and/or nonstructural
systems.
I-3 Site Suitability and Design Ground Motions

I-3.1 General
The suitability of the site should be evaluated for each project. This section defines siting restriction
guidelines with respect to occupancy types, structural systems, and geologic hazard conditions. The
seismic hazard level for each site should be represented in terms of design ground motions with
specified probability of exceedance or similar measures. This section also defines the recommended
design level ground motions and procedures for developing generalized design response spectra in
acceleration-displacement (ADRS) format.

I-3.2 Site Suitability and Siting Restrictions

The project site should be evaluated for its suitability with respect to the proposed structure and the
selected performance objectives. Project siting should be restricted in accordance with Table I-2
unless adverse site effects are mitigated in the design, as substantiated by analysis.
I-3.3 Design Ground Motions

Recommended design ground motions for use in high seismic regions include the frequent,
occasional, rare, and maximum considered events as identified below. Alternate seismic hazard
levels can be used where appropriate, considering the local hazard environment and the owner’s
objectives.
TABLE I-1 Recommended Design Ground Motions
EQ Description Probability Other Mean Return

of Exceedance Definition Period (yrs)
EQ-I Frequent 87%/50yrs --- 25
EQ-II Occasional 50%/50yrs --- 72
EQ-III Rare --- 2/3 MCE 250 to 800
EQ-IV Max. Considered --- MCE 800 to 2500
Design ground motions should be defined based either on a site specific seismic hazard analysis or
using national seismic hazard maps which can be accessed via the USGS web site. Advice on use of
these maps is provided in the Commentary.
I-3.4 Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra (ADRS)

The design ground motions can also be represented by generalized acceleration-displacement
response spectra as illustrated in Figures I-4a through I-4e for Zone 4 sites (MCE map plateau sites)
located away from the sources of large earthquakes where a displacement transition period of 4
seconds is currently consider valid. It should be noted that current NEHRP proposals are indicating
that the displacement transition period may be 8 seconds or more for the MCE. It is however also
likely that the displacement transition period is sensitive to the probability of exceedance with the
transition period becoming shorter with higher probabilities. At other sites or at the discretion of the
engineer, site-specific response spectra should be developed or the USGS Uniform Hazard Spectra
should be used.
I-3.5 Alternate Seismic Hazard Representations

Ground shaking intensity at various design seismic hazard levels may also be represented by
displacement response spectra (DRS) as illustrated in Figures I-4c & I-4d, acceleration response
spectra (ARS) as illustrated in Figure I-4e, appropriate time-histories or other measures, as
determined by the structural and geotechnical engineers and as appropriate for the design and
analysis methodologies.

I-4 General Design and Analysis Procedures for PBSE

I-4.1 General
Performance-based seismic engineering design and analysis procedures should account for the
inelastic force-deformation behavior of the structure and should predict the seismic performance of
the structural and nonstructural systems with a measurable and acceptable level of reliability. The
procedures should quantify the structural seismic response in terms of force, displacement, and
inelastic deformation demands on elements and systems in order to compare the design capacity of
the structure to the expected seismic demand for the considered seismic hazard levels.
I-4.2 Conceptual Design

I-4.2.1 General. The design should follow good seismic engineering principles and minimize the
structural irregularities and other potential sources of uncertainty in the structural system, materials,
and elements in order to improve the predictability of the seismic response and performance. To the
extent that irregularities and uncertainties are included in the design, the reliability of the design in
achieving the predicted performance objectives may be diminished. Some of these limitations may be
unnecessary if alternate approaches such as base isolation are used to dissipate the earthquake energy
allowing the supported structure to remain elastic resulting in more predictable and reliable
performance.
I-4.2.2 System Regularity.

More stringent limitations should be placed on the conceptual design in terms of system regularity,
system selection and detailing quality for designs intended to achieve better performance and/or
greater reliability.
I-4.2.3 Structural System Selection and Ductile Detailing Standards. Structural systems selected
should have established ductile detailing standards for which inelastic force-deformation
characteristics and useable ductility limits have been established by testing. Recommended lateral
force-resisting systems and detailing standards that meet this criteria are listed in Section I-4.3.
I-4.2.4 System Yield Mechanisms. The structure should be configured such that predictable system
yield mechanisms can be designated and designed to provide controlled and acceptable inelastic
deformation patterns in the global structural response. Capacity design principles or similar yield-
control design approaches should be used to control and design for the inelastic response. Typical
system yield mechanisms are illustrated in Table I-3.
I-4.2.5 Drift Compatibility. Structural systems and nonstructural systems should be selected
considering drift compatibility. Structural systems should be capable of providing sufficient
deformation control, principally through stiffness and damping to be compatible with the
deformation tolerance or detailing accommodation of the nonstructural systems selected for the
design. Characteristic drift limits for typical structural systems are described in Section I-4.4 and are
tabulated in Table I-4.

I-4.3 Structural Systems

I-4.3.1 General. The structural system should conform to one of the several selected systems
recommended in this section, for which appropriate ductile detailing provisions are documented and
for which performance test data is available. This section identifies selected systems for which some
data is available and refers to appropriate ductile detailing standards. (Note: For many of these
systems and detailing standards, particularly where noted below, insufficient test data is currently
available to quantitatively predict inelastic performance with good reliability. Additional research
and testing is needed. Within this document those systems for which the Committee believes
insufficient data is currently available have been identified with shading.)
Components detailed in accordance with the referenced detailing standards should be able to achieve
the ductility limits specified in Table I-5. These ductility limits and associated system drift limits are
discussed further in Section I-4.4. If alternate systems or detailing standards are used for design,
measures of the useable ductility of the resulting elements should be established by testing.
I-4.3.2 Reinforced Concrete Systems. Concrete lateral force-resisting systems should consist of
one of the following:
1. Special reinforced concrete moment frames - detailed in accordance with ASCE 7-02 Section
A9.9 and ACI-318-02.
2. Reinforced concrete shear walls - detailed in accordance with ASCE 7-02 Section A9.9 and
ACI 318-02.
3. Coupled shear walls - detailed in accordance with ASCE 7-02 Section A9.9 and ACI 318-02.
I-4.3.3 Reinforced Masonry Systems. Masonry lateral force-resisting systems should consist of one
of the following:
1. Shear walls - detailed in accordance ACI 530-02.
2. Wall frames - detailed in accordance with 1997 UBC as revised by the 1999 Blue Book
strength provisions (or 1997 NEHRP guidelines). (Additional testing is required to establish
inelastic behavior characteristics).
I-4.3.4 Steel Systems. Steel lateral force-resisting systems should consist of one of the following:
1. EBFs - detailed in accordance with AISC Seismic Design Provisions - 2003.
2. SCBFs - detailed in accordance with AISC Seismic Design Provisions - 2003.
3. SMRFs - detailed in accordance with SAC Joint Venture latest guidelines or AISC Seismic
Design Provisions - 2003.
4. UBFs (unbonded braced frames) detailed in accordance with in accordance with the 2003
NEHRP Provisions.
I-4.3.5 Wood Systems. Wood-framed lateral force-resisting systems should consist of the following:
1. Plywood shear walls - designed in accordance with recommendations of the CUREE CalTech
Woodframe Project
I-4.3.6 Base Isolation Systems. Any structural system may be used in combination with base
isolation systems, provided that the superstructure is designed to remain essentially elastic under EQ-
III motion and does not exceed 150% of the elastic capacity for EQ-IV motion. Base isolation
systems should be designed and detailed in accordance with in accordance with the 2000 NEHRP
Provisions.
I-4.3.7 Energy Dissipation Systems. Energy dissipation systems, including viscous dampers,
hysteretic dampers, friction dampers and similar systems may be used in combination with other
systems permitted by this guideline, maintaining inelastic response of these other systems within the
same criteria as if energy dissipation systems were not utilized. Energy Dissipation Systems should
be designed and detailed in accordance with the 2000 NEHRP Provisions.
I-4.4 Drift Limits

I-4.4.1 General. Each of the recommended lateral systems has a characteristic range of interstory
drift limits associated with each structural performance level. These drift limits can be derived from
the cyclic inelastic deformation behavior of the selected framing systems detailed in accordance with
the recommended standards.
Table I-4 summarizes the recommended interstory drift limits for use in preliminary design, based on
typical framing and detailing characteristics for each lateral system type. The drift limits are intended
to serve as design targets for both the structural and the nonstructural systems but must be verified
for each design based on analysis of the structural system. Alternate design drift limits may be used
when substantiated by analysis and should be used for a typical building geometries and framing
arrangements. The drift capacity of the final design should meet or exceed the expected maximum
drift demand.
I-4.5 Structural System Design

I-4.5.1 General. The global structural system should be designed to meet the selected seismic
performance objectives, as measured by appropriate global response parameters including
acceleration and interstory drift. Any force-based or displacement-based design procedures may be
used as long as the seismic response behavior is analyzed in accordance with Section I-4.7 to verify
that the seismic performance objectives are met within acceptable levels of reliability.
I-4.5.2 Capacity Design Principles. The overall system design should follow sound capacity design
principles (Paulay-Priestley) to assure that an admissible system yield mechanism is designed and
detailed. This yield mechanism is designed to accommodate the full inelastic displacement demand
on the structure through a set of appropriately detailed plastic “hinges” while protecting the non-
hinge portions of the structure. The purpose of this guideline recommendation is to control the
inelastic behavior and improve the seismic performance and reliability of the structure.
I-4.5.3 System Acceptance Criteria. The overall structural system response should meet the IDDR
limits indicated in Section I-2.3, consistent with the performance objectives. Other measures of the
system response may be used as acceptance criteria when rationally established and agreed to by the
Engineer of Record and the peer reviewer.
I-4.6 Structural Element Design and Detailing

I-4.6.1 General. Structural elements should be designed to meet identified performance criteria
consistent with the selected performance objectives. Capacity design and detailing procedures or
other yield-control procedures are recommended for design and detailing to provide control of the
inelastic behavior in the structure. Other design procedures may be used as long as comparable
control of the inelastic behavior is achieved and as long as sufficient ductility capacities are provided
to exceed ductility demands.
I-4.6.2 Element Acceptance Criteria. Yielding (deformation controlled) elements of the yield
mechanism should be designed to meet the IDDR criteria in Section I-2.3. Not every yielding
element needs to meet the criteria for the structure to meet a given performance level. Typically,
approximately 80% of the elements should meet the acceptance criteria to provide an appropriate
margin of safety for the structural system to meet the criteria for a specified performance objective.
The designated non-yielding (force-controlled) elements, those outside the yield mechanism, should
generally remain near or below yield levels.
I-4.7 Soil Structure Interaction and Foundation Design

I-4.7.1 Soil Structure Interaction. For stiffer buildings and for other buildings where SSI issues are
significant, soil-structure interaction (SSI) can significantly affect both the demands on a structure
and its response and should be explicitly accounted for in the design and analysis. SSI has several
effects including a lengthening of the effective period of structural response; providing a compliant
base at which seismic deformation can be accommodated without structural damage; increase in the
effective damping of the structure, and filtering out of short period ground shaking input to the
structure. Guidelines for modeling the period lengthening and foundation compliance effects can be
found in FEMA 356. It is anticipated that ATC-55 will provide practical guidance for modeling the
damping and filtering effects.
I-4.8 Design Verification Analysis

I-4.8.1 Inelastic Force-Deformation Characteristics of the System. Design verification analysis
should quantify the inelastic force-deformation characteristics of the structural system design in order
to compare the seismic demands to the capacities of the structural systems and elements and to verify
that the acceptance criteria for the performance objectives are met. Analysis procedures should
account for the full nonlinear response with appropriate accuracy considering the performance
objectives and the acceptable risk levels.
I-4.8.2 System Response at Each Hazard Level. As illustrated in Figure I-8, the structural system
seismic response at each considered seismic hazard level should be analyzed as necessary to verify
that the global and local element seismic response is consistent with the seismic performance
objective. Typically, a single hazard level can be shown by preliminary analysis to govern the
design, then only the response at that hazard level need by analyzed further. The governing seismic
response should be measured by response parameters, such as force, displacement, rotation,
curvature, strain or other appropriate measures, which can be related to the selected performance
levels for the considered ground motions. It should be noted that nonstructural performance may be
governed by different seismic hazard levels than structural performance.
I-4.8.3 Nonlinear Verification Analysis. Verification analysis procedures should follow the
nonlinear dynamic analysis (nonlinear time history) procedures or, at a minimum, the nonlinear static
(pushover) procedures documented in FEMA 356 or Section I-5.5, or by other rational analysis
procedures capable of predicting nonlinear seismic response. Pushover techniques should not be
relied upon for structures having fundamental periods of vibration that exceed twice the period at
which the response spectrum for the site transitions from a regime of constant response acceleration

to constant response velocity, unless it can be demonstrated that higher mode effects are insignificant
or are otherwise accounted for.
Studies prepared in support of FEMA 440 (still in development as of November 2003) suggest that
higher mode effects can result in story shear and overturning forces than are significantly higher than
predicted by pushover analysis techniques. These higher forces can typically be accounted for by
extending the pushover analysis to a target displacement of approximately 1.5 to 2.0 times the target
displacement predicted by the FEMA 356 or the EBD procedure. The same studies indicate that the
pushover analysis techniques are reasonably accurate for predicting total and interstory drifts,
without this amplification factor.
I-4.8.4 Linear Static Analysis. Linear static analysis procedures should be not be used except for
those performance objectives in which elastic or essentially elastic behavior of the structure is
required and in which higher mode effects are negligible.
I-4.9 Nonstructural Systems

The nonstructural systems and elements should be designed and analyzed to verify that the
performance is consistent with the selected performance objectives. Design and analysis procedures
are outlined in Section I-6.
I-5 Displacement-Based Design and Analysis Procedures

I-5.1 General
Consistent with the General Procedures of Section I-4, displacement-based or other simplified design
and analysis procedures can be used, provided that seismic performance can be predicted with an
acceptable level of reliability. In this section, two displacement based design procedures, the direct
displacement-based (DDBD) procedure and the equal displacement-based (EBD) procedure are
outlined for use in preliminary design. Design verification analysis of the preliminary design should
be performed using non-linear analysis procedures, as outlined in Section I-5.5.
Where specific guidelines are not provided, refer to ASCE 7-02 for design and analysis requirements.
I-5.2 Conceptual Design Limitations

Considering that the displacement design procedures outlined in Sections I-5.3 and I-5.4 are
relatively new and unproven, several additional limitations at the conceptual design level are
recommended. The design procedures can be applied to structures not meeting the criteria listed but
the effectiveness of the procedures may be reduced. The recommended limitations are noted in
Sections I-5.2.1, I-5.2.2 and I-5.2.3.
I-5.2.1 Structural System Selection. The procedures are recommended for application to the
selected systems indicated in Section I-4.3. The effectiveness of the procedures for other systems is
expected to be limited.
I-5.2.2 System Regularity. The procedures are recommended for relatively regular structures. The
effectiveness of the procedures for irregular systems is expected to be limited.

I-5.2.3 Short Period Structures. The displacement procedures are expected to be most effective for
structures with periods in the constant velocity portion of the design spectra, with effective periods
greater than Ts, typically about 0.5 seconds..
I-5.2.4 Soil Structure Interaction. See requirements of Section I-4.6.2.
I-5.3 Direct Displacement-Based Design (DDBD) Procedure

The DDBD is a procedure that can be used for sizing the members of the lateral force resisting
system based on an assumed yield mechanism, an estimated global displacement demand, termed
herein the target displacement and the effective inelastic system properties. The DDBD approach has
been shown to be effective for certain concrete structures. However, the procedure is still undergoing
development and validation studies, and, therefore, alternative procedures may be appropriate for
many structures.
The DDBD approach utilizes the response spectra in ADRS or DRS format (Figures I-4a through I-
4e or site-specific spectra) and a substitute elastic structure, having “effective” stiffness and damping
properties, to approximate the expected inelastic response of the actual structure. As such, this
method, is one of a family of methods, including the capacity-spectrum method that rely on such
substitute structures to predict inelastic response. The procedure includes selection of target drifts
based on the selected performance objectives and structural system, determination of required
effective stiffness (based on the system ductility, effective equivalent viscous damping and the
displacement response spectrum), and concludes with determination of the required strength to meet
the intended performance level.
After selecting performance objectives, structural systems, and yield mechanisms, the structural
system can be designed utilizing the DDBD procedure as follows:
Step 1 - Estimate Target Displacements: The target displacement for each selected performance
level (limit state) is estimated based on the interstory drift limits (Table I-4) for the selected structural
system, considering the expected inelastic displaced shape. In effect, this target displacement is the
amount of displacement that an equivalent single degree of freedom oscillator, having the effective
stiffness and damping properties of the real structure would experience in response to the design
ground motion. In lieu of more detailed analysis, the target system displacement (drift) can by
estimated by Equation I-5-1:
∆T = (δI ) (hE ) (k2) = (δI ) (hR ) (k1)(k2) (Eqn. I-5-1)
Where: ∆T = target displacement for the global system, at the effective height for the
equivalent SDOF system.
δI = interstory drift ratio limit from Table I-4.
hE = effective height for the equivalent SDOF system = (hR)(k1), length units
hR = height at roof level, length units.
k1 = factor to relate the height at the roof to the effective height, calculated based on
the equivalence of work between the real structure and the equivalent SDOF
structure. In lieu of more detailed analysis, see Tables I-7 and I-8. For a structure
with limited higher mode effects and essentially elastic response, this is the modal
participation factor.
k2 = factor to relate the expected displaced shape function to a linear displaced shape
function. In lieu of more detailed analysis, see Tables I-7 and I-8.
Note that: ∆RF =(δI ) (hR )(k2) = Target displacement measured at the roof level.
Step 2 - Determine Required Maximum Effective Period: The required maximum effective period
at each limit state under consideration can be determined using the DRS (Figure I-6) with an
appropriate system equivalent damping value (including both hysteretic damping and viscous
damping), which can be taken from Table I-6 in lieu of more detailed analysis. The effective period
(Teff) is determined by entering the DRS with ∆T and reading across to the displacement response
spectrum curve based on appropriate system damping and down to Teff , as illustrated in Figure I-6c.
Alternatively, the required maximum effective period (Teff) can be determined by entering the ADRS
with Sd = ∆T , and reading up to the spectral curve and across to Sa, then utilizing the following
relationship:
Teff 2 = (4 π2 Sd/Sa) (Eqn. I-5-2)
Step 3A - Determine Required Effective Stiffness: The required effective stiffness at each selected
performance level can be determined from Equation I-5-3.
Keff = 4 π2 Meff / Teff 2 (Eqn. I-5-3)
Where: Keff = effective stiffness

Meff = effective mass (weight/g) = M k3
k3 = ratio of effective mass / total mass, see Tables I-7 and I-8.
Teff = effective period per Step 2.
The effective mass is calculated based on the target displaced shape and the equivalence in work
between the real structure and the equivalent SDOF structure. For a structure with limited higher
mode response and essentially elastic response, the effective mass is equal to the modal mass
participation factor times the structure’s mass.
Step 3B - Determine Required Initial Stiffness: The required initial stiffness at the effective yield
point can be approximated from the effective stiffness and the expected system ductility from
Equation I-5-4, which provides a conservative estimate based on an elastoplastic model.
Ki = µ Keff (Eqn. I-5-4)
Where: Ki = required initial stiffness.

µ = usable system ductility factor for the selected performance level.
Keff= effective stiffness.
Alternatively, the initial stiffness can be more precisely calculated using Equation I-5-5, considering
a positive post-yield stiffness:
Ki = Keff [µ / (r µ -r +1)]. (Eqn. I-5-5)

Where: r = (post-yield stiffness)/(initial stiffness).

Typically equal to 0.05 to 0.10 but may reach 0.50, depending on the structural
system
µ = system displacement ductility factor for the selected performance level.
Step 4 - Determine Required Strength: The required strength at development of the yield
mechanism can be determined based on the effective stiffness and the target displacement.
Vbase = Keff ∆T. (Eqn. I-5-6)

Where: Vbase = design base shear.
Keff = effective stiffness.
∆T = target displacement at the effective height per Equation I-5-1.
Step 4A - Determine Required Yield Strength: The required yield strength can be derived based
on the displacement ductility demand, µ, and the second slope stiffness, r, as shown in Eqn. I-5-7.
Values for displacement ductility may be selected from Table I-5, and values for r are typically
between 0 and 0.1 and are to be selected at the discretion of the engineer.
Vy = Vbase /rµ-r+1 (Eqn. I-5-7)
Step 5 – Structural Analysis and Design :

The lateral load-resisting elements can be sized based on the governing performance level to provide
the strength and stiffness determined in steps 3 and 4. The governing performance level can be
identified by comparing the results of steps 1 through 4 for each performance level comprising the
selected performance objective. Typically, the seismic hazard level resulting in the largest Vy
governs the design.
Step 5A – Distribution of Base Shear:

Base shear forces from Eq. I-5-7 should be distributed according to the displaced shape. The
displaced shape can be simplified to a linear displaced shape using the code redistribution formula in
Eq. I-5-8:
Fx = (V - Ft) wx hx (Eqn. I-5-8)

Σ wi hi
or by a displaced shape derived from a more detailed analysis in which case Eqn. I-5-9 below should
be used. Equations for displaced shapes for various systems can be found in the commentary.
miδ i
Fx = V (Eqn. I-5-9)
∑ miδ i b
Step 5B Structural Analysis:
Using the lateral force distribution from Step 5a, conduct a structural analysis where the effective
stiffness of each member in the system is selected as the secant stiffness to maximum expected
response level for the member. Member effective stiffnesses can be approximated using Eqn. I-5-10
where Keff is the member effective stiffness, Ky, is the member stiffness evaluated at the member
yield point, and µ∆ is the expected member displacement ductility. For concrete and masonry
structures, the stiffness at member yield, Ky, should reflect that the section is cracked. In lieu of more
detailed analysis, µ∆ may be taken as 1.0 for members expected to behave in an elastic manner, such
as all columns above the first story. For all other members, in liu of more detailed analysis, the
system ductility values in Table I-5 may be assumed. Members should be proportioned such that the
structural stiffness at yield is within 10% of the initial structural stiffness obtained from Step 3b. The
following sections provide detailed recommendations for various structural types.
Ky
K eff = (Eqn. I-5-10)
µ∆
Structural Analysis for RC Moment Frames:
(1) Column section stiffness should be calculated based on the cracked section. This can be
calculated utilizing a moment-curvature analysis. However, for most cases, the column cracked
section stiffness can be assumed to be 50% of the gross section stiffness.
(2) Beam section stiffness should be the effective beam stiffness at maximum response which can be
estimated by dividing the stiffness of the cracked section by the expected member displacement
ductility.
(3) At each base column location, a pin connection should be assumed and a moment equal to Mb =
0.7hVc applied where Vc represents the portion of the base shear resisted by the column under
consideration (approximated as the total base shear divided by the number of columns in the frame)
and h represents the base story height.
(4) The lateral force should be distributed vertically in accordance with Eqn I-5-8 or I-5-9.
Structural Analysis for Steel Frames:

(1) For Steel Frames, column section stiffness should be calculated based on the gross section.
(2) For Steel Frames, beam section stiffness should be the effective beam stiffness at maximum
response which can be estimated by dividing the gross stiffness by the expected member
displacement ductility.
(3) At each base column location, a pin connection should be assumed and a moment equal to Mb =
0.7hVc applied where Vc represents the portion of the base shear resisted by the column under
consideration (approximated as the total base shear divided by the number of columns in the frame)
and h represents the base story height.
(4) The lateral force should be distributed vertically in accordance with Eqn I-5-8 or I-5-9.
Structural Analysis for RC Walls:
In the case of structural wall buildings, the portion of the total base shear resisted by each wall can be
calculated by Eqn. I-5-11. Once the wall shear force Vwalli, is obtained for wall i, the wall base
moment is obtained by Eqn. I-5-12 where he is the effective wall height given by Eqn. I-5-13 where
k1 is taken from Tables I-7 and I-8.
l wi 2
Vwalli = Vb (Eqn. I-5-11)
∑ lwi 2
Mwalli = Vwalli he (Eqn. I-5-12)

he = hwall k1 (Eqn. I-5-13)
Step 6 - Verify Design Using Nonlinear Analysis Procedures: The lateral system design per step 5
may be verified using nonlinear dynamic (time history) analysis or pushover analysis procedures per
Section I-5.5 to confirm that, when the structure is pushed to reach the target displacement at the
effective height, the interstory drift limits are not exceeded and the element ductility demands are
less than the achievable element ductility capacities. The system performance design-verification
concept is illustrated in Figure I-8.
Step 7 - Modify Design if Required: If the preliminary design verification in step 6 indicates that
the drift limits are not maintained or that the ductility demand exceeds the achievable ductility
capacity at the design earthquake levels, the design should be modified and step 6 repeated.
Step 8 – Prepare Final Design and Detailing: Once design closure is achieved in steps 6 and 7, the
final design and detailing proceeds, following capacity design principles to assure that the yielding
elements possess the design ductility and that the remaining elements possess sufficient strength to
develop the overstrength of the yielded elements. See Section I-5.6.
I-5.4 Equal Displacement-Based Design (EBD) Procedure

The EBD procedure mirrors the DDBD procedure but with several differences. Whereas the DDBD
procedure uses a substitute structure design approach, using secant stiffnesses, the EBD procedure
uses an elastic design approach and relates the elastic response to the inelastic response based on the
equal displacement approximation. According to that approximation, as documented by Newmark-
Hall, the displacement of an inelastically responding system is approximately equal to the
displacement of an equivalent elastically responding system with equal initial stiffness, for a given
ground motion, as illustrated in Figure I-7. The EBD is an adaptation of the traditional force-based
code procedures, but it uses the ADRS or the DRS rather than the acceleration response spectrum and
focuses on displacements rather than forces.
The equal-displacement approximation is generally applicable to buildings with a fundamental period

greater than 0.5 seconds. For short period buildings, period less than 0.5 seconds, the procedure can
be modified by utilizing the following relationship proposed by Newmark-Hall.
µ∆ elastic
∆ inelastic = (Eqn. I-5-14)
2µ − 1
Where: µ = utilized system displacement ductility

∆ Inelastic = Displacement of an inelastically responding short period structure
∆ Elastic = Displacement of an equivalent elastically responding structure
The EBD utilizes the 5% damped ADRS (Figure I-4), the equivalent elastic structure and the
expected system ductility factor, µ, to model the inelastic displacement response. The procedure
includes estimation of target drifts; determination of required initial stiffness based on the design
ductility limits and the ADRS; determination of required strength based on the target displacement,

initial stiffness, and system ductility. Members are designed based on required stiffness, strength, and
ductility.
For structures with a fundamental period greater than 0.5 seconds, the structural system can be
designed utilizing the EBD procedure as follows:
Step 1 - Selection of Target Displacements: (Same as DDBD). The target displacement at a selected
performance level (limit state) is estimated based on the interstory drift limits (Table I-4) for the
selected structural system and on the expected inelastic displaced shape. In lieu of more detailed
analysis, the target system displacement (drift) can by estimated using Equation I-5-15.
∆T = (δI ) (hE ) (k2) = (δI ) (hR ) (k1)(k2) (Eqn. I-5-15)
Where: ∆T = target displacement for the global system, at the effective height for the
equivalent SDOF system.
δI = interstory drift ratio limit from Table I-4.
hE = effective height for the equivalent SDOF system = (hR)(k1), in inches.
hR = height at roof level, in inches.
k1 = factor to relate the height at the roof to the effective height, calculated based on
the equivalence of work between the real structure and the equivalent SDOF
structure. In lieu of more detailed analysis, see Tables I-7 and I-8. For a
structure with limited higher mode effects and essentially elastic response, this
is the modal participation factor.
k2 = factor to relate the expected displaced shape function to a linear displaced shape
function. In lieu of more detailed analysis, see Tables I-7 and I-8.
Note that: ∆RF =(δI ) (hR )(k2) = Target displacement measured at the roof level.
Step 2 - Determine Initial Period: The initial period at the yield limit state (SP-1) can be determined
using the ADRS (Figure I-4) with 5% of critical damping (considering traditional viscous damping).
The initial period (Ti) is determined by entering the ADRS with ∆T = Sd, reading up to the spectral
curve and across to Sa, then utilizing the following relationship.
Ti 2 = (4 π2 Sd/Sa) (Eqn. I-5-16)
Step 3 - Determine Initial Stiffness: The initial stiffness at the effective yield point can be determined
from Eqn. I-5-17:
Ki = 4 π2 Meff / Ti 2 (Eqn. I-5-17)
Where: Ki = initial stiffness.

Meff = effective mass (weight/g) = M (k3 ).
k3 = ratio of effective mass/mass, see Table I-7 and I-8.
Ti = initial period per Step 2.
The effective mass is calculated based on the target displaced shape and the equivalence in work
between the real structure and the equivalent SDOF structure. For a structure with limited higher

mode response and essentially elastic response, the effective mass is equal to the modal mass
participation factor times the structure’s mass.
Step 4 - Determine Required System Yield Strength: The required yield strength can be determined
based on the initial stiffness, the target displacement and the system ductility value:
Vy = Ki ∆T / µ (Eqn. I-5-18)
Where: Vy = design base shear at effective yield.

Ki = initial stiffness at effective yield point.
∆T = target displacement.
µ = system ductility factor per Table I-5.
Step 5 - Preliminary Design: System Element Sizes: The lateral load-resisting elements can be sized
based on the governing performance goal to provide the strength and stiffness determined in steps 3
and 4. The governing performance goal can be identified by comparing the results of steps 1 through
4 for each performance goal comprising the selected performance objective. Typically, the seismic
hazard level resulting in the largest Vy governs the design.
Step5A. Distribute the base shear obtained from Equation I-5-18. Forces should be distributed
according to the displaced shape. The displaced shape can be simplified to a linear displaced shape
using the code redistribution formula:
Fx = (V - Ft) wx hx (Eqn. I-5-19)

Σ wi hi
or by a displaced shape derived from a more detailed analysis in which case Eqn. I-5-20 below
should be used. Equations for displaced shapes for various systems cn be found in the commentary.
miδ i
Fx = V (Eqn. I-5-20)
∑ miδ i b
Step 5B. Member strengths should be proportioned so that the selected yield mechanism is
uniformly developed at an equivalent base shear not less than that obtained from Equation I-5-11.
Generally, the stresses at the yield points comprising the yield mechanism should be between 0.8Fy
and 1.25Fy at this base shear:
0.80 < D/Cy < 1.25 (Eqn. I-5-21)
Where: D = calculated seismic demand on yielding element.

Cy = nominal yield capacity of yielding element.
Other elements in the structural system, not designated as yield points, should be sufficiently below
yield to provide sufficient strength to develop the overstrength in the yielding elements.
If the requirements of Equation I-5-21 are not met, then more detailed verification analysis will be
required and greater redundancy will be required in the LFRS.

Step 5C. Member sizes should be proportioned to provide the initial effective stiffness
approximately equal to that obtained from Equation I-5-17. Initial effective stiffness can be measured
in terms of the applied seismic force divided by the displacement at the effective height, (taking into
account cracked section properties for concrete or masonry structures, and gross sections for steel
and yield stiffness for plywood).
Ky = Vbase /∆ y = 0.9Ki to 1.1 Ki (Eqn. I-5-22)
Where: Ky = stiffness of structure at the effective yield point.

Vbase= seismic force causing effective yielding of the designed structure.
∆y = deflection of the structure measured at the effective height (Eqn. I-5-15) with δI
equal to the SP-1 drift in Table I-4).
Step 6 - Verify Design Using Nonlinear Analysis Procedures: The lateral system design per step 5
may be verified using nonlinear dynamic (time history) analysis or pushover analysis procedures per
Section I-5.5 to confirm that, when the structure is pushed to reach the target displacement at the
effective height, the interstory drift limits are not exceeded and the element ductility demands are
less than the achievable element ductility capacities. The system performance design-verification
concept is illustrated in Figure I-8.
Step 7 - Modify Design if Required: If the preliminary design verification in Step 6 indicates that the
interstory drift limits or achievable ductility limits are not maintained at the design earthquake levels,
the design should be modified and Step 6 repeated until the design criteria are met.
Step 8 – Complete Final Design and Detailing: Once design closure is achieved in steps 6 and 7, the
final design and detailing should proceed, following "capacity design" principles to ensure that the
yielding elements are detailed to provide the required design ductility and that the remaining
elements provide sufficient strength to develop the overstrength of the yielded elements.
I-5.5 Verification Analysis Using Nonlinear Analysis Procedures:

A nonlinear static or dynamic analysis of the structure should be performed once the members are
sized for strength and stiffness. The nonlinear analysis should be used to verify the interstory drift
ratios, the yield mechanisms, and the element ductility demand/capacity ratios. The system
performance design-verification concept is illustrated in Figure I-8.
I.5.5.1 Pushover Analysis Procedures
Pushover analysis procedures are briefly outlined below and are described in detail in FEMA 356 and
ATC 40. It is anticipated that the ATC-55 project will publish an extensive series of
recommendations for improving the implementation of the procedures presented in both FEMA-356
and ATC-40.
The pushover analysis should include the following steps.
Step 1 - Develop Pushover Curve for the Structure: Analyze structural design by applying
incremental displacements. Using the elastic mode shape from a modal combination analysis, or
other rational displaced shape, amplify the displacements until the first significant element yielding
occurs. Place a first set of plastic hinges at the yield points in the structural model to represent the
initial hinges and rerun the modal analysis to determine a new deformed shape. Amplify the
deformed shape and sum the element stresses and deformations for the first two runs until a second
set of hinges forms, and repeat the procedure until system instability occurs. The summed structural
displacement to the point of instability represents the collapse point on the pushover curve.
Alternatively, the analysis may be performed as recommended in either ATC-40 or FEMA-356.
Regardless, the analysis should include the P-delta effects and should be conducted to a sufficient
displacement to produce incipient instability or collapse. For structures with effective periods greater
than two times the spectral acceleration to velocity transition period an additional deformed shape of
constant displacement with height shall also be assume to account for higher mode effects and the
results enveloped.
Step 2 - Establish an Effective Yield Point for the Structural System: Establish an effective yield
point on the pushover curve based on established rational procedures. Typically, at the effective yield
point, approximately 25% to 50% the hinges in the yield mechanism are developed.
Step 3 - Plot the Performance Levels on the Pushover Curve: Plot the performance level lines on the
pushover curve based on the IDDR=0 at Level 1 (the effective yield point) and IDDR =1 at Level 5
(the collapse point). See Figure I-5 for an illustration.
Step 4 - Plot the Performance Points on the Pushover Curve for Each Design Earthquake: Determine
the expected system displacement at each EQ level, using DDBD or EBD procedures or capacity
spectrum procedures (ATC 40), and add these performance points to the pushover curve.
Step 5 - Verify Story Drifts: Verify that at each EQ level the maximum interstory drifts are below the
target drifts.
Step 6 - Verify Ductility Demand/Capacity Ratios: Verify that the maximum cumulative-ductility-
demand-to-designable-ductility-capacity ratios at the hinges meet the performance criteria at each
performance level and EQ level.
Step 7 - Reiterate the Design and Analysis: If the structure does not meet the performance criteria,
revise the design and rerun the verification analysis.
I.5.5.2 Dynamic Analysis Procedures

Analogous to the pushover analysis procedure outlined above, a nonlinear dynamic analysis
procedure for design verification is briefly outlined below, with references to FEMA 350-352.
Considering the earthquake record-to-record variability in structural response, this procedure should
be repeated for multiple accelerograms (not less than three). The larger the number of accelerograms
used, the higher will be the implied confidence that the intended performance objective has been met.
For each accelerogram, the dynamic analysis should include the following steps:
Step 1 – Develop an Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) Curve for the Structure: Follow the
second through fifth steps of the IDA technique detailed in Section A.6 of FEMA 350-352. An IDA
results in a curve relating interstory drift to the spectral response of an incrementally scaled
accelerogram. This technique is used to estimate the interstory drift capacity associated with global
stability of a structure, which is the collapse point on the IDA curve. Note that it is important that the
nonlinear analytical model of the structure be as accurate as possible. Particularly important are an
accurate representation of the hysteretic behavior of the elements and of P-∆ effects.
/
Step 2 – Establish an Effective Yield Point for the Structural System: Establish an effective yield
point on the IDA curve. This could be the "incipient yield" point determined in the second step of
the FEMA 350-352 IDA technique followed in Step 1 above, or the point of largest interstory drift
that is consistent with the definition of SP1 in Section I-2.3 (i.e., "up to roughly half of the hinge
elements of the system yield mechanism have reached yield (maximum hinge deformations should
not exceed 150% yield)").
Step 3 –Plot the Performance Levels on the IDA Curve: Plot the performance level lines on the
pushover curve based on the IDDR=0 at Level 1 (the effective yield point) and IDDR=1 at Level 5
(the collapse point).
Step 4 – Plot the Performance Points on the IDA Curve for Each Design Earthquake: Determine the
expected system displacement at each EQ level using nonlinear dynamic analysis. Scale (in
amplitude) the accelerogram in order to match, for each EQ level, the 5%-damped spectral response
acceleration at the fundamental period of the structure obtained from Table I-6e. Add these dynamic
performance points to the IDA curve. Note that these performance points may have already been
computed in developing the IDA curve (i.e., Step 1), or they could simply be interpolated between
the points of the IDA curve.
Step 5 – Verify Story Drifts: Verify that at each EQ level the maximum interstory drifts are below
the target drifts.
Step 6 – Verify Ductility Demand/Capacity Ratios: Verify that the maximum cumulative-ductility-
demand-to-designable-ductility-capacity ratios at the hinges meet the performance criteria at each
performance level and EQ level.
Step 7 – Reiterate the Design and Analysis: If the structure does not meet the performance criteria,
revise the design and rerun the verification analysis.
I-5.6 Final Design and Detailing Procedures

The final design and detailing procedures should follow capacity design procedures (Paulay-
Priestley) or similar yield-control procedures to ensure that the designated yielding elements
(displacement controlled) possess the required design ductility and that the remaining elements (force
controlled) possess sufficient strength to develop the overstrength of the yielded elements.
Yielding elements (displacement controlled): Detail in accordance with ductile detailing

requirements per standards referenced in Section I-4.3 to provide the ductility capacities listed in
Table I-5 or as established by testing.
Non-yielding elements (forced controlled): Detail to provide strength to develop overstrength of

yielding elements (1.3Fy, unless other overstrength ratios are appropriate).

I-5.7 Nonstructural Systems

The nonstructural systems and elements should be designed and analyzed to verify that the
performance is consistent with the selected performance objectives. Design and analysis procedures
are outlined in Section I-6.
I-6 Nonstructural Systems Design

I-6.1 General
The nonstructural systems and elements should be designed and analyzed to verify that their seismic
performance is consistent with the selected performance objectives. A checklist of such potential
elements should be developed at the early stages of design. Those elements and systems critical to
seismic life safety in the building (e.g., potential falling hazards and elements potentially obstructing
egress from the building) and those critical to the performance objective of the design should be
addressed.
The nonstructural elements to be seismically protected should be designed to accommodate the drift
and in-structure accelerations expected in the structural frame without being damaged beyond
defined limits, in accordance with the selected performance objectives.
I-6.2 Design Strategies

Nonstructural systems should be designed to accommodate drift and in-structure accelerations by one
of the following strategies.
1. Drift Accommodation by:

a. Separation joints
b. Elastic deformations
c. Inelastic deformations consistent with the selected performance objective
d. Articulating connections
2. Acceleration Accommodation by:

a. Elastic response
b. Inelastic response, in either connecting components or the element itself, consistent with
anticipated performance
c. Inherent ruggedness demonstrated by shake table testing or experience data
When inelastic response is designed into the nonstructural systems, significant participation of the
nonstructural systems should be accounted for in the structural system design and analysis.
I-6.3 Nonstructural Systems Design and Analysis Procedures

The design of the nonstructural systems should follow one of the methods outlined below or an
equivalent rational procedure.

I-6.3.1 Method 1 - Performance specification for design-build of nonstructural systems: The

engineer-of-record should specify the design loading criteria and the performance criteria for the
nonstructural design by a design-build contractor. The design loading criteria should identify the
appropriate in-structure design accelerations and inter-story drifts at each seismic hazard level, as
determined by analysis of the structural response or as otherwise established. The performance
requirements should be stated to specify the acceptable damage state for each element at each seismic
hazard level. The design-build contractor/engineer should then prepare design documents for review
by the engineer-of-record in accordance with Sections 7, 8, and 9. Where operating equipment is
required to continue functioning during or following a specified seismic hazard level, operability
should be demonstrated by shake table testing or experience data for the specified instructure
response spectra. Equipment should be seismically qualified by testing using testing and accepting
procedures such as AC-156.
I-6.3.2 Method 2 – Design to accommodate structural response envelope: The nonstructural

systems should be designed to accommodate the maximum in-structure accelerations and
displacements expected at each seismic hazard level, while performing within the expected
performance levels, with an appropriate factor of safety. Design criteria should be determined in
accordance with Section I-6.4.
I-6.3.3 Method 3 - Detailed design of the nonstructural systems: The nonstructural systems can
be designed by explicit modeling of nonstructural systems acting in combination with the primary
structural system in response to seismic actions.
I-6.3.4 Method 4 - Pre-qualification of Nonstructural-systems: The nonstructural systems can

be pre-qualified by the manufacturer to meet specific drift and acceleration criteria. The systems can
then be selected based on the expected drift and in-structure accelerations, considering the selected
performance objectives for the project.
I-6.4 Drift and Acceleration Criteria for Nonstructural Design

The nonstructural elements should be designed to accommodate the maximum drift and in-structure
acceleration response expected in the structural frame. Conceptual design can be based on the default
drift and in-structure acceleration design values specified below in this Guideline. Final design
should be based on or checked against envelope drift and acceleration response parameters
determined by analysis of the structural response to the specified seismic hazard levels.
In lieu of more detailed engineering procedures, the following procedures may be used to
determine the structural response parameters for nonstructural design:
1. Drift: The maximum inter-story drifts for use in design of nonstructural elements can be taken as
1.5 x drift values determined by pushover analysis (1.5 factor is to account for a possible
underestimation of drift response by pushover analysis).
2. In-Structure Accelerations: The design acceleration for nonstructural elements can be

calculated from the elastic response for elastically responding structures or as the maximum
acceleration limited by yielding for inelastically responding structures. Also in-structure
accelerations may be taken equal to those specified in Equation 9.6.1.3-1 of ASCE 7-02 with Rp

taken equal to 1.0. Appropriate reduction in design forces may be made consistent with the
performance level desired.
7 Design and Construction Documents

7.1 Scope of Services and Responsibility
In order to achieve enhanced performance and improved reliability in PBE design and construction, it
is essential that responsibility and scope of services for the seismic design of all structural and
nonstructural systems be clearly defined and understood by all design professionals involved in the
project. The lead design professional should prepare a matrix of design responsibility. The scope of
services of the design professional should clearly indicate who has responsibility for preparing
seismic bracing and anchorage detail drawings and calculations those items and systems that the
supplier is responsible for designing and installing. The scope of services should also clearly indicate
when these documents need to be submitted to the lead professional for review. The lead professional
needs to indicate clearly how to coordinate installation details and how to avoid or resolve physical
conflicts.
7.2 Design Documents

Design criteria documents should be prepared for structural and nonstructural design. These criteria
documents should indicate the design objectives, design ground motions levels, design criteria,
assumptions, and design concepts.
Drawings and supporting calculations should be prepared that satisfy the design criteria. These
documents will have sufficient detail to be used to review the design for adequacy. Documents may
be prepared for different stages of the project. At any early stage, peer review level documents may
be required for reviewing design objectives, criteria, and design concept. At the plan submittal stage,
full documentation is required to allow independent review by building officials and/or other
checkers.
When the nonstructural components are designed by the supplier, sufficient documentation should be
provided in the design documents to allow the concepts for continued functioning, seismic anchorage
and bracing to be independently reviewed during the plan check process.
7.3 Construction Documents

Construction documents consist of the construction scope of work, drawings, and specifications. The
scope of work should clearly describe all work that the contractor is to perform, including design and
installation of seismic bracing for nonstructural components. It should also clearly indicate whether
the contractor's submittal must include design calculations. The design drawings should clearly
identify the nonstructural components that require seismic bracing as well as typical bracing details.
Specific requirements should be provided in the specifications.
The construction documents should have sufficient detail to adequately define the work of the
contractor and subcontractors for bidding purposes and to allow inspectors and others to determine
whether the seismic design components have been adequately constructed and installed. Items
designed, supplied, and installed by the subcontractor should be subject to the same requirements for
preparation of construction documents. These documents must be adequate to allow installers and
inspectors to verify that the seismic anchorage and bracing have been properly located, constructed
and installed.
8 Design Review Procedures

8.1 Project Design Peer Review
8.1.1 General. The purpose of PDPR is to provide independent review of the basis of design and
the execution of the design. By independently evaluating the design objectives, criteria, assumptions,
conceptual design, final design, and design verification, the PDPR increases the likelihood that
design performance objectives will be achieved.
8.1.2 Scope of Services. The PDPR should be initiated in the schematic design phase to allow
evaluation of major engineering decisions. The scope and responsibility should be identified in a
written agreement between the owner and the peer reviewer. The scope, timing and schedule of the
peer review should be made available to the Engineer of Record. The scope should include review,
discussion with the Engineer of Record, resolution of differences, and a written report to the owner at
the concept review stage summarizing the design objectives, the design criteria, assumptions, and
design concepts, and at the design development stage confirming the design resolution, identifying
the critical elements and connections, and confirming the construction quality assurance program.
8.1.3 Qualifications. The peer reviewer(s) shall satisfy the qualification requirements of the
Section 1631.6.3.2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The peer reviewer(s) should be
independent of the Engineer of Record and should have no conflict of interest related to the project
being reviewed. The Engineer of Record should be consulted in the selection of the peer reviewer,
and the two should be able to work cooperatively. The peer reviewer should be a registered engineer
in the state where the project is to be constructed and should have demonstrated knowledge and
experience of the type of project being reviewed. The peer reviewer should also be knowledgeable of
the construction practices and regulations applicable to the project.
8.1.4 Responsibility. Since the responsibility for the structural design remains with the Engineer
of Record, the written agreement should include an appropriate indemnification clause.
8.2 Design Plan Check

8.2.1 General. Consistent with the purpose of these provisions to provide greater reliability in
achieving predicted performance, additional plan checking should be provided beyond that required
to ensure compliance with the building code. The purpose of this additional plan checking is to
confirm that the design as presented in the construction documents conforms to the design
assumptions, concepts and criteria that have been confirmed in the PDPR. The additional plan
checking may be done by the peer reviewer. The scope and responsibility should be defined in a
written agreement with the owner.
8.2.2 Scope. The additional plan checking beyond that required to assure compliance with the
building code should be specific in order to confirm that the construction documents are consistent
with the design criteria, concepts, and assumptions. The plan checker should also review and confirm
that the proposed structural observation and testing and inspection program will provide the

construction quality assurance necessary to reasonably ensure conformance with the construction
documents.
8.2.3 Qualifications and Responsibility. The qualifications and responsibilities of the plan
checker will be similar to those of the peer reviewer, although he will be limited to checking whether
the construction documents and proposed construction quality assurance are consistent with what has
already been agreed to by the Engineer of Record and the peer reviewer. The plan checker does not
have the responsibility to examine the appropriateness of the project design objectives and criteria,
but must confine the scope of his review to whether the construction documents effectively meet the
project design objectives and criteria.
9 Construction Quality Assurance Procedures

9.1 Structural Observation
9.1.1 General .To ensure general conformance to the construction documents, structural
observation should be performed by the Engineer of Record at significant construction stages and at
the completion of construction of the structural system and significant nonstructural systems.
Structural observation does not supplant any necessary continuous inspections or the building
inspector's progress inspections.
The significant construction stages and the structural elements and connections to be observed should
be determined by the Engineer of Record, confirmed by the peer reviewer and plan checker, and
identified on the construction documents. The elements to be observed should include the elements
of the yield mechanism, major nonstructural system connections and bracing, and other significant
elements as identified.
The construction documents must provide for and allow the structural observer to perform his
observations in a responsible manner. There can be no interference with the structural observer.
9.1.2 Scope. As discussed above, the owner should employ the Engineer of Record to provide
structural observation at significant construction stages and at the completion of construction of the
structural system and significant nonstructural systems. The scope should be specified in a written
agreement and should include that the structural observer will visit the project at each significant
construction stage as defined on the construction documents and will observe those elements and
connections specified on the construction documents including the elements of the yield mechanism.
The structural observer is to identify all significant errors or deficiencies in the specified elements
and connections. The observer should report in writing on the same to the owner, contractor and
building inspector and should revisit the project to observe the correction of those errors and
deficiencies in a timely manner. He should submit a final written observation report at completion of
the structural system and significant nonstructural systems when all work is in general conformance
with construction documents and any approved changes.
9.1.3 Qualifications. The structural observer should be the Engineer of Record, or an engineer
designated by the Engineer of Record, registered in the state of the project. The structural observer
should have demonstrated knowledge and experience of the type of construction proposed for the

project. He should be independent of the contractor and have no conflicts of interest related to the
project for which he providing structural observation.
9.1.4 Responsibility. The structural observer is responsible for verifying general conformance of
those specific elements and connections identified in the construction documents, including, but not
limited to, elements of the yield mechanism and the major nonstructural components, at the indicated
significant construction stages and at the completion of the structural system. The structural observer
is not responsible to certify, guarantee, or assure conformance with all of the specific requirements of
the construction documents.
9.2 Testing and Inspection Program. The Engineer of Record should specify the requirements
for material testing and continuous special inspection of those elements of the construction critical to
achieving the design objectives, including but not limited to the yielding elements of the yield
mechanism and the critical connection details of the nonstructural systems. The testing and
inspection program should be reviewed and confirmed by the peer reviewer and the plan checker.
The program should be administered by the Engineer of Record or the structural observer. The
responsibilities for administering the testing and inspection program should be clearly indicated by
written agreement with the Engineer of Record or the structural observer.

10 Building Seismic Maintenance

The Engineer of Record should develop maintenance guidelines to specifically address the long-term
maintenance of the more seismically significant structural and nonstructural systems. These
maintenance guidelines should, at a minimum state the seismic performance objectives, identify the
key components of the seismic resisting system, identify nonstructural systems designed for
performance, and identify elements requiring special maintenance. These guidelines should be briefly
stated on the construction drawings as a reference for the owner, future owners, future remodel
designers, and the building official.

Table I-2. Recommended Siting Restrictions For PBSE (1)
Restrictions related to Performance Objectives

Potential Site Hazard Basic Safety Objective Essential/Hazardous Safety Critical
- BSO - Objective Objective
- EO1 - - EO2 -
Distance to Active Fault Traces
Class A d > 200 ft. d > 500 ft. d > 1000 ft.
Class B d > 100 ft. d > 200 ft. d > 500 ft.
Soil Types/Profiles SA, SB, SC, SD SA, SB, SC, SD SA, SB, SC, SD
Liquefaction Potential Low to negligible Very low to negligible Negligible
Landslide Potential Low to negligible Very low to negligible Negligible
Tsunami/Inundation Potential Low to negligible Very low to negligible Negligible
1. It is recommended that projects with the above specified performance objectives be restricted to sites with not greater than
the tabulated hazard potentials. If the site hazard exceeds the tabulated level, the structural design should be shown by specific
analysis to account for or mitigate the hazard.

Table I-3 Recommedned Yield Mechanism

RECOMMENDED YIELD MECHANISMS
System Mechanism Commentary

1. SMRF, CMRF Strong column/weak beam
Flexural yielding in beams
Prevent shear failure or yielding in beams & columns.
Flexural yielding @ base of columns.
2. EBF Shear and/or flexural yielding of link beam.
Elastic behavior in columns, braces and non-link beams.
3. SCBF Flexural yielding at ends and middle of braces.

Elastic response in connections, columns and beams.
4. Shear Wall - Slender Flexural yielding at base of shear wall.
5. Coupled Shear Wall Flexural yielding at base of shear walls.

Flexural yielding at ends of link beams.
6. Squat Shear Wall Rocking on foundation.

Localized soil yielding.
7. Base Isolation Yielding in isolators.

Elastic response in structure above isolators.
8. Passive Energy Energy absorption in dampers.

Dissipaters Elastic response in structural frame.

Table I-4. Recommended Drift Ratio Limits for Preliminary Design(1)
Drift Ratio According to Performance Level

Structural Systems SP-1 SP-2 SP-3 SP- 4
Concrete
Shearwall: H/L = 1.5 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.011
H/L = 2 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.015
H/L = 5 0.010 0.019 0.028 0.035
H/L = 10 0.020 0.028 0.033 0.040
Coupled Shearwall 0.005 0.015 0.030 0.040
SCMRF 0.005 0.015 0.030 0.040
Steel
SCBF 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.015
EBF 0.004 0.013 0.022 0.032
SMRF 0.005 0.018 0.032 0.040
Masonry
Shearwall: H/L = 1.5 0.003 0.005 0.0075 0.009
H/L = 2 0.004 0.007 0.010 0.012
H/L = 5 0.010 0.017 0.024 0.028
H/L = 10 0.020 0.025 0.029 0.032
MMRF 0.005 0.011 0.022 0.030
Wood
Plywood Shearwall 0.005 0.015 0.024 0.03
Special Technologies (2) (3)
Base Isolated Systems 0.010 0.010 0.010 00.015

PED Systems 0.005 0.014 0.022 0.030
1. Tabulated drift limits are intended as design targets for both the structural and nonstructural systems for use with the displacement
design approaches. Alternate limits may be used where substantiated by analysis.
2. Drift limits for base isolated systems are guideline values for structure above isolator system
3. Drift limits for passive energy dissipation systems are guideline values based on generic "flexible" bracing system.
4. H/L refers to total height divided by total length. For concrete and masonry walls linear interpolation is suggested for aspect ratio
other than those shown. For concrete and masonry structural walls with aspect ratio less than 1.5, wall behavior will be expected
to be shear dominated, and the wall should be designed based on strength considerations rather than deformation considerations.
5. Tables APPIB4, 5, and 6 as they are currently structured are consistent with each other, and the engineer should ensure that if
values other than those in the tables are utilized, then those values must be made to be consistent with each other. For example,
changes in the drift ratio result in changes in ductility and damping.

Table I-5. Recommended Displacement Ductility Limits For Systems And Elements
For Preliminary Design(1)
Ductility Capacity Related to Performance Level
Structural Systems SP- 1 SP- 2 SP- 3 SP-4

Concrete
Shearwall: H/L = 1.5 1.0 2.5 4.0 5.0
H/L=2 1.0 2.5 4.0 5.0
H/L=5 1.0 2.5 4.0 5.0
H/L = 10 (2) 1.0 1.6 2.1 2.7
Linked Shearwall 1.0 3.0 5.1 6.5
SCMRF 1.0 3.6 6.2 8.0
Steel
SCBF 1.0 2.5 4.0 5.0
EBF 1.0 3.6 6.2 8.0
SMRF 1.0 3.6 6.2 8.0
Masonry
Shearwall: H/L = 1.5 1.0 2.1 3.3 4.0
H/L = 2.0 1.0 2.1 3.3 4.0
H/L = 5.0 1.0 2.1 3.3 4.0
H/L = 10 (2) 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.0
MMRF 1.0 2.8 4.8 6.0
Wood
Plywood Shearwall 1.0 2.9 4.8 6.0
Special Technologies
Base Isolated Systems (3) 1.0 1.5 2.0 N.A.
PED Systems (4) 1.0 1.5 2.0 N.A.
1. Tabulated - values are recommended displacement ductility limits for selected structural systems and their yielding elements.
Alternate limit may be used where substantiated by analysis. At this time, equal ductility limits are recommended for systems and
elements; it is expected that with further research different values will be used.
2. The maximum useable drift ratio is assumed to be about 4% for the purposes of these recommendations. Therefore, for high H/L
ratio walls, where the elastic drift is relatively large, the useful displacement ductility of these walls is limited by the limiting drift
ratio (∆TOTAL - ∆ELASTIC = ∆PLASTIC).
3. Values for base isolated systems are guideline values for structure above isolator system.,
4. Values for passive energy dissipation systems are guideline values based on generic “flexible” bracing system.
5. For all tables, H/L refers to total height divided by total length. For concrete and masonry walls linear interpolation is suggested for
aspect ratio other than those shown. For concrete and masonry structural walls with aspect ratio less than 1.5, wall behavior will
be expected to be shear dominated, and the wall should be designed based on strength considerations rather than deformation
considerations.
6. Tables I-4, 5, and 6 as they are currently structured are consistent with each other, and the engineer should ensure that if values
other than those in the tables are utilized, then those values must be made to be consistent with each other. For example,

Table I-6. Recommended System Damping Design Values For Preliminary Design(1)
Systems Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Concrete
Shearwall H/L = 1.5 7% 15% 18% 20%
H/L = 2 7% 15% 18% 20%
H/L = 5 7% 15% 18% 20%
H/L = 10 7% 10% 13% 15%
Coupled Shearwall 7% 16% 22% 24%
Steel
SCBF 5% 10% 15% 20%
EBF 7% 12% 18% 25%
SMRF 7% 12% 18% 25%
BRBF 7% 12% 18% 25%
Masonry
Shearwall H/L = 1.5 5% 12% 14% 16%
H/L = 2 5% 12% 14% 16%
H/L = 5 5% 12% 14% 16%
H/L = 10 5% 8% 10% 12%
MMRF 5% 14% 18% 20%
Wood
Special Technologies
Base Isolated Systems (2) See footnote 2 - See footnote 2 See footnote 2 See foonote 2
PED Systems (2) See footnote 3 See foonote 3 See footnote 3 See footnote 3
1. Tabulated systems damping values are estimates for use in design based on currently available test data for the selected systems.
These values are based on the ductility values in Table I-5. If lower ductility demands than are shown in Table I-5 are expected,
then the appropriate damping values should be calculated (see Commentary).
2. Damping values for base isolation systems and passive damping systems should be based on the values of the devices being
used and consistent with the displacment levels to which they are subjected. The value of damping should substantiated by
testing.
3. H/L refers to total height divided by total length. For concrete and masonry walls linear interpolation is suggested for aspect ratio
other than those shown. For concrete and masonry structural walls with aspect ratio less than 1.5, wall behavior will be expected
to be shear dominated, and the wall should be designed based on strength considerations rather than deformation considerations.
4. Tables I-4, 5, and 6 as they are currently structured are consistent with each other, and the engineer should ensure that if values
other than those in the tables are utilized, then those values must be made to be consistent with each other. For example,

Table I-7. ‘k’ factors (Shapes 1 and 2) for Eqns. I-5-1 and I-5-15
# of Stories
‘k1’ Effective Height Factor ‘k2' Shape Factor ‘k3’ Effective Mass Factor = Mef / M
Shape 1 Shape 2 Shape 1 Shape 2 Shape 1 Shape 2

1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
2 0.83 0.83 1.0 1.0 0.90 0.90
3 0.78 0.78 1.0 1.0 0.86 0.86
4 0.75 0.75 1.0 1.0 0.83 0.83
5 0.73 0.73 0.98 1.0 0.82 0.82
10 0.67 0.70 0.87 1.0 0.81 0.79
15 0.63 0.69 0.79 1.0 0.83 0.77
20 0.56 0.68 0.72 1.0 0.84 0.77
50 0.56 0.67 0.72 1.0 0.86 0.76

Table I-8 Structural wall (Shape 3) “k” factors for Eqns. I-5-1 and I-5-15
ASPECT RATIO of H/L=2

Drift Ductility k1 k2 k3
(Design Limit State
Drift/SP1 Drift)
1 0.88 0.63 0.79
2 0.86 0.77 0.85
3 0.85 0.82 0.86
4 0.85 0.85 0.87

(Design Limit State
Drift/SP1 Drift)
1 0.81 0.59 0.67
2 0.77 0.76 0.75
3 0.76 0.82 0.77
4 0.76 0.74 0.78

(Design Limit State
Drift/SP1 Drift)
1 0.78 0.58 0.63
1.5 0.75 0.69 0.69
2 0.74 0.76 0.72
3 0.73 0.82 0.74

I-1

Figure I-2. Typical Seismic Performance Objectives for Buildings

Figure I-3. Illustration of structural performance levels seismic response curve for structural
systems

Figure I-4.1. Acceleration-displacement response spectra—EQ 1

Figure I-4.2. Acceleration-displacement response spectra—EQ IV

5% Damped Control Point Periods (in units of seconds)

at PBSE Recommended Earthquake Levels for Zone 4 Sites Not Located in Near Source Zones
To Ts Td
SOIL TYPE I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV
SA 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0. 40 0.40 0.40 0.40 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
SB 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
SC 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.55 0.57 0.56 0.56 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
SD 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.60 0.58 0.58 0.58 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
SE 0.11 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.56 0.70 1.07 1.07 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
5% Damped Spectral Acceleration Parameters (in units of g’s)

EPA Sas Sa1
SA 0.058 0.14 0.32 0.48 0.14 0.34 0.80 1.20 0.057 0.14 0.32 0.48
SB 0.072 0.17 0.40 0.60 0.18 0.43 1.00 1.50 0.072 0.17 0.40 0.60
SC 0.086 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.22 0.49 1.00 1.50 0.12 0.28 0.56 0.84
SD 0.115 0.24 0.44 0.66 0.29 0.60 1.10 1.65 0.17 0.35 0.64 0.96
SE 0.18 0.32 0.36 0.54 0.45 0.80 0.90 1.35 0.25 0.56 0.96 1.44
5% Damped Spectral Displacement Parameters (in units of inches) at PBSE Recommended

Earthquake Levels for Zone 4 Sites Not Located in Near Source Zones
Sdo Sds Sdd
SA 0.00036 0.0088 0.020 0.030 0.21 0.53 1.25 1.88 2.27 5.47 12.51 18.76
SB 0.00045 0.011 0.025 0.038 0.28 0.67 1.56 2.34 2.82 6.64 15.63 23.45
SC 0.010 0.024 0.047 0.071 0.65 1.56 3.07 4.61 4.69 10.94 21.88 32.83
SD 0.016 0.034 0.062 0.093 1.02 1.98 3.62 5.43 6.65 13.68 25.01 37.52
SE 0.021 0.061 0.16 0.24 1.38 3.83 10.08 15.12 9.78 21.89 37.52 56.28
Figure I-4a -Acceleration Displacement Response Spectra (5% Damped)
Zone 4 Sites Not Located in Near Source Zones

To Ts Td
SA 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.48 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45
SB 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.48 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45
SC 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.67 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45
SD 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.74 0.70 0.69 0.69 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45
SE 0.14 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.70 0.83 1.27 1.27 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45
20% Damped Spectral Acceleration Parameters (in units of g’s) at PBSE Recommended
EPA Sas Sa1
SA 0.058 0.14 0.32 0.48 0.073 0.19 0.44 0.66 0.037 0.09 0.21 0.31
SB 0.072 0.17 0.40 0.60 0.094 0.23 0.55 0.83 0.047 0.11 0.26 0.39
SC 0.086 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.115 0.27 0.55 0.83 0.079 0.18 0.37 0.55
SD 0.115 0.24 0.44 0.66 0.150 0.33 0.61 0.91 0.111 0.23 0.42 0.63
SE 0.18 0.32 0.36 0.54 0.235 0.44 0.50 0.74 0.164 0.37 0.63 0.94
20% Damped Spectral Displacement Parameters (in units of inches) at PBSE Recommended
Sdo Sds Sdd
SA 0.0056 0.013 0.03 0.05 0.18 0.42 0.98 1.47 1.17 2.85 6.65 9.81
SB 0.007 0.017 0.04 0.06 0.23 0.52 1.22 1.84 1.49 3.48 8.23 12.35
SC 0.016 0.038 0.066 0.10 0.54 1.23 2.40 3.60 2.50 5.70 11.7 17.4
SD 0.025 0.046 0.084 0.13 0.80 1.56 2.85 4.27 3.51 7.28 .13.3 19.9
SE 0.035 0.090 0.22 033 1.13 3.00 7.84 11.75 5.19 11.7 19.9 29.8
Figure I-4b -Acceleration Displacement Response Spectra (20% Damped)


To Ts Td
SA 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0. 40 0.40 0.40 0.40 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
SB 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
SC 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.55 0.57 0.56 0.56 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
SD 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.60 0.58 0.58 0.58 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
SE 0.11 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.56 0.70 1.07 1.07 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

EPA Sas Sa1
SA 0.058 0.14 0.32 0.48 0.14 0.34 0.80 1.20 0.057 0.14 0.32 0.48
SB 0.072 0.17 0.40 0.60 0.18 0.43 1.00 1.50 0.072 0.17 0.40 0.60
SC 0.086 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.22 0.49 1.00 1.50 0.12 0.28 0.56 0.84
SD 0.115 0.24 0.44 0.66 0.29 0.60 1.10 1.65 0.17 0.35 0.64 0.96
SE 0.18 0.32 0.36 0.54 0.45 0.80 0.90 1.35 0.25 0.56 0.96 1.44
Figure I-4c -Displacement Response Spectra (5% Damped)



To Ts Td
SA 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.48 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45
SB 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.48 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45
SC 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.67 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45
SD 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.74 0.70 0.69 0.69 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45
SE 0.14 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.70 0.83 1.27 1.27 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45
20% Damped Spectral Acceleration Parameters (in units of g’s) at PBSE Recommended
EPA Sas Sa1
SA 0.058 0.14 0.32 0.48 0.073 0.19 0.44 0.66 0.037 0.09 0.21 0.31
SB 0.072 0.17 0.40 0.60 0.094 0.23 0.55 0.83 0.047 0.11 0.26 0.39
SC 0.086 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.115 0.27 0.55 0.83 0.079 0.18 0.37 0.55
SD 0.115 0.24 0.44 0.66 0.150 0.33 0.61 0.91 0.111 0.23 0.42 0.63
SE 0.18 0.32 0.36 0.54 0.235 0.44 0.50 0.74 0.164 0.37 0.63 0.94
Figure I-4d -Displacement Response Spectra (20% Damped)



To Ts Td
SA 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
SB 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
SC 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.55 0.57 0.56 0.56 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
SD 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.60 0.58 0.58 0.58 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
SE 0.12 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.62 0.70 1.07 1.07 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

EPA Sas Sa1
SA 0.09 0.14 0.32 0.48 0.23 0.34 0.80 1.20 0.09 0.14 0.32 0.48
SB 0.11 0.17 0.40 0.60 0.28 0.43 1.00 1.50 0.11 0.17 0.40 0.60
SC 0.13 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.33 0.49 1.00 1.50 0.18 0.28 0.56 0.84
SD 0.16 0.24 0.44 0.66 0.40 0.60 1.10 1.65 0.24 0.35 0.64 0.96
SE 0.24 0.32 0.36 0.54 0.60 0.80 0.90 1.35 0.37 0.56 0.96 1.44
Figure I-4e - Acceleration Response Spectra (5% Damped)


Figure I-5. Illustration of DDBD and EBD concepts

Figure I-6 - Direct Displacement Based Design

Figure I-7. Equal displacement approximation

(inches)
Notes:
1. The heavy curve above represents the pushover curve or capacity curve
of a given structure.
2. The four spectral curves represent the spectral demands (at appropriate
damping levels) for each considered earthquake, EQI, EQII, EQIII and
EQIV.
3. The vertical lines represent the structural performance levels, SP1
through SP5, as a function of the structural capacity curve.
4. The intersections of the capacity curve with each of the demand curves
represent the expected performance points at each earthquake scenario.
5. For a design to meet a design performance objective, each performance
point must fall to the left of the prescribed Performance Level for the
respective earthquake. In this case, the design meets the BSO. The
respective performance points are to the left of SP1 for EQI, to the left of
SP2 for EQII, to the left of SP2 for EQIII and to the left of SP4 for EQIV,
consistent with the Basic Objective as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure I-8. Summary of Design-Verification Concepts

Appendix I - Attachment 1
Procedures for Determining Earthquake Ground Motion

Response Spectra

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix I - Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Procedures for Determining Earthquake Ground Motion Response Spectra
The demands of earthquake ground motion can easily be defined by response spectra.
Earthquake hazard maps have recently been produced for the 1997 NEHRP that give spectral
acceleration contours for the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) motion.
The MCE, which represents the big earthquake (EQ IV), is generally defined by a 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years; however, the maximum values are governed by
deterministic methods of estimating ground motion. This results in the MCE having an
equivalent larger than 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (e.g., 5%/50) in some high
seismic areas of California. Equations are given in FEMA 273 and FEMA 356 for
approximating these variations in probabilities. Equations are also given for converting
probabilities of exceedance in 50 years, PE50, to return periods, PR. For example, 2%/50 equates
to a return period of 2,475 years and 10%/50 to 475 years.
The design earthquake (EQ III), which is smaller than the MCE, is generally defined by
10%/50; however, it is limited to a maximum value of two-thirds of the EQ IV. Thus, the EQ-III
may have a larger than 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Equations are also given for
approximating these variations in probabilities.
In addition to determining the EQ III and EQ IV, smaller earthquakes, with more frequent
periods of return, may be required for various performance objectives. Equations and
coefficients are given for making these approximations.
PR = 475 (Si/S i10/50)1/n
PE50 = 1 – (1/e50/PR)
PR = 1/1 – ( 1 – PE50)1/50
Si = Si 10/50 (PR/475)n
where:
Si = Spectral acceleration parameter (i = s for “short period,” and i = 1 for

“1 – second” period) at the desired probability of exceedance.
Si 10/50 = Si for 10%/50
PR = Return period (years) at the desired probability of exceedance
PE50 = Probability of exceedance in 50 years

Examples illustrating the use of these equations are given in the following tables.
Table I-Att1-1. Equivalent probability of MCE (n = 0.29 for California)
CASE SI S1 10/50 PR (MCE) PE50

(MCE)
Ss S1 SS S1 Ss S1
1. 1.50 0.6 1.0 0.4 1,922 1,922 2.6%
Si ratio = 1.5 1,922
2. 1.5 0.6 1.2 0.5 1,025 890 5.1%
Si ratio <1.5 950
3 1.75 0.7 1.3 0.5 1,323 1,515 3.5%
Si (MCE)>1.5 1,400
Table I-Att1-2. Equivalent probability of EQ and smaller (n = 0.44 for California)
CASE SI S1 10/50 PR PE50

Ss S1 SS S1 Ss S1
4.* EQ III 1.0 0.4 1.2 0.5 313 285 15%
Case 2, 2/3 MCE 300
5. EQ II 0.55 0.22 1.2 0.5 72 50%
PR = 72
* Case 2 where EQIII is 2/3 MCE
It should be noted that the coefficient n = 0.44 is only valid between the return periods of
72 years to 475 years. For return periods less than 72 years, the coefficient results in overly high
estimates of the ground motion. It is recommend that ground motions for various return periods
be determined using the updated USGS CD-Rom “Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard
Response Spectra for the United States” which should be available in late 2003.
The discussion to this point leads us to the development of 5% damped response spectra
for site Class B (rock) ground motion at geographical locations in the United States. From the
contour map data we have been able to approximate response spectra for different return periods
that represent probabilities of exceedance. Ss represents the constant acceleration region of the
idealized response spectrum. S1 represents the constant velocity region by giving the spectral
acceleration at a response period of 1 second. The constant spectral velocity can be calculated
by multiplying S1 by the acceleration of gravity divided by 2 Π .
Sv = (S1g)(T/2 Π )
where T = 1 second
g = 386/in/sec2 (980 cm/sec2)

which reduces to
Sv=61.5 S1 in/sec (156 S1 cm/sec)
The effective peak ground acceleration (Z) can be approximated by taking 40 percent of Ss.
Z=0.4 Ss

Response Spectra as a Function of Site Class
Five site classes are designated by the letters A thorough F. The site class adjusted
response spectra use is obtained by multiplying Ss and S1 by site class coefficients Fa and Fv,
respectively.
Sxs = Fa Ss
Sx1 = Fv S1
Sxv = Fv Sv
where: Fa and Fv are determined from tables 2-13 and 2-14 (FEMA 273) and x designates the site
class
For site class B,Fa and Fv equal 1.0:
SBS = SS
SB1 = S1
SBV = Sv = 61.5 S1
Note that similar site class adjustments can be found in the 1997 UBC in tables 16Q and
16-R, where Fa = Ca/Z and Fv = Cv/Z.
Response Spectra Adjustments for Effective Damping
The SXi (i.e., Sxs, Sx1, Sxv) values represent 5% damped response spectra for linear elastic
systems. These response spectra can be adjusted by dividing by damping coefficients BS and B1
to represent other values of damping, β (percent of critical damping). Damping values higher
than 5% (of critical) can be used to approximate inelastic-nonlinear response spectra as a
function of hysteretic behavior or systems ductility. The BI-coefficients can also be a function of
systems ductility, µs . BI coefficients as a function of β can be obtained from FEMA 273 Tables
2-15.
Graphical Representation of Response Spectra
Response spectra may be plotted in various formats of coordinates (e.g., Sa vs T,Sa vs. Sd,
Sd vs. T, and tripartite log graphs). The traditional format has been spectral acceleration vs.
period (Sa vs. T). When this format is used, spectral displacements (Sd) and velocities (Sv) may
be calculated by the following: Sd = Sag T/2 Π ).
The ADRS format uses orthogonal coordinates Sa vs. Sd. The period’s (T) are
represented by radial lines and the spectral velocities (Sv) can be represented by curved lines that
follow the shape of S1/T. Examples follow:

Spectral response acceleration, Sa
S a = S xs /B s
S a = S x1 /B 1 T
Sx
EPA =
0.4Sxs
0.2 TS TS 1.0
Period, T
Figure I-Att1-1. Spectral acceleration versus period

T = .5 T = 1.0
S v =100 in/s
S s=S xs/B s
T = 1.5
Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)
S v = 61.5 S x1/B s
S a = S x1/B sT T = 2.0
0.4Sxs
T = 3.0
T = 4.0
T = 5.0
Spectral Displacement, Sd (in)
Figure I-Att1-2. Acceleration displacement response spectra (ADRS)

Appendix I - Attachment 2
Equations for Determining Spectral Points

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix I - Part 2
Attachment 2
Equations for Determining Spectral Points
Sa Sd
EPA
TO TS TD T TO T
0 0 TS TD
Spectral Acceleration vs. Period Spectral Displacement vs. Period
Given: SAS and SA1 for a specified earthquake design level and site soil classification.
SAS = Spectral acceleration at 0.2 seconds at 5% damping for specified probability

and soil site conditions.
SA1 = Spectral acceleration at 1.0 seconds at 5% damping for specified probability

and soil site conditions
Determine: For a specified level of damping β the following: TO, TS, TD, Sa (β), and Sd (β)
for the full range of structure period.
1. For a given value of damping β, determine spectral damping factors as follows:
3.21 − 0.68 • ln( β )

DA =
2.12
3.21 − 0.41 • ln( β )

DV =
1.65
1.82 − 0.27 • ln( β )

DD =
1.39
2. Next determine values of TO, TS, and TD as follows:
May 4, 1999; Seismology Committee Review Copy

doc name: pbse appendix final january 29 2004
S A1 DV
TO =
12.5S AS D A
T S = 5TO
4DD
TD =
DV
Note: TD is not considered valid in Zone 4 near source zones.

3. Next determine Sa (β) and Sd (β) for full range of periods.
Sa Sd
T =0 EPA = 0.4S AS 0
0 < T < TO T T T
S a (β) = 0.4 S AS [1 + ( S AS D A − 1)] S d (β) = 0.4 S AS [1 + ( S AS D A − 1)]( ) 2 g
TO TO 2π
T = TO S a (β) = S AS D A TO 2
S d (β) = S AS D A ( ) g
2π
TO < T < T S S a (β) = S AS D A T 2
S d (β) = S AS D A ( ) g
2π
T = TS S a (β) = S AS D A TS 2
S d (β) = S AS D A ( ) g
2π
TS < T < TD S A1 DV S A1 DV gT
S a (β) = S d (β) =
T (2π) 2
T = TD S A1 DV 4S A1 D D g
S a (β) = S d (β) =
4 DD (2π) 2
T > TD 4 S A1 D D 4S A1 D D g
S a (β) = S d (β) =
T2 (2π) 2

Alternate Ground Motion
T = TO
Sa T = TS
S AS D A
S A1 DV 2 g
S a (β) = ( )
2π S d (β)
T = TD
S A1 DV
EPA 4 DD
0 SdO SdS SD Sd
Spectral Acceleration vs. Spectral Displacement
where:
TO 2
S dO (β) = S AS D A ( ) g
2π
4 S A1 D D g
S D (β) =
(2π) 2
Note: SD and TD are not considered valid in Zone 4 near source zones.


SEAOC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEAOC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix I

Revised Interim Guidelines

Force-Displacement Approach for Performance-Based

Performance-Based Seismic Engineering Ad Hoc Subcommittee

Robert E. Bachman (SEAOSC), Chair

Observers and Corresponding Members

Matt J. Skokan (Observer)

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy 81

Force-Displacement Approach for Performance-Based

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy 82

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................

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

I-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................

I-2 Performance Objectives...................................................................................................................

I-3 Site Suitability and Design Ground Motions .................................................................................

I-4 General Design and Analysis Procedures for PBSE .....................................................................

I-4.5 Structural System Design ...............................................................................................

I-5 Displacement-Based Design and Analysis Procedures..................................................................

I-6 Nonstructural Systems Design ........................................................................................................

I-7 Design and Construction Documents .............................................................................................

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy 84

I-8 Design Review Procedures...............................................................................................................

I-9 Construction Quality Assurance Procedures.................................................................................

I-10 Building Seismic Maintenance ........................................................................................................

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy 85

Table I-1 Recommended Design Ground Motions

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy 86

Force-Displacement Approach for

I-1.3 Scope and Applicability

I-1.4 Significant Features

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy 88

I-1.5 Statement of Limited Reliability

I-2 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy 89

I-2.2 Seismic Hazard Levels

I-2.3 Performance Levels

Structural Performance Levels

SP4 Up to 80% of usable inelastic displacement capacity of the structure is expended

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy 90

Nonstructural Performance Levels

NP2 Nonstructural damage is light to moderate. Expected loss-to-value in the nonstructural

I-2.4 Basic Safety Objective (BSO)

I-2.5 Enhanced Objective 1 (EO1) (Essential Facilities Objective)

I-2.6 Enhanced Objective 2 (EO2) (Safety Critical Objective)

I-2.7 Other Enhanced Objectives

I-3 Site Suitability and Design Ground Motions

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy 92

I-3.2 Site Suitability and Siting Restrictions

I-3.3 Design Ground Motions

TABLE I-1 Recommended Design Ground Motions

EQ Description Probability Other Mean Return

I-3.4 Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra (ADRS)

I-3.5 Alternate Seismic Hazard Representations

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy 93

I-4 General Design and Analysis Procedures for PBSE

I-4.2 Conceptual Design

I-4.2.2 System Regularity.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy 94

I-4.3 Structural Systems

I-4.4 Drift Limits

I-4.5 Structural System Design

I-4.6 Structural Element Design and Detailing

I-4.7 Soil Structure Interaction and Foundation Design