Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Engineering: A Multidisciplinary Review

Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Review Article
Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: a multidisciplinary review

Adrian M. Chandler
b
a,*
, Nelson T.K. Lam
a
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
Abstract
This paper reviews the contributions of research towards the development of the methodologies associated with PerformanceBased Seismic Engineering (PBSE). Research undertaken in various related disciplines is reviewed, under the broad section headings
of (i) Engineering Seismology and Geology (Seismic Activity Modelling), (ii) Engineering Seismology (Seismic Hazard Modelling),
(iii) Soil Dynamics, (iv) System Dynamics, and (v) Mechanics of Materials (Concrete used as example). The sequence of the
discussion is consistent with a typical seismic assessment procedure, which commences with seismic activity modelling in the
upstream end of the procedure and finishes with consideration of structural mechanics behaviour at the downstream end. Each
section provides an outline of historical research and development, leading to a review of the state-of-the-art approaches. Particular
emphasis is given to the inter-linking of the disciplines, and the paper refers to such links as Nodal Points. An example of a
nodal point is the definition of probabilistic seismic hazard coefficients that are used to define seismic hazard in terms of elastic
response spectra, for example the response spectral accelerations at key periods of 0.3 and 1.0 s. Each of the Nodal Points associated
with the various disciplines has been critically reviewed, and shortcomings have been identified. For example, the inability of a
probabilistic approach to fully represent an earthquake event as a physical process is highlighted. Also, the importance of putting
emphasis in future research on determining the Maximum Credible (or Considered) Earthquake, MCE, is emphasised.
The paper brings to light the fact that, although significant achievements have been made in each of the related disciplines and
in the connection of the Nodal Points, there has been relatively little change in substance at the Nodal Points themselves. An
important outcome of this multi-disciplinary review is the identification of some key limitations in current procedures. The source
of these limitations was traced upstream, and thence to the Nodal Points that provide the inter-disciplinary links. This process has
been referred to herein as Upstream Feedback. A review of the problems at these links sows the seeds for further development,
which would not have been possible had all the recent contributions been confined within the individual disciplines. Such an
Upstream Feedback process, enabling improvements to the multi-discipinary links, would be instrumental in enhancing the overall
effectiveness of PBSE in the future. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Earthquake; Seismic; Performance; Design; Displacement; Response Spectrum; Ground motion
1. Introduction
Abbreviations: ADRS: Acceleration displacement response spectrum;
BSZ: Broad source zone; CAM: Component attenuation model; CDD:
Capacity demand diagram; CENA: Central and Eastern North America; CM: CornellMcGuire; DB: Displacement based; DRS: Displacement response spectrum; EPGA: Effective peak ground acceleration; ERS: Elastic response spectrum; FASA: Frame analogy soil
amplification; FB: Force based; FO: Fully operational; GR: GutenbergRichter; IBC: International building code; MCE: Maximum considered earthquake; MMI: Modified Mercalli intensity; MR: Magnitudedistance; MRF: Moment resisting frame; PE: Probability of
exceedance; PGA: Peak ground acceleration; PGD: Peak ground displacement; PGV: Peak ground velocity; POA: Push-over analysis;
PSHA: Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment; PSHC: Probabilistically-defined seismic hazard coefficient; RC: Reinforced concrete;
RSA: Response spectral acceleration; RSD: Response spectral dis-
Major seismic events during the past decade, such as

those occurring in Northridge, California (1994), Kobe,
Japan (1995), Turkey (1999), Taiwan (1999), and Central-Western India (2001) have continued to demonstrate
the destructive power of earthquakes, with destruction
placement; SDF: Single degree of freedom; THA: Time history analysis; UHS: Uniform seismic hazard spectrum; WNA: Western North
America.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +852-2859-1973; fax: +852-25595337.
E-mail address: amchandl@hkucc.hku.hk (A.M. Chandler).
0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 7 0 - 0
1526
A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543
of engineered buildings, bridges, industrial and port

facilities as well as giving rise to great economic losses.
As a result, the need to improve seismic performance of
the built environment through the development of performance-oriented procedures and guidelines has been
repeatedly highlighted [1,2]. Such procedures have collectively been termed Performance Based Seismic
Engineering (PBSE) in the literature.
The current codified procedures of seismic design,
developed over the last 40 years, have been supported
by wide-ranging, multi-disciplinary research in the following five fields:
1. Engineering Seismology and Geology (Seismic
Activity Modelling);
2. Engineering
Seismology
(Seismic
Hazard
Modelling);
3. Soil Dynamics;
4. System Dynamics;
5. Mechanics of Materials (Concrete used as example).
For the last 25 years in particular, there has been significant advancement of knowledge within each of these
disciplines. In Engineering Seismology, numerous elaborate empirical response spectrum models have been
developed and refined (for example, [3]), and a number
of stochastic and deterministic wave simulation techniques have been developed to predict ground motion
properties (reviewed in [4]). Meanwhile, in Mechanics
of Materials, more is known of the displacement
(ductility) behaviour of structural systems [5]. These
examples illustrate part of the large volume of research
undertaken in the various contributing disciplines.
Whilst it is often the case that researchers spend most
of his/her career span focussing on one of these disciplines, it is also noted that, increasingly in recent years,
there are researchers crossing between two or more of
these fields of research. The above discipline classifications are drawn for the clarity of this review, and are
not intended to be highly definitive nor exclusive.
Instead, the review attempts to address the links between
the individual disciplines and to discuss the current
strengths and deficiencies in these links, under the single
broad theme of PBSE.
It is interesting to observe that the interfacing between
the disciplines has remained effectively unchanged over
the years. For instance, the main output from Engineering Seismology research (combined with Soil Dynamics
research) are Probabilistically-defined Seismic Hazard
Coefficients (PSHC), which may take the form of Peak
Ground Acceleration (PGA), Peak Ground Velocity
(PGV) or the Response Spectral Acceleration (RSA) at
key structural periods of, typically, 0.3 and 1.0 s. Ultimately, these PSHCs are used in two ways. Firstly, the
PHSCs are plotted as Hazard Maps, for example in
defining the design seismic hazard for building code pur-
poses. Secondly, the PHSCs are used to determine the

elastic response spectrum (ERS), which defines the peak
responses of single-degree-of-freedom (SDF) linear elastic systems possessing a range of different natural periods. Whilst the way in which the design response spectrum is obtained has changed (for example, by the
introduction of the Uniform Hazard Spectrum, UHS [6]),
the basic principles of using PSHCs (and the associated
ERS) to represent seismic hazard have remained
unchanged.
Hence, the PSHCs may be regarded as Nodal Points
interlinking the various disciplines defined above, and
which ultimately have controlled the interfacing between
the disciplines over the past 25 years (refer Fig. 1). The
result has been that Engineers have become accustomed
to visualising seismic hazard in terms of the level of
ground motion intensity using a Hazard Map or an ERS
(which are both, in turn, expressed using PSHCs), rather
than seeing seismic hazard as represented by a physical
earthquake event. The currently accepted approach,
based on PSHCs to define seismic hazard, considers such
hazard to be a function of the geographical location and
the site conditions. This notion is reinforced by seismic
hazard contour maps and codified seismic zoning maps,
that are uniformly based on defining the PSHCs associated with a given annual probability of exceedance (PE)
over a given exposure interval. On the other hand, the
earthquake event is a natural phenomenon that has been
intensively studied by Seismologists in terms of its
scientific properties such as its source, path and site
mechanisms. Ultimately, despite relying on the linkages
provided by the key Nodal Point of the PSHCs, the various disciplines have maintained this fundamental gap in
their approach to the problem. Further discussion of this
point is contained in Section 7 of the paper.
With the recent development of PBSE, which began
in the early 1990s, the associated introduction of the Displacement Response Spectrum (DRS) and the CapacityDemand Diagram (CDD) ([7]) each represent a change
to the format of presenting the ERS, and not to its substance nor to its fundamental reliance on the Nodal Point
of the PSHCs. Nonetheless, such new response spectrum
formats have prompted the need to address the accuracy
problem in the long period range. A few models addressing the needs of the new formats have been successfully
developed [8,9]. However, new concepts take time to
mature into accepted design or codified procedures.
Ultimately, no matter how advanced is the research in
one discipline (examples have been given above of the
PBSE approach, the DRS which is closely linked to Displacement-Based DB seismic assessment methods, and
the CDD approach), there has been a tendency to tie
back to the Nodal Point of PSHCs, which is ultimately
linked to the findings of Engineering Seismology. Perhaps the most graphic example of this is the UHS, which
has a fundamental deficiency in that it represents each
Fig. 1.
1527
Streamflow diagram showing disciplines contributing to performance based seismic engineering and their interlinking nodal points.
hazard parameter or PSHC by a process that considers

a large number of potential earthquake events, each having the same annual PE. Whilst, on the face of it, this
seems a reasonable approach given the high level of
uncertainty associated with the earthquake occurrence
that may affect a given site (in other words, it defines
the seismic hazard in a fully Probabilistic manner), it
implies that the UHS cannot be associated with any single, realistic earthquake event [10]. This is despite the
reality that the design structure will be subject to only
one earthquake event at a time, during the course of its
useful lifetime. Addressing this problem, a rigorous procedure has been developed in engineering seismology
[11] to de-aggregate the PSHCs into earthquake scenarios expressed in terms of MagnitudeDistance (MR)
combinations. However, this seems to add further complexity to the problem.
Advances in research made in the various disciplines
have, it seems, not influenced the underlying Nodal Point
of the PSHCs, other than the change from the use of
hazard models relying on a single parameter such as probabilistic PGA, to the use of dual parameters such as
PGA and PGV, or the RSA at two key natural periods.
But such changes have occurred over very long time
spans.
The discussions to be presented in this paper mainly
address the sensitive interface between the disciplines,
since this is where the key Nodal Points exist. Some
interesting differences in the approach to the solution of
the same problem, namely how best to implement PBSE,
are highlighted. The disciplines will be considered

sequentially, recognizing however that the linkages are
complex and multi-directional rather than linear.
A special emphasis is placed on the application of
PBSE in intraplate regions of low and moderate seismicity, as this reflects the background of the authors.
However, the fundamental principles discussed in the
paper are applicable equally to regions of high seismicity.
The authors consider that the successful application
of PBSE, especially in regions of low to moderate seismicity, depends largely on developing a deep understanding and appreciation of the multi-disciplinary
aspects of earthquake engineering, as reviewed herein.
The recommended approach is that any new conceptual
developments arising from downstream or existing
research should be reviewed with the aim of updating
or re-defining the upstream Nodal Point(s) accordingly
(refer Fig. 1). This is referred to herein and on Fig. 1 as
Upstream Feedback. This approach has the key benefit
of informing the direction of future research efforts and
providing a clear focus for the research direction. The
proposal of new Nodal Points and their acceptance into
seismic design and assessment, as suggested herein, is
fundamentally dependent on recognizing the inter-linking contributions from such a range of scientific and
engineering disciplines.
1528
2. Engineering seismology and geology (seismic

activity modelling)
2.1. Historical developments
The level of earthquake activity at an identified seismic source location is normally modelled by the GutenbergRichter (GR) magnitude recurrence relationship,
from which the observed recurrence behaviour of frequent small magnitude earthquakes can be used to predict the recurrence behaviour of the less frequent, and
potentially destructive, large magnitude earthquakes.
The earthquake activity model of a region comprises
the spatial distribution of the potential seismic sources,
along with the recurrence relationship of each individual
seismic source expressed in the GR form. Such seismic
activity can only be determined by considering both the
temporal and spatial distribution of the recorded earthquake activity. It is important that the records are complete. Historical records can form very useful supplement to instrumented records, particularly in areas
lacking the latter and/or areas with a long history of civilised settlement. Meanwhile, geological data on fault
activity often provides useful support to the seismological data in identifying and delineating potential seismic
sources [12]. Given a suitable seismic activity model,
the contributions of different fault sources to the seismic
hazard of a site (ground motions with a defined annual
PE) are normally integrated by the well-known Cornell
McGuire (CM) procedure [11,13], known as Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment, PSHA.
with the mapping of significant historical earthquake

events (Hong Kong [15]; New York City [16]; Bangkok
[17]). These are also known as Broad Source Zones
(BSZ) [18]. In modelling a BSZ, the actual spatial distribution of seismicity within the zone is ignored and
assumed to be uniform. The advantage is that only a
single GR relationship needs to be defined using the
entire seismic record. In the extreme, an area exceeding
half the size of a continent can be considered as a single
areal source (for example, Central and Eastern North
America, CENA [19]) in view of the uncertainties in
defining seismic activity within such a source region.
This type of areal source is also known as seismo-tectonic province. The theoretical basis of the BSZ or
seismo-tectonic province is controversial. The contrasting modelling strategies can produce quite different
results when predicting the long-term seismic hazard
[18], and hence it is important to be aware of the potential implications when adopting a suitable strategy for a
given region.
2.3. Uniform seismic hazard (circular source zone)
model
If the seismic activity surrounding a site is assumed
to be uniform, there is no need for a CM integration
procedure to model the site seismic hazard. Instead, a
simple circular source zone model has been proposed by
Jacob for the predictions [16]. Associated magnitude
distance (MR) pairs or combinations, that are compatible with the seismic hazard, are obtained from the following relationship:
2.2. Modelling in areas of low or moderate seismic

activity
M5[log10(2pR2Trp)7a5]/b
In areas of low or moderate seismic activity

(seismicity), the low level of earthquake activity often
results in a lack of seismic activity data. Consequently,
it is difficult to identify and delineate potential seismic
sources and to define the activity level of each individual
source. For this reason, regional fault sources have often
been grouped into areal source zones in which seismic
activity is considered to be diffused over the entire zone,
and not concentrated at a few visible fault lines. An
example is [14], in relation to the South China region
including Hong Kong. This lumping of fault sources into
a diffused areal source has the advantage of aggregating
a larger number of seismic records to define the recurrence behaviour of the source. Further, the diffused
model overcomes the problems of not accounting for
unidentified fault sources such as a buried, blind thrust
fault.
Seismicity in such regions has therefore been modelled using very large areal source zones defined, rather
arbitrarily, in accordance with broad geographical features (such as coastlines and mountain ranges) together
where Trp is the return period (yr), and a5 and b are normalised GutenbergRichter coefficients for earthquakes
exceeding magnitude 5. This simple circular source zone
model enables design earthquake scenarios (MR pairs)
of equal probability of occurrence at a site to be predicted in a single-step procedure, for any given return
period and earthquake recurrence relationship (in GR
form). The circular source zone model provides direct
determination of realistic earthquake scenarios, without
the need of a numerical aggregation (or integration) procedure and an even more complex de-aggregation procedure [11] that would have been required in the analysis
of non-uniform source zones. The de-aggregation step is
not always carried out. Thus, many seismic hazard models only present results in terms of the aggregated contributions of peak ground motion parameters (PGA or
PGV) and without identifying the earthquake scenarios
that generate the ground motions [10]. Using the direct
circular source zone model, the design earthquake scenarios for the Melbourne Metropolitan Area, as found
from Eqn.(1), are summarised in Table 1 for Trp=2500
yr mean return period (refer [20]). Table 1 shows that
(1)
Table 1
Design earthquake scenarios for Melbourne (2500 yr return period)
(after [20])
Magnitude M
Sitesource distance R (km)
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
14
23
36
57
90
the probability of a small/moderate magnitude M=56

earthquake affecting a site from a short distance (1535
km) is similar to that of a large magnitude M=7 earthquake occurring at a much longer distance (90 km).
Importantly, response spectrum analyses of these earthquake scenarios (refer Section 3) show that the small
magnitude M=56 events would produce high acceleration but very small displacement demands. In contrast,
an equally probable M=7 event would produce a much
higher displacement demand and hence presents greater
destruction potential to infrastructure, especially those
sensitive to long period motions. This is evident in the
comparison of the earthquake response spectrum associated with each MR combination [9].
2.4. Maximum considered earthquake (MCE)
It can be argued that the example results given in
Table 1 could have been extended to include earthquake
magnitudes exceeding M=7, in which case more onerous
demand predictions would be obtained. However, in
practice the upper limit of a Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) [12,21] is normally used to cap the
predicted seismic hazard, or else an unrealistically high
hazard level would be predicted. In the case of Melbourne, experienced seismologists working in the region
judgementally rule out the possibility of M7 earthquakes occurring when return periods of up to 2500 yr
are considered. Importantly, the chance of an earthquake
with M7 occurring has not been ruled out with longer
return periods (e.g. 10,000 yr). MCE is actually a probabilistic quantity since there exist as many uncertainties
in defining the MCE as in predicting future earthquake
occurrences. However, MCE has often been treated as a
deterministic quantity in the narrow context of a GR
analysis [18]. Empirical rules of thumb have been
developed to estimate MCE from the length of active
faults [12]. Whilst identifying the active faults and measuring the fault lengths is relatively easy in a highly active
seismic area, it is much more difficult in low to moderate
seismicity regions where seismic activity may often be
modelled, as described above, as BSZ or as provinces
which can include hidden (unknown) potential fault
sources.
1529
2.5. Distant earthquakes

The example design earthquake scenarios given in
Table 1 are based on seismic activities within 100200
km from the site. Magnitudes up to the assumed MCE
limit of M=7 are considered, since the chance of a larger
magnitude earthquake occurring within this distance
range is assumed to be very small, and can be ruled out
when return periods of up to 2500 yr are considered.
However, the assumed MCE limit of M=7 has not
accounted for the possibility of a long return period
(=1000 yr) large magnitude earthquake (M7) that can
be generated in an intraplate environment, such as the
1976 Tangshan M=7.6 earthquake in northeastern China
and the January 2001 M=7.7 earthquake in Bhuj, Central-Western India. Significantly, large magnitude earthquakes can transmit destructive long period ground shaking over very long distances, particularly in a crustal
environment of good wave transmission quality such as
the mid-continental regions of CENA [22] or Central and
Western Australia. Thus, the overall chance of a facility,
or a centre of population, being affected by a large magnitude earthquake is contributed to by a large number of
potential seismic sources (including unknown sources)
covering a very large area (within a radius of 400500
km from the site). Examples of this type of threat are
the 1985 Mexican M=8.1 earthquake whose most
destructive effects occurred at 400 km distance in Mexico City, along with the January 2001 Gujarat, Indian
earthquake which also caused significant damage in cities and towns over 200 km from its epicentre.
Consequently, large magnitude earthquakes warrant
serious engineering consideration, despite the fact that
they are generated very infrequently by any particular
seismic source. However, making assessment of earthquake performance due to such potential hazards is generally very difficult in intraplate regions, since earthquakes of sufficiently large magnitude occur so
infrequently that their activities are often difficult to
study simply by mapping historical events or by instrumental monitoring. Studies based on geomorphology,
imaging of sub-surface geological structures and carbon
dating of soil samples taken from fault scarps [12] have
been carried out to study long return period, pre-historical earthquake activities.
Overall, large magnitude distant earthquakes form a
significant hazard and hence are an important issue in
the seismic hazard modelling for low and moderate seismicity regions within continents [23]. However, the fundamental significance of such events has not been widely
recognised in the engineering disciplines.
3. Engineering seismology (seismic hazard
modelling)
It was demonstrated in Section 2.2 above, that
response spectra obtained for different MR combi-
1530
nations (with equal PE), based on the uniform circular

source model, show that the largest magnitude event
generates the critical displacement demand. It was
further explained in Section 2.4 that this important feature supports the necessity for more emphasis on MCE
modelling in upstream research, which is an example of
Upstream Feedback (Fig. 1). The importance of the
MCE is not fully reflected in the current procedure of
aggregating contributions to seismic hazards based on
the predicted seismic activity expressed solely in terms
of the GR coefficients, a and b. Another deficiency
of the current procedure, particularly in regard to PBSE,
is that the complete displacement demand characteristics
of an earthquake event cannot be fully represented by the
existing PSHCs. Ground motion or response spectrum
modelling, termed in this section Seismic Hazard Modelling, is typically expressed in terms of the various
PSHCs, as referred to in Section 1. This is apparent from
a review of historical developments in response spectrum modelling (Section 3.1). Hence, a fundamental seismological model approach (Section 3.2) has been
developed, which places greater emphasis on the accurate representation of the complete response spectrum
across a wide range of periods. Existing approaches have
the additional problem that they present a lack of transparency to engineers on the nature of the imposed seismic hazard. These issues are further reviewed in [24].
3.1. Historical developments in response spectrum
modelling
Based on their research in the 1970s, Newmark and
Hall [25] developed a normalised response spectrum
model that defines the shape of the elastic response spectrum (ERS) over the entire period range of interest. It is
shown that different period ranges of the response spectrum can be scaled by the PGA, the PGV and the peak
ground displacement (PGD). The first two of these parameters form the fundamental PSHCs, as defined in Section 1. The fundamental NewmarkHall model has been
simplified into a piecewise linear-hyperbolic response
spectrum model for codification purposes [26]. The
response spectrum can be scaled by the PGA, which by
definition is the level of the acceleration response spectrum at zero natural period. The PGA scaled response
spectrum model was once widely adopted in earthquake
codes of practice. However, the ultra sensitivity of PGA
to a number of influences including local site effects and
the data recording and acquisition processes prompted
the need to explore alternative scaling parameters.
Addressing the shortcomings of using PGA as the
principal scaling parameter, the ERS has been scaled by
the Effective Peak Ground Acceleration (EPGA), which
is defined in accordance with the 5% damped response
spectral accelerations averaged over the period range
0.10.5 s (at the upper part of the spectrum). Such sca-
ling strategy was first proposed in 1978 by the Applied

Technology Council [27], and is also incorporated in the
European seismic code EC8 (1994) [28]. Alternatively,
a similar response spectrum model has been scaled by
the PGV, which controls the response spectrum amplitude in the hyperbolic section in the medium period
range (notionally 0.31.5 s for rock sites). PGV has
the advantage that it correlates well with the Modified
Mercalli Intensity (MMI) [29]. The use of a standard
normalised response spectrum has greatly simplified
response spectrum modelling. Thus, only one parameter
(PGA, EPGA or PGV) is required in order to define seismic hazard. Consequently, CM integration operates on
only one parameter.
However, the normalised response spectrum model
does not account for the variation of the response spectrum shape with varying earthquake magnitude and distance, which is of fundamental significance. Elaborate
response spectrum attenuation relationships (such as
[3,30]) have been developed from empirical modelling
based on large quantities of strong motion data. Such
empirical models define the response spectral acceleration within each natural period interval, for any given
combination of magnitude, distance and site classification. Some recently developed models have also
incorporated additional parameters such as faulting
mechanism [31]. The majority of these well-known
models were developed from data obtained in California,
but very useful models have also been developed outside
North America (such as Ambraseys [3] model,
developed from European data). In theory, such empirical models provide a complete definition of the frequency properties of earthquake ground motion. Each of
the response spectral acceleration amplitudes (defined in
each individual natural period interval) is a seismic hazard parameter and can be integrated by the CM procedure to develop the UHS, which is a plot of spectral
acceleration obtained for a range of periods but corresponding to a single PE [6]. In a codified procedure, such
UHS has been simplified into a flat-hyperbolic spectrum
model scaled by two parameters each controlling different parts (the flat and the hyperbolic part) of the spectrum. The UHS model of the UBC (1997) code [32] is
typical. For very short period systems, the RSA reduces
to the effective PGA given by the coefficient Ca in UBC
(1997). However, there are two important shortcomings
of such empirical models: (i) strictly speaking, the models can only be relied upon to be applicable in areas
where the empirical data were originally collected, since
regional differences are particularly important in the
modelling of long distance earthquakes for low and moderate seismic regions, and (ii) predictions in the long period range (2 s) associated with seismic displacement
demand are not always reliable, due to the generally limited resolution of existing accelerogram records. Both
shortcomings, particularly the latter, have direct relevance to PBSE.

3.2. Development of the seismological model
In areas where strong motion records are insufficient
for developing empirical models, seismic hazard prediction can be based upon attenuation relationships originally developed in so-called representative seismic
regions. These representative regions must possess (i)
reliable attenuation relationships developed from sufficient strong motion data, and (ii) seismo-tectonics and
geological properties similar to the subject region. Western North America (WNA) is naturally a popular candidate for a representative model. However, the geological
and seismo-tectonic properties of WNA are clearly not
representative of low and moderate seismic intraplate
regions such as CENA. Intensive seismological studies
have been undertaken for the last two decades to develop
a ground motion model for CENA [33], based on a
reasonable volume of seismological data collected from
the regional seismometry network. Contained in the database are recordings of major intraplate earthquake
events from within CENA (such as the Saguenay, Quebec earthquake of 1989 and the Nahanni, Canada earthquake of 1985), as well as from worldwide sources. This
seismological model developed originally for applications in CENA is also known as the Theoretical Model. The term theoretical stems from the fact that the
model is not based entirely on correlations of empirical
observations. The model was originally built from a simple and sound theoretical basis that considers the separate source and path mechanisms that affect the frequency
properties of earthquakes. The rational approach of the
model also provides a desirable level of transparency to
the user, which is particularly valuable in PBSE design
and assessment applications.
In connection with the seismological model, it is
important to highlight the recent important discovery by
Atkinson and Boore [34] that the source characteristics
of WNA and CENA earthquakes are, in fact, rather similar. This has significant implications for the CENA
source model that can now be treated as a generic source model. Independent comparative analyses by the
authors have revealed that the Atkinsons source model
of CENA [35] is a reasonable and conservative representation of the average source properties of both interplate
and intraplate earthquakes. Such theoretical CENA
models, including Atkinsons model, have been applied
not only in CENA but also in regions outside North
America, as these models have been interpreted by some
(for example, [15]) to be generally representative of
areas of low and moderate seismicity. This notion of
grouping all intraplate regions into a single category is
dangerously simplistic, because geological conditions
that control path attenuations can vary significantly
1531
within an intraplate region. For example, the regional

geology of Australia varies significantly across the continent from west to east, despite the fact that Australia is
wholly within the Indo-Australasian tectonic plate.
There are situations in which neither the empirical
WNA model nor the CENA model form suitable representative models. This can readily happen, since the
source and path factors associated with the tectonic and
geological properties of a region can have many different
forms and combinations. Thus, the theoretical model
of CENA as a whole is, in fact, quite specific to that
region. In essence, the main attributes of the theoretical
(or seismological) model lie not in the development of
the CENA parameters but rather in the underlying framework of the model, which enables various source and
path effects to be considered separately. For example,
local seismological and/or geological parameters of a
given region (which define the path effects) can be combined with the generic (Atkinsons) source model of
CENA to assemble the seismological model of the
region. Future earthquakes in the region could then be
predicted from the stochastic simulation of the
assembled model. On this basis, and led by the authors
of this paper, the Component Attenuation Model (CAM)
was developed recently to facilitate the engineering
realisation of the described modelling strategy
[24,36,37]. Numerous applications of CAM have been
reported, for example SE Australia including Melbourne
[20] and South China including Hong Kong [23,38,39].
4. Soil dynamics
The mechanical and dynamical characteristics of soil
are parameterised in terms of the shear wave velocity
(Vs) of a site, along with the plasticity and damping
characteristics. Empirical models (Section 4.1) traditionally present response spectra in terms of these parameters. The ability to measure and define such characteristics, and their incorporation into response spectrum
modelling, are areas specifically addressed in this section. Future research priorities are identified (Section
4.2) in terms of the necessity for modelling procedures
that account more transparently for the influence of resonance and soil (site) depth (and hence determine the
fundamental resonance period), as well as the shear
wave velocity. These priorities form part of the recommended Upstream Feedback, associated with the
Nodal Point inter-linking Soil Dynamics and Seismic
Hazard Modelling (refer Fig. 1).
4.1. Historical developments and existing practice
The shear wave velocity Vs is the most popular parameter employed to characterise the site properties for the
purpose of seismic hazard assessment, and has been cor-
1532
related with Standard Penetration Test Blow Counts, or

SPT N-values (sand) and Soil Cohesive Shear Strength
(clay), for ease of reference in day-to-day engineering
applications. The popularly held rationale behind seismic
soil amplification relates to the principle of energy conservation, which explains why upward propagating seismic shear waves are amplified when travelling from a
high shear wave velocity medium to a lower velocity
medium (i.e. from a stiffer to a softer medium). The
extent of such amplification is therefore a function of
the shear wave velocity gradient or impedance contrast
at the interface. In the newly introduced International
Building Code IBC (2000) [40], the shear wave velocity
gradient is simplified in terms of the soil shear wave
velocity averaged over the top 30 m measured from the
ground surface. This depth range was chosen mainly
because existing shear wave velocity records in the
United States fall mainly within this range. In reality,
soil modifications involve a number of mechanisms
including amplification by the shear wave velocity gradient, resonance of multiply reflected waves, basin-edge
effects, topographical effects, and so on [4]. It is considered that all these mechanisms are implicitly
accounted for in an average sense by empirical modelling.
The empirical site amplification models of Borcherdt
(1994) and Crouse and McGuire (1996), [41,42], were
developed from ground motion data collected from soil
sites of varying average shear wave velocities (Vs). Rock
and soil sites were classified into Site Classes (AF) and
sub-classes in accordance with their average Vs. Empirical amplification factors were then determined for each
site class, by regression analyses. Separate factors were
developed for the acceleration-controlled (low) and velocity-controlled (medium) period ranges. Significantly,
the amplification factors were dependent on the intensity
of the ground motion. Such soil amplification models
have been incorporated into US codes of practice
[32,40], as reviewed in [43].
The intensity dependence of the soil amplification factor enlightens us to the importance of soil damping
(which is made up of the viscous, hysteretic and radiating components). The hysteretic component is closely
associated with the amplitude-dependent shear stiffness
degradation of the soil, whilst the radiating component
is dependent on the impedance contrast between the bedrock and the soil. Another important factor is the plasticity index, which controls stiffness degradation and
damping. It is now widely recognised that clay soils
(particularly high plasticity clay) possess relatively light
damping behaviour and hence are more susceptible to
soil amplification (1985 Mexico City earthquake [44]).
4.2. Importance of site depth and resonance effects
An important soil modification mechanism that is of
great concern is soil resonance. Some codes give explicit
warnings of resonance between the soil and the structure,

but few give definitive, quantified assessment of the resonance effects. The modelling approach described in
Section 4.1 has the deficiency of neglecting the influence
of the soil depth that controls the site period. The latter
is particularly relevant to the large displacement demand
arising during resonant response of soil, although such
response is suppressed, in some instances, by high levels
of damping in the soil (under high amplitude motions
characteristic of high seismicity regions) or superstructure (undergoing inelastic, hysteretic response cycles in
cases of ductile systems).
Bearing in mind the above comments, resonance is
particularly important in the context of the DB approach
in PBSE and for non-ductile buildings. The effects of
resonance are also most apparent in low and moderate
seismic conditions, due to the typically low damping
properties of the soilstructure system when subject to
moderate intensity excitations. Resonance is also
important in determining serviceability limit state (short
design return period) considerations, in both low and
high seismic regions. In order to quantify the effect of
soilstructure resonance, it is important to understand the
underlying physical processes, related in particular to
multiply-reflected trapped waves in a soft soil medium.
Clearly, the natural period of resonance is mainly dependent on soil depth to bedrock (H), since the natural period of the soil (Tg) is the time taken for seismic waves
to travel four times through the soil layer, hence giving
the well-known relationship Tg=4H/Vs. Despite the
importance of H, there are insufficient data to parameterise this depth in empirical models. Thus, resonance
has never been explicitly modelled in seismological
studies. Whilst the effect of resonance seems to be localised to a narrow band in a Fourier Spectrum or in an
acceleration response spectrum, its effect is more widespread in a RSD (displacement) spectrum, as shown in
[47]. Hence, this modifying effect is of particular relevance to PBSE, as also discussed in [45].
The effect of soil resonance can be analysed by shear
wave analyses (using computer programs such as
SHAKE [46]), which requires the input of detailed
properties of the soil column, including shear wave velocity and soil layer thickness. A new simplified modeling
procedure termed FASA (Frame Analogy Soil
Amplification) has been developed by the authors, based
on large number of SHAKE analyses together with some
field measurements (taken, for example, from the Loma
Prieta, California 1989 earthquake and Mexico City
1985 earthquake), refer to [47]. An important factor
which controls soil resonance but which is still not
widely recognised by engineering practitioners, is the
impedance contrast arising at the soilbedrock interface,
referred to above. A sharp contrast between soft soil and
crystalline volcanic rock (for example) would result in
the worst resonance effects, since little energy can
escape at the soilrock boundary. Consequently, most of

the energy is dissipated within the soil and the resonance
effect must be sustained for some time before all the
seismic energy is dissipated. In contrast, a lower impedance contrast between Mesozoic rock and the overlying
soil would moderate the effect of resonance to a certain
extent. Some 2030% reduction has been estimated by
recent studies by the authors [47]. The latter paper
presents a generic approach to the determination of the
soil RSD spectrum, based on the FASA approach, and
gives examples of its application for regions of low and
moderate seismicity.
The typical Californian conditions are considered to
pertain to moderate levels of impedance contrast. Such
conditions are hence implicit in empirical models
developed from Californian data. Thus, Californian soil
amplification models are not necessarily conservative in
modelling the effects of resonance, and it is important
to be aware of such limitations in extrapolating such
conditions to other regions, particularly when resonance
is an issue of concern.
It is suggested that, in terms of upstream research priorities, soil depth (H) or site period (Tg) be used as the
parameter characterising potential resonance effects,
particularly in situations of high rocksoil impedance
contrast, and also when there is a risk of non-ductile
structures resonating on soft soils. Further, it is highlighted that deep soft soil sites have the potential of generating large displacement demand since they are particularly sensitive to the long period displacement waves
input at the bedrock level from a large magnitude earthquake. This reinforces the importance of modelling the
MCE (Section 2.4) and large magnitude, distant earthquakes (Section 2.5).
Finally, under resonance conditions, the shape of the
displacement response spectrum (with a peak at Tg) is
extremely important in order to represent the complete
displacement demand characteristics of the ground shaking (refer [47]). The use of one or two seismic hazard
parameters (PSHCs) which scale a response spectrum at
0.3 and 1.0 s, for example, may not give a realistic representation of such effects for use in a dynamic analysis,
refer Section 3 above.
5. System dynamics
5.1. Prediction of strength demand and relationship
with seismic actions
In this section, attention is drawn to the deficiencies
of the intuitive method of modelling inelastic response
behaviour based on elastic response spectra. The assessment of such approaches points to the need to address
earthquake hazard as an earthquake event, not in terms
of PSHCs and the associated response spectra.
1533
Structural dynamics deals with the estimation of the

earthquake-induced actions on the building, based on
information provided by the ground motion parameters
and the associated response spectrum defining the frequency content of the earthquake ground motion. Seismic actions comprise displacements/drifts and the associated internal forces. These quantities are, in turn,
related to the material strain and stress, respectively.
Standard elastic modal analysis could be used for estimating seismic actions, given the stiffness and mass
properties of the building. However, the results would
only be relevant to a purely linear elastic response,
which is rarely the case in earthquake engineering. In
traditional codified procedures, empirical force
(strength) reduction factors or R-factors have been used
to determine the strength demand of the structure
required to ensure a satisfactory performance for given
levels of overstrength (strength exceeding design values)
and ductility capacity.
Such capacities are often not explicitly determined
and certain assumptions have to be made, based on the
broad classification of the building system (such as ordinary moment-resisting frame, MRF; intermediate MRF;
special MRF; structural wallbuilding frame dual system; and so on). This R-factor approach has been refined
by Miranda [48,49], who identified the dependence of R
on the natural period of the building and the dominant
period of the ground excitation, based on the empirical
studies of large volumes of inelastic time-history analyses. However, simple solutions may not be possible
owing to the wide diversity of structural forms and the
large number of uncertainties involved. Nevertheless, at
a conceptual level, some simplified relationships do
exist. Structural systems with relatively long natural periods are likely to fall in the equal displacement category, whereas for those of average period the equal
energy approximation is deemed more realistic [50]. For
short period systems, ductility capacity is very low and
hence R=1 may be assumed, termed the equal acceleration concept. This period-dependent R-factor concept
has been applied in the form of inelastic response spectra
that define the strength demand as a function of the
structures ductility capacity (for example, the New Zealand Standard, 1992 [51]). It is considered that both the
R-factor and the inelastic response spectrum methods are
FB approaches that predict the strength demand (or
required strength) of the structure for obtaining satisfactory performance. Importantly, such methods would only
be valid so long as the implicit requirements of ductility
and regularity are met in the design of the building.
Whilst this approach could still be effective in ensuring
satisfactory performance of new buildings, it has shortcomings in assessing the potential performance of existing building structures that often do not satisfy some
implicit design requirements.
In theory, the most direct analytical method available
1534
for assessing seismic performance is inelastic time-history analysis, THA [52]. However, there are difficulties
in applying this method in normal practice, due to the
time and cost in developing a representative dynamic
computer model of the structure and the difficulties in
finding (or generating) representative strong-motion
accelerograms. Hence, simplified displacement demand
modelling approaches, based on intuitive considerations
or on empirical analysis, or a combination of both, are
being developed to estimate seismic actions in buildings
expressed in terms of inelastic drift demand. This saves
having to conduct costly inelastic time-history analyses.
There are two major components in the displacement
based (DB) demand modelling procedure, which is fundamental to PBSE, namely:
1. Estimating Displacement and Inter-storey Drifts;
2. Estimating the Effective Displacement.
5.2. Estimating displacement and inter-storey drifts

The first component of the displacement demand modelling procedure concerns the relationship between the
displacement and inter-storey drifts of a realistic building model and the displacement of a SDF Substitute
Structure model (using the concept of the Effective Displacement, estimated as in Section 5.3, below).
Currently, the maximum storey drift represents a
downstream Nodal Point since, unless inelastic THA is
carried out, maximum drift is conventionally determined
from the estimate of maximum seismic action derived
from the response spectrum (elastic or inelastic). The
maximum drift is used to define the state of distress to
the structure. However, it is becoming increasingly
apparent that residual drift, as opposed to maximum
instantaneous drift, is more representative of the state of
distress to the structural members, as further discussed
below [53].
The determination of maximum drift involves identifying the basic displacement profile of the building
undergoing inelastic response. For regular buildings, it
seems reasonable to use the fundamental modal shape
of elastic vibration to approximate the inelastic displacement profile [54]. However, the elastic modal analysis
may not capture the possible significant change in the
displacement shape resulting from the formation of plastic hinges. An extreme example of this is the displacement developing from a soft-storey mechanism. Thus, it
is essential to conduct a static inelastic push-over analysis (POA) of a representative computer model of the
building [55]1 to identify the displacement profile con-
This paper points out the usefulness as well as the important limitations of pushover analysis.
sistent with the level of displacement demand for the

building. The effective displacement (e) of the
deforming structure can be calculated from the given displacement profile and mass distribution, as described in
the well-known paper by Calvi and Pavese [56]. Meanwhile, simple rules-of-the-thumb have been proposed to
identify the Effective Height (He), at which level the
seismically induced Effective Displacement e is
defined [2].
It must be recognised that the approach of using POA
to determine the dynamic displacement profile and e is
based mainly on intuition and has no sound theoretical
basis. The approach has been shown to be satisfactory
with many low and medium-rise building structures
which develop a definitive collapse mechanism under
severe earthquake conditions. However, POA can also
be misleading and this is often the case when the
dynamic response is dominated by the higher modes of
vibration, as is expected in high-rise or flexible structures [55].
The increase of e with increasing base shear, as
recorded from the POA, can be used to obtain the pushover capacity curve or Capacity Diagram that defines
the SDF Substitute Structure. The concept of the force
displacement capacity curve has been closely associated
with the development of PBSE. It has led to the introduction of a new seismic design or assessment procedure, termed the Capacity-Demand Diagram (CDD)
method. The CDD method was originally devised in
1978 by Freeman [57] and has been further refined over
the last decade, as reviewed (with applications) in [7,58
60]. The method also forms an integral part of the ATC40 (1996) code-planning document [61]. When comparing the Capacity Diagram and Demand Diagram (see
Section 6, below), the structural performance of existing
buildings can be evaluated, or the target structural performance of new construction may be identified, leading
to an amended structural design, if required.
From the Performance Assessment objectives, primary concern is given to (i) the risk of pounding
between buildings, which is checked with reference to
the predicted maximum displacement at the roof level
(roof), and (ii) the level of distress to both the structural
elements and non-structural components, which is represented by the maximum angle of distortional drift (qD),
see [62,63]. The term distortional drift indicates the
damage-causing drift component, allowing for the
removal of any rotational-related drift component. It is
clearly conservative to equate qD to the total drift, at any
particular level of the building.
Both of the seismic displacement parameters (roof
and qD) can be related to the effective displacement e
via coefficients roof and n that are defined as follows:
roofroofe
(2a)
qDe/(Hb/n)
(2b)
where Hb is the total (roof) height of the building.

The seismic displacement coefficient roof is highly
dependent on the buildings Effective Height He (as a
proportion of Hb), at which the Effective Displacement
e occurs (refer Section 5.3, below). The effective height
of a vertical cantilever element (tall building with the
principal lateral load-resisting system comprising single
or coupled structural walls) can be greater than twothirds of the total height, with a typical ratio
He/Hb=0.7 being assumed [2]. Under these circumstances, it would be reasonable to take roof=1.61.7.
However, for a tall building with dual wall-frame system
having a mixture of the cantilever and frame actions, the
effective height ratio is smaller and may typically be
0.60.65, depending on the extent and form of inelastic
response in the lower and middle levels of the building.
In this case, a higher value of roof=1.71.9 is considered
appropriate. For stand-alone moment-resisting frames
(MRFs), the recommended effective height ratio [2] for
tall MRF buildings undergoing inelastic action in the
lower levels is He/Hb=0.6, and the corresponding seismic
displacement coefficient roof is typically 1.41.6 for
mid-rise buildings, falling slightly to 1.31.4 for highrise buildings.
The second seismic displacement coefficient, n [Eq.
(2b)], is typically in the order of 1.53 for regular buildings and can be equal to the number of storeys in the
building in the extreme situation of a soft-storey mechanism.
In addition to the fundamental vibration mode profile
of the building, the -factors account for modifications
arising from higher-mode effects, which may be significant in high-rise buildings.
Once a definitive collapse mechanism and the associated displacement profile has been established, the level
and nature of distress and potential damage to the structure can be related back to the Effective Displacement,
e.
5.3. Prediction of effective displacement
The second component of the displacement demand
modelling procedure, outlined in Section 5.1, concerns
the prediction of Effective Displacement e, that is
equated to the peak displacement of a dynamicallyresponding inelastic SDF system. There are two different
approaches in predicting the peak inelastic displacement
of SDF systems: (i) Empirical Approach, and (ii) Intuitive Approach. The Empirical Approach involves a large
number of inelastic THAs, conducted on SDF systems
possessing different dynamic properties and yield
strengths (or yield displacements). The THAs are conducted using ensembles of recorded and synthetic accelerograms. Results can be presented in the form of coefficients [64] or in the form of empirical CDD [59]. As
further discussed in Section 6 below, the CDD is an
1535
effective way to evaluate structural performance by comparing Capacity and Demand Diagrams. These two Diagrams have the same vertical and horizontal axes, comprising
force/acceleration
and
displacement,
respectively. The Demand Diagram, presented in this
manner, is referred to as an AccelerationDisplacement
Response Spectrum or ADRS [59]. Generic forms of
ADRS for low and moderate seismicity regions have
been presented by the authors in [9].
Empirical procedures, described above, would seem
to be more reliable for determining e as they were
developed directly from inelastic THA. However, the
Empirical Approach is subject to major drawbacks comprising (i) lack of transparency, and (ii) being too prescriptive in terms of the applied excitations. In other
words, the empirical models would only be valid if the
earthquake ensembles used in developing the models are
reasonably representative of the type of earthquakes to
be considered in the study. It is unreasonable to expect
the engineer to check for such validity. This shortcoming
of the Empirical Approach is particularly relevant to low
and moderate seismicity regions, where indigenous
strong motion data are generally lacking from which to
develop a regional-specific empirical model.
The most well-known Intuitive Approach is the
Secant Stiffness SDF Substitute-Structure method,
which uses elastic displacement response spectra with
increased viscous damping to predict the inelastic displacement demand (effective displacement). Some
description of the SDF Substitute Structure method
(originated by Shibata and Sozen, [65]) is contained in
[26,56,66]. The method is a powerful way of relating the
effective displacement response (demand) predicted by
a simple SDF analysis based on the RSD, and the drift
pattern of a multi-storey building under seismic action.
In the SDF Substitute Structure, as mentioned above, the
equivalent viscous damping has accordingly been
increased to emulate hysteretic energy dissipated in the
system as a result of ductile yielding in various mechanisms when severe earthquake loading occurs [56]. The
effective stiffness of the building is found from the
Capacity Diagram (obtained by POA), taking the value
of effective inelastic displacement according to the
demand predictions. Then, the effective natural period
of the SDF Substitute Structure is determined, based on
the computed effective mass. A combination of the
effective period and effective displacement allows the
Demand Point to be plotted in ADRS format. The
Demand Point is then compared with the Capacity Diagram determined from the POA. The seismic assessment
procedures recommended by ATC-40 (refer to [58]) are
based on such principles. Such an approach has the
advantage that it offers a straightforward means of estimating and checking the overall seismic performance of
the building structure by comparing the predicted drift
against the permissible drift limits. The New Zealand
1536
Standard (1992) [51] and associated literature state

explicit limits defining various levels of performance,
and the use of such guidelines is becoming increasingly
commonplace in seismic engineering practice worldwide.
Procedures based on the Intuitive Approach, such as
the Secant Stiffness SDF Substitute-Structure Method,
have the obvious advantage over the Empirical
Approach, in terms of simplicity and transparency. However, the underlying principles can be too simplistic, thus
leading to significant errors (as revealed in the recent
comparative study by Chopra and Goel [59]). Fundamental problems of using equivalent viscous damping to
emulate the hysteretic energy absorption of a full displacement response cycle have been identified. The limitations of the equivalent viscous damping approach have
further been discussed in [67], wherein it is recommended instead to model the energy dissipation from
large inelastic deformation cycles using nonlinear force
deformation relations, which would require the Empirical Approach to be employed. For buildings responding
with moderate levels of inelasticity, however, as may
reasonably be assumed in low to moderate seismicity
regions, the concept of equivalent viscous damping may
be sufficiently accurate for seismic assessment purposes.
Other major shortcomings of the Secant Stiffness SDF
Substitute-Structure Method and the associated CDD
Method are: (i) putting undue emphasis on the condition
at maximum displacement, thus neglecting the course of
response during which maximum displacement is
developed; and (ii) the inability of the elastic response
spectra to model the effects of cumulative drift. The former is related to the issue of Kinetic Energy transfer,
discussed in Section 6 below, which involves consideration of the effect of sudden loss of stiffness
(degradation) of the non-structural components in transferring dynamic energy into the structure during the
course of the earthquake response. In the case of (ii)
above, it is noted that, strictly speaking, the state of damage to the building is a function of the residual drift as
opposed to the maximum drift. However, non-structural
damage may well be related to the maximum instantaneous drift. Nevertheless, none of the methodologies
developed under the Intuitive Approach address residual
displacement, which is cumulative in nature. The procedures of the Empirical Approach might account for
the cumulative effects in an average sense, but no such
empirical procedure has parameterised the earthquake
duration in order to explicitly model cumulative drifts
during the course of the response.
5.4. Final comments
The recommended shift of emphasis from maximum
drift to cumulative residual drift [53] further strengthens
the case (Upstream Feedback, refer Fig. 1) that the seis-
mic hazard should be considered as an earthquake event,

rather than simply in terms of ground motion intensities
represented by PSHCs or the UHS. The cumulative drift
characteristics of long duration, large magnitude earthquakes (particularly on soft soil) further highlight the
need for more emphasis on the MCE and soil resonance effects.
6. Mechanics of materials (concrete used as

example)
Earlier sections of this paper have been concerned
mainly with determining the displacement and deformation demand for a given structure. Such analysis is
complementary to the present section, which focuses on
how to ascertain the dynamic properties of the building
and its capacity to deform. The earlier sections put
emphasis on the response behaviour at the system level,
whereas this section relates the sub-assemblage and system behaviour to the detailed stressstrain behaviour at
a member cross-section. In this section, consideration is
given to the importance of structural stiffness, damping
and the material strain limits in determining its seismic
performance. A review is given of simplified approaches
and some key deficiencies of such approaches are highlighted.
6.1. Stiffness and damping
It was pointed out in [6870], that the section bending
stiffness in reinforced concrete (RC) members (beams,
columns, walls) is traditionally considered to be the fundamental section property, when conducting a standard
force-based (FB) seismic structural design or assessment
procedure (see, for example, [71]). For seismic design
or assessment purposes, the gross section bending modulus (Ig) may be modified by the use of simple constant
reduction factors, to account for the effect of tensile
cracking. For example, Paulay and Priestley [5] recommend values for columns that vary between 0.4 and
0.8Ig, depending on axial load level. Similarly, values of
0.30.5Ig are often assumed for structural walls.
Another concept recently highlighted by both
Priestley [2] and Paulay [72] is that the so-called elastic
stiffness is actually a non-unique section property. The
stiffness deteriorates from the initial value
(corresponding to Ig) down to a certain level defined by
the yield displacement and the yield strength. A common
method of defining yield strength is to adopt a value of
75% of the ultimate member strength. The corresponding
effective yield displacement is found to be typically in
the order of 1.52 times the displacement at incipient or
first yield of the member [2]. It has been found by the
authors [73], that for typical RC wall and column sections, the effective yield of the member (see above) may
be determined by section strain analysis, assuming the

steel reinforcement reaches a tensile strain of 1.33ey [74]
or when the maximum concrete compressive strain
reaches a value of around 2ecc (where ecc is defined as
the incipient concrete strain at first yield), whichever
occurs first. The former governs yielding of members
with low to moderate axial load ratios n, whilst the latter
governs when the axial load ratio is high, according to
the above definitions. The compressive strain 2ecc takes
values between 0.002 and 0.0024, depending on the concrete grade. This effective yield strain is smaller than the
strain ecc=0.004, as recommended by Priestley [2] in
relation to the PBSE Fully Operational (FO) Performance Level (limit state). Making empirical assumptions
concerning the location of the sections neutral axis, and
taking h=depth of section in direction of loading=hc for
columns and lw for walls, the yield curvature was computed [73] as given in Table 2, assuming HY steel bars
and concrete of Grade 45. The results for members with
low to moderate axial load ratios are very similar to
those given by Priestley [2], whilst members with high
axial load ratio are found to have yield curvature that is
reduced by 30% (walls) and 45% (columns), compared with the former case. Such differences are not
fully attributable to the bounds of 10% as stipulated
in [2]. The results for high axial load ratios somewhat
contradict Priestleys assertion that yield curvature is not
sensitive to the level of axial load ratio, although he did
not consider members with very high axial load ratio in
his assessment. This matter is worthy of further investigation.
Using a simple cantilever stick model to represent a
structural wall fixed at its base, the effective yield curvature (Table 2) may then be utilised to predict the corresponding effective yield displacement and effective yield
inter-storey drift. The effective yield displacement, y,
measured at the effective height, He, may be predicted
by the following expression [56] related to the yield curvature occurring near the base of the building:
yjy(He)2/3 (cantilever walls)
(3)
Hence, taking roof=1.7, n=2.6 (at roof level), and

Table 2
Expressions for yield curvature jya
RC members
Axial load ratio Section strain

analysis [73]
Priestley [2]
Walls
Walls
Rectangular
Columns
Rectangular
Columns
n0.3
n0.3
n0.4
0.0044/lw
0.0032/lw
0.0047/hc
0.0046/lw10%
0.0049/hc10%
n0.4
0.0026/hc
He/Hb=0.7 for wall structures and using Eq. (2a) with

e=y, and further replacing y with the expression for
walls (n0.3) from column 3 of Table 2, gives the following expression for the yield displacement at the top
(roof) level of the building:
y,roof0.0012Hb(Hb/lw) (cantilever walls)
(4a)
For walls with aspect ratio (Hb/lw) in the range 4 (midrise buildings) to 10 (high-rise), Eq. (4a) implies that the
yield displacement at roof level is in the order of 0.5
1.2% of the buildings total height. Eq. (2b) may be
used, taking n=2.6 for wall buildings, to determine the
following expression for the maximum inter-storey drift
angle at yield:
qyD0.0018(Hb/lw) (cantilever walls)
(4b)
However, it is noted that the drift angle computed

from Eq. (4b), is attributed mainly to rotation of the
walls vertical axis (implying negligible shear distortion
in the wall itself, in its upper levels, as discussed in Section 5). For wall buildings with n0.3 (Table 2), the
yield displacement and corresponding maximum drift
angle can be reduced by a factor of 0.7. The prediction
of yield displacement and drift angle for a cantilever wall
can be extended to a column, using the analogy between
the tip of the cantilever and the point of contraflexure
(POC) in a column.
The overall lateral stiffness of a structure deteriorates
from its initial value based on the un-cracked (gross)
section properties, to the reduced secant stiffness at
effective yield, as a result of tensile cracking. Thus, the
structure actually behaves non-linearly even when
responding within the notional effective yield limit. This
elastic non-linearity is then translated into hysteretic
energy loss and damping. Thus, the so-called 5% basic
damping level of seismic design codes is largely made
up of displacement-dependent hysteretic damping, as
opposed to the assumed velocity-dependent viscous
damping. It has been suggested that the actual viscous
damping in a structure can be very small [67], and the
concept is simply used to represent hysteretic energy dissipation of both the structural elements and the nonstructural components of the building. For example, a
recent study [75] involving long-term measurements of
small to moderate, wind-induced vibrations of tall buildings in Hong Kong, showed that damping levels were
only in the order of 0.20.7% of critical, under such
ambient vibrations.
6.2. Damage control limit state
HY steel reinforcement with ey=0.0023 and Grade 45 concrete

with ecc=0.0012 are assumed
a
1537
In conducting seismic structural assessment of buildings using PBSE or direct DB approaches, it is necessary
to distinguish between damage caused to non-structural
1538
components (e.g. facades, partitions, pipes, and so forth)

and damage to the structural elements (such as concrete
spalling and tensile cracking), as discussed in detail in
[2,63,69]. It is important to emphasise that the limit state
of yield and the limit state of serviceability damages are
not synonymous. Yield displacement (roof drift) of a
cantilever wall building can exceed 1% for buildings
with wall aspect ratio Hb/lw exceeding 8, as may be the
case in buildings with roof height Hb50 m (typically
15 storeys) with low to moderate axial load ratios.
Based on the reports provided in [7679], it may be
deduced that significant serviceability damages (to nonstructural components) could have occurred well below
this level of drift, with the threshold of damage to most
non-structural components being in the order of 0.2
0.5% distortional storey drift, and with mean damage
index (proportional damage) being in the range of
DI=0.40.8 at 1% drift, for most types of non-structural
component. It may be deduced that in tall buildings supported by walls, serviceability considerations are controlled mainly by the drift capacity of the non-structural
components. Interestingly, this trend is reversed in MRF
systems [63].
Some seismic codes, such as the New Zealand Standard (1992) [51], use a constant ratio to relate serviceability loading capacity to ultimate loading capacity,
with a factor of 1/6 in the NZ case. The evidence given
above indicates strongly that the factor should be much
higher in a low to moderate seismicity region, since the
margin between the serviceability limit and the ultimate
limit (see Section 6.3 for the latter) is much narrower
for non-ductile buildings.
6.3. Ultimate limit state
In determining the overall (total) deformation or displacement of a structural system, the deformation of the
individual sub-assemblages can be combined. The process involved is in several stages. Firstly, the section
strain distribution is related to section curvature, as in
Section 6.1. Secondly, the curvature is related to flexural
deformation (Section 6.1) and the rotation at plastic
hinges. Thirdly, flexural deformation and hinge rotation
are used to determine sub-assemblage deformation (from
which storey drift is computed). Finally, storey drift is
used to calculate the overall structural displacement.
From the analytical perspective, the source of the deformations can be resolved into (i) elastic flexural deformation, (ii) member shear deformation, (iii) plastic hinge
rotation, (iv) yield penetration, (v) distortion of joints
and (vi) foundation rotation. Items (i) and (ii) are normally accounted for in an elastic finite-element (FE)
model; items (iii) and (iv) have been accounted for in
some recent plastic hinge models [69,80]; item (vi) will
be taken into account only if the foundation flexibility
has been built into the model [81]; and finally item (v)
is seldom modelled (as most FE models assume a rigid

joint). It is very difficult for engineers to develop an FE
model that includes all, or even most, of the above contributions to deformation. Further, the additional effects
of tension stiffening of un-cracked concrete between two
adjacent cracks would, in itself, be very difficult to
model.
Despite the above restrictions, it is possible to develop
a straightforward manual procedure including all the
major contributions that provides reasonable predictions
of the structural deformations in the inelastic range, see
below. It would be useful to verify the developed simplified procedures against experimental results from static
push-over tests on sub-assemblages (that are representative of local construction practices). Doing this would
give engineers the confidence to extend the procedure
from the sub-assemblage level to the system level.
Fundamentally, the plastic hinge rotation capacity
(related to item (iii), above) can been related back to the
ultimate compressive strain of confined concrete (ecu)
and the ultimate tensile reinforcement strain (esu), where
ecu is a function of the volumetric ratio of the confinement steel (or stirrup spacing) and esu is a function of
the stressstrain property of the longitudinal rebar. Simplified relationships for determining these limit strains
are given as follows [2]:
ecu0.0041.4(rshfyhesuh/fcc)
(5a)
esu0.06
(5b)
in which the transverse confinement reinforcement has

volumetric ratio rsh. Further, the terms fyh, esuh and fcc
represent, respectively, the confinement reinforcement
yield strength and strain at maximum stress (the latter
may again be taken as 0.06), and the compressive
strength of the confined concrete, which may be estimated [82] as 1.5fc, where fc=cylinder compressive
strength of concrete.
It is comparatively straightforward to develop
relationships defining drift limits from specified ultimate
strain limits [Eqs. (5a) and (5b)]. For example, ultimate
inter-storey distortional drift is given by the lesser of
the following:
quscqysqspc (concrete compression)
(6a)
and qussqysqsps (reinforcement tension)
(6b)
where the inter-storey distortional yield drift qys is

determined according to the methods outlined in Section
6.1, and qspc and qsps represent the plastic (post-yield)
inter-storey drift capacities associated, respectively, with
the attainment of limit concrete compression strain or
limit reinforcement tensile strain. With reference to a
generic strain distribution diagram for rectangular section members [2], Eqs. (6a) and (6b) may be written:
quscqys(cu/cjy)lp (concrete compression)
(7a)
and qussqys(su/(dc)
(7b)
jy)lp (reinforcement tension)

where lp is the plastic hinge length defined in the literature [2], c=depth of compression zone and d=depth of
tensile reinforcement from the compression edge of the
member. The second terms on the right-hand side of Eqs.
(7a) and (7b) represent the average value of plastic
rotation at the member section (plastic hinge location),
under ultimate strain conditions, multiplied by the estimated plastic hinge length.
The principal controlling factor in the relationship
between section curvature and material strain limits is
the depth of the neutral axis of the member (=c), which
in turn is highly dependent on the level of axial compression. Whilst full evaluation of this aspect is not yet
available, it is evident from some pilot studies conducted
in relation to Hong Kong construction practice [83,84]
that buildings with compression-controlled columns having typical axial load ratio in the range 0.5n0.7 may
have ultimate drift ratio as low as 0.40.5%, due to the
acute lack of ductility capacity (curvature ductility
capacity2) provided by the very low levels of lateral
confinement reinforcement.
Notwithstanding the above, the developed relationships between strain and curvature and between curvature and hinge rotation, given above, might well have
been over-simplified, and hence do not necessarily represent reality accurately. For example, the method of
estimating inter-storey drifts as described above
accounts only for elastic flexural deformation, plastic
hinge rotation and (implicitly) yield penetration, but has
neglected member shear deformation, distortion of joints
and foundation flexibility. Furthermore, it is assumed in
developing Eqs. (7a) and (7b) that the ultimate curvature
within the plastic hinge region is uniform. In fact, the
ultimate curvature varies significantly within the length
of the hinge and hence is non-unique. Thus, the most
important quantity is the total hinge rotation, which is
the integral of the inelastic curvature along the entire
hinge length. Uniform curvature models will provide satisfactory results as long as the product of the uniform
ultimate curvature and the notional hinge length is
reasonably close to that integral. In other words, the ultimate curvature assumed in simplified calculations would
not necessarily be the same as the measured curvature
at the hinge, but adequate results may nevertheless be
obtained by the former procedure. For this reason, both
the plastic hinge length and ultimate curvature can be
very difficult to measure in practice.
The non-uniqueness in defining ultimate curvature is
not reflected in the equations found in the literature, as
cited above. For example, Eq. (5a) seems to provide a
rational basis from which to define ultimate curvature
and drift in Eq. (7a) and hence the hinge rotation
capacity. However, reality may not be so straightfor-
1539
ward. The problem is further complicated in a conventional FB design procedure, in which the so-called ultimate curvature is divided by the yield curvature to
determine the curvature ductility ratio. The difficulties
in arriving at uniform and consistent definitions of both
ultimate and yield curvatures evidently preclude any
general results from being derived from such an
approach. Often, seismic design utilising ductility factors
becomes a matter of obtaining acceptable and reasonable
results, but any precise quantification is fraught with difficulties. On the other hand, the DB approach is also
dependent on the way in which the various displacement-related factors discussed above are modelled and
incorporated into the analysis.
6.4. Final comments
Ultimately, a DB procedure involving checks on the
deformability of a structure only represents half the picture. The internal forces associated with the target deformation must be ascertained to ensure that all parts of the
structure possess sufficient strength to accommodate the
developed internal forces. An internal force check is
essential to safeguard against brittle failure mechanisms
such as member shear, failure of joints or bond failure
which can be very brittle in nature (refer [82] for a full
account). Such checks can be accomplished by a POA
that aims at bringing the structure to a targetted state of
deformation. The POA will also check that the assumed
collapse mechanism is realistic, and that no plastic hinge
is formed at unexpected locations.
A significant point is that the displacement and drift
model as described would only be valid if a definitive
collapse mechanism has been formed in the manner
determined from the POA. The concern for complications caused by the contributions of the higher modes
in high-rise buildings has been expressed in Section 5.2.
Large errors will also arise from the predictions if
additional plastic hinge(s) form somewhere at the middle
or upper levels of the building, causing significant
changes to its post-elastic displacement shape. When this
happens, the displacement of the upper part of the building (above the middle to upper plastic hinges) can be
significantly amplified by the dynamic response of the
lower part of the building. This undesirable non-ductile
system behaviour has been described as bifurcation
behaviour [85]. Bifurcation behaviour can be avoided by
providing sufficient over-strength along the height of the
lateral load resisting elements of the building, so that
major wall and column plastic hinges could only form
at the base level [86]. However, there are a lot of uncertainties associated with existing non-ductile buildings
that have not been designed in accordance with Capacity
Design or strong column-weak beam principles [5].
Note that the static POA would also not have
accounted for dynamic effects associated with the higher
1540
modes. Thus, additional dynamic factors may be

required. In the end, seismic assessment cannot be
accomplished without considering both force and deformation, which are highly complementary procedures.
The proposed DB approach begins with checking for displacement capacity and concludes with the check on
internal forces, which is the inverse of the conventional
FB procedure. The DB procedure seems more logical
than the FB procedure since seismic actions are originally induced by the ground displacement. Force, on the
other hand, is created as a result of the resistance of the
structure to the imposed displacement.
7. Recommendations and conclusions

This paper has highlighted a large number of key
issues related to the application of PBSE, particularly in
relation to low and moderate seismicity regions.
Amongst these issues, two are of particular unifying
importance, namely:
1. The current format of using Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Coefficients (PSHCs) to define earthquake
hazard does not directly address the physical process
of an earthquake event, and hence is very restrictive
for future developments in PBSE. For example, the
current procedure cannot adequately model the effects
of soil resonance, which is identified as being of particular importance in considering PBSE in low to moderate seismicity regions. Similarly, the determination
of cumulative residual drift cannot be achieved without direct reference to the demand history of an individual design earthquake event. The currently widely
used seismic hazard coefficients and the associated
UHS are based on a structure responding with a
unique natural period. This notion is now considered
out-dated, as it is increasingly understood that the
structures period can be very hard to determine and
is actually non-unique under severe ground shaking.
2. The importance of the Maximum Considered (or
Credible) Earthquake and of Distant Earthquakes has
not been adequately addressed by current seismic hazard modelling procedures, and such considerations are
particularly important for low and moderate seismicity regions.
The above two points form principal elements of the recommended Upstream Feedback, used to inform the priorities and direction of current research in Engineering
Seismology and Geology disciplines such as Seismic
Activity Modelling and Seismic Hazard Modelling, refer
Fig. 1. Such feedback is considered essential for improving the effectiveness of PBSE and its future implementation in seismic codes and in performance assessment
of existing buildings and structures.
In conclusion, the well-used phrase Probabilistic

Approach has validity in dealing with uncertainties in
earthquake engineering. But it shouldnt be taken for
granted that the Probabilistic Approach would always be
satisfactory if the uncertainties become so large that they
may not be quantifiable in a meaningful sense (for
example, the MCE in low seismic regions). The authors
preferred approach of working with a specific set of
pseudo-probabilistic earthquake MR combinations in
seismic assessment using PBSE, is sometimes criticised
as being a retrograde step, in comparison with the fully
Probabilistic Approach. It is our opinion that it should
not be judged this way, since in reality the MR combination approach has a number of key conceptual and
computational advantages as well as being a more clearcut and transparent technique. The present paper has
consistently highlighted these aspects and has presented
suggestions for revising current thinking linked to somewhat out-dated Nodal Points, to better reflect the
increased understanding of key issues and to move
towards more logical approaches to seismic performance assessment.
Because of the wide-ranging scope of the multi-disciplinary framework, effective teamwork is central to the
success in every aspect of the functioning and development of PBSE. This paper has put forward the case that
fostering effective teamwork (for research or code
developments) requires full integration across the disciplines, rather than relying on nodal points for interdisciplinary linking. Thus, contributors from different
backgrounds must keep abreast of the latest developments in all related fields of interest, in order to co-direct
all further developments towards the objective of a fully
integrated and effective system of research.
8. Introduction to references
The collection of papers presented in Ref. [1] form an
important contribution towards the better co-ordination
of new seismic design methodologies worldwide. It
places particular emphasis on Performance Based Seismic Engineering concepts and on Seismic Assessment
approaches for buildings and bridges. Numerous seismic
assessment procedures (either currently used or
proposed) are reviewed in Ref. [2], which demonstrates
the merits of the Direct Displacement Based Design Procedure. This subject is dealt with again in Ref. [54],
which provides a detailed account of the procedure,
accompanied by an illustration and verification of the
procedure in practical applications. For a seminal document see Ref. [61] which provides a very detailed stepby-step guidance to the seismic evaluation of concrete
buildings, based mainly on the use of the Capacity
Demand Diagram Method. A succinct and informative
description of the Capacity Spectrum Method which
has become increasingly popular in recent years as a tool

for seismic assessment is provided in Ref. [7]. Ref. [64]
describes the use of the Coefficient Method and the
Modified Capacity Spectrum Method in estimating displacement demand for the purpose of Performance
Based Seismic Design. Ref. [59] highlights errors associated with the use of the intuitive Demand Diagrams
recommended by ATC40 (founded on the concept of
increased viscous damping to model large-cycle inelastic
behaviour). It is proposed to adapt existing inelastic
design response spectra into the CapacityDemand Diagram format.
Ref. [4] gives an overview of the diverse range of
currently used ground motion modelling methods and
discusses the uncertainties associated with seismic hazard predictions. Engineers and non-seismologists would
find this paper very easy to read. Various aspects of seismic hazard modelling are reviewed in Ref. [21], and this
book also contains enlightening discussions on the contentious issues. Two papers should be read in conjunction with each other. They are Refs. [24,37]: Ref. [24]
introduces a recently developed approach of constructing
full-range response spectra based on Component Attenuation Modelling. Results obtained from different
approaches are compared. Then Ref. [37] describes the
development of the Component Attenuation Model to
determine response spectrum parameters. The model is
particularly useful in low and moderate seismic regions
where strong motion data is typically lacking. An innovative and simple manual method to model the effects of
soft soil resonance on the response spectrum is introduced in Ref. [47].
Ref. [62] provides very useful descriptions of the links
between material strains, curvature, plastic hinge
rotation and drift in reinforced concrete structures, while
very effective and simple definitions for the limiting curvatures of plastic hinges in reinforced concrete structural
walls are to be found in Ref. [69], which also translates
the predicted curvatures into rotations and displacements. A major contribution towards better understanding of inelastic torsional behaviour is made by Ref. [72].
It also focusses particular attention on misconceptions
and deeply embedded fallacies, and suggests the introduction of changes in seismic design strategies of such
systems. Instrumented data from buildings that experienced relatively large ground motions during the 1994
Northridge earthquake in California are reviewed in Ref.
[79]. This paper places particular emphasis on non-structural damage and on building performance in relation to
code expectations.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper has been funded by
the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong, China
1541
(Project nos HKU 7023/99E and HKU 7002/00E),

whose support is gratefully acknowledged. This paper
has also been developed as a result of a project funded
by the Australian Research Council (large grant),
entitled: Earthquake Induced Displacements for Building Structures in Australia (A10080206).
The support given by our valued colleagues at The
University of Melbourne, Dr John Wilson, Professor
Graham Hutchinson and Mark Edwards in related
research is gratefully acknowledged. Mark Edwards also
drew the attention of the authors to numerous useful
literature references related to the behaviour of concrete
structures. The support of colleague Dr Ray Su at The
University of Hong Kong, in particular his valuable contributions concerning local construction practices in
Hong Kong, is also gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, editors. Seismic design methodologies
for the next generation of codes. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1997.
[2] Priestley MJN. Performance based seismic design. Bulletin of the
New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering
2000;33(3):32546.
[3] Ambraseys NN, Simpson KA, Bommer JJ. Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe. Journal of Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1996;25:71400.
[4] Somerville P. Seismic hazard evaluation. Bulletin of the New
Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering
2000;33(3):37186.
[5] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete
and masonry buildings. New York: Wiley Interscience, 1992.
[6] Atkinson GM. Use of the uniform hazard spectrum in characterizing expected levels of seismic ground shaking. In: Proceedings
of the 6th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Toronto, 1991:46976.
[7] Freeman SA. Development and use of capacity spectrum method.
In: Proceedings of the 6th US National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Seattle (USA), 1998.
[8] Bommer JJ, Elnashai AS. Displacement spectra for seismic
design. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1999;3(1):132.
[9] Chandler AM, Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL. Response
spectrum modelling for regions lacking earthquake records. Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering 2001;1:6073.
[10] Bommer JJ, Scott SG, Sarma SK. Hazard-consistent earthquake
scenarios. Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
2000;19:21931.
[11] McGuire RK. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design
earthquakes: closing the loop. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 1995;85(5):127584.
[12] Yeats RS, Sieh K, Clarence RA. The geology of earthquales. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
[13] Cornell CA. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 1968;58:1583606.
[14] Pun WK, Ambraseys NN. Earthquake data review and seismic
hazard analysis for the Hong Kong region. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1992;23:43343.
[15] Scott DM, Pappin JW, Kwok MKY. Seismic design of buildings
in Hong Kong. Transactions of the Hong Kong Institution of
Engineers 1994;1(2):3750.
[16] Jacob KH. Scenario earthquakes for urban areas along the Atlantic seaboard of the United States. Report No. NCEER-SP-0001.
1542
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
Buffalo (NY): National Center for Earthquake Engineering

Research, 1997, pp. 6798.
Warnitchai P, Sangarayakul C, Ashford SA. Seismic hazard in
Bangkok due to distant earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the
Advances in Structural Dynamics Conference, Hong Kong, vol.
1, 2000:25764.
Chandler AM, Lam NTK. Scenario predictions for potential nearfield and far-field earthquakes affecting Hong Kong. Journal of
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2001, submitted
for publication.
Frankel AD. Mapping seismic hazard in the central and eastern
United States. Seismological Research Letters 1995;66(4):821.
Koo R, Brown A, Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Gibson G. A full range
response spectrum model for rock sites in the Melbourne Metropolitan Area. In: Proceedings of the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society Seminar, Tasmania, Paper no. 16, 2000.
Reiter L. Earthquake hazard analysis, issue and insights. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1990.
Algermissen ST. Some problems in the assessment of earthquake
hazard in the Eastern and Central United States. Buffalo, NY:
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 1997.
Lam, NTK, Chandler AM, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL. Response
spectrum predictions for potential near-field and far-field earthquakes affecting Hong Kong: rock sites. Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2001, submitted for publication.
Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Chandler AM, Hutchinson GL. Response
spectrum modelling for rock sites in low and moderate seismicity
regions combining velocity, displacement and acceleration predictions. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2000;29:1491525.
Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Earthquake spectra and design. EERI
Monograph, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, California, 1982.
Chandler AM, Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL. Review of
modern concepts in the engineering interpretation of earthquake
response spectra. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Journal of Structures and Buildings 2001;146(1):7584.
Applied Technology Council. Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings; ATC 3-06. Palo
Alto, California, USA, 1978.
European Committee for Standardisation. Eurocode EC8: Structures in seismic regions; Part 1, General design and building,
ENV 1998-1-1 (and national standards institutions in Europe),
1994.
Newmark NM, Rosenblueth E. Fundamentals of earthquake
engineering. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1971.
Sadigh K, Chang CY, Egan JA, Makdisi F, Youngs RR. Attenuation relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based on Californian Strong Motion Data. Seismological Research Letters
1997;68(1):1809.
Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE. Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from Western
North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismological Research Letters 1997;68(1):12853.
Uniform Building Code. International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, California, USA, 1997.
Atkinson GM, Boore DM. Groundmotion relations for Eastern
North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
1995;85(1):1730.
Atkinson GM, Boore DM. Evaluation of models for earthquake
source spectra in Eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1998;88(4):91737.
Atkinson GM. Earthquake source spectra in Eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
1993;83:177898.
Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL. Generation of synthetic
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
earthquake accelerograms based on the seismological model: a

review. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2000;4(3):32154.
Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Chandler AM, Hutchinson GL. Response
spectral attenuation relationships for rock sites derived from the
component attenuation model. Journal of Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 2000;29:145789.
Lam NTK, Chandler AM, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL. Seismic
hazard determination for the coastal region of South China (I):
generic crustal modeling. International Journal of Seismology and
Earthquake Engineering 1999;2(1):116.
Lam NTK, Chandler AM, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL. Seismic
hazard determination for the coastal region of South China (II):
regional crustal modeling. International Journal of Seismology
and Earthquake Engineering 2000;3(1):115.
IBC. International Code Council. International Building Code,
USA, 2000.
Borcherdt RD. Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for
design (methodology and justification). Journal of Earthquake
Spectra 1994;10:61753.
Crouse CB, McGuire JW. Site response studies for purpose of
revising NEHRP seismic provisions. Journal of Earthquake Spectra 1996;12(3):40739.
Dobry R et al. New site coefficients and site classification system
used in recent building seismic code provisions. Journal of Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(1):4167.
Romo MP, Seed HB. Analytical modeling of dynamic soil
response in the Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985. In:
Proceedings of the ASCE International Conference on the Mexico
earthquake 1985, Mexico City, 1986, pp. 14862.
Pappin JW, Lubkowski ZA, King RA. The significance of site
response effects on performance based design. In: Proceedings
of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, N.Z. Paper no. 1192, 2000.
Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB. A computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Earthquake
Engineering Research Centre report: EERC 72-12, University of
California at Berkeley, USA, 1972.
Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Chandler AM. Seismic displacement
response spectrum estimated from the Frame Analogy Soil
Amplification model. Journal of Engineering Structures 2001,
in press.
Miranda E. Evaluation of site-dependent inelastic seismic design
spectra.
Journal
of
Structural
Engineering,
ASCE
1993;119(5):131938.
Miranda E, Bertero VV. Evaluation of strength reduction factors
for earthquake resistant design. Journal of Earthquake Spectra
1994;10(2):35779.
Lu Y, Hao H, Carydis PG, Mouzakis H. Seismic performance of
RC frames designed for three different ductility levels. Journal
of Engineering Structures 2001;23(5):53747.
New Zealand Standard NZS 4203. Code of practice for general
structural design and design loadings for buildings. Standards
New Zealand, 1994.
Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Journal of Engineering Structures
2001;23:40724.
Priestley MJN. Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering
conflicts between design and reality. Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1993;26(3):32941.
Priestley MJN, Kowalsky MJ. Direct displacement-based seismic
design of concrete buildings. Bulletin of the New Zealand
Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover
analysis for seismic performance evaluation. Journal of Engineering Structures 1998;20(46):45264.
Calvi GM, Pavese A. Displacement based design of building
structures. In: Conference on European Seismic Design Practice,
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
Research and Application, Chester, UK. Rotterdam: Balkema,

1995:12732.
Freeman SA. Prediction of response of concrete buildings to severe earthquake motion. In: Proceedings of the Douglas McHenry
International Symposium on Concrete and Concrete Structures,
SP-55. Detroit, MI: American Concrete Institute, 1978:589605.
Comartin CD, Niewiarowski RW, Freeman SA, Turner FM. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings: a practical overview of the ATC-40 document. Journal of Earthquake Spectra
2000;16(1):24162.
Chopra AK, Goel RK. Capacity-spectrum-demand methods based
on inelastic design spectrum. Journal of Earthquake Spectra
1999;15(4):63756.
Peter K, Badoux M. Application of the capacity spectrum method
to R.C. buildings with bearing walls. In: Proceedings of the 12th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, Paper
no. 0609, 2000.
ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings,
vols. 1&2. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council,
1996.
Moehle JP. Analysis and design of concrete columns for confinement. Journal of Earthquake Spectra 1992;8(3):40328.
Mayes R. Interstory drift design and damage control issues. Journal of the Structural Design of Tall Buildings 1995;4:1525.
Whittaker A, Constantinou M, Tsopelas P. Displacement estimates for performance-based seismic design. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1998;124(8):90512.
Shibata A, Sozen MA. Substitute-structure method for seismic
design in R/C. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE
1976;102:118.
Edwards M, Wilson JL, Lam NTK, Hutchinson GL. The displacement-based approach from an intraplate perspective. In: Proceedings of the Australasian Structural Engineering Conference,
Auckland, 1998:71320.
Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures, theory and applications to
earthquake engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1995.
Priestley MJN. Brief comments on elastic flexibility of reinforced
concrete frames and significance to seismic design. Bulletin of
the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering
1998;31(4):24659.
Priestley MJN, Kowalsky MJ. Aspects of drift and ductility
capacity of rectangular cantilever wall structures. Bulletin of the
New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering
1998;31(2):7385.
Wallace JW. Displacement-based design of RC structural walls.
In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, vol. 3, 1994:153944.
Park R. A static force-based procedure for the seismic assessment
of existing R/C moment resisting frames. In: Proceedings of the
1996 Technical Conference of the New Zealand National Society
for Earthquake Engineering, Plymouth, New Zealand, 1996:54
67.
1543
[72] Paulay T. Understanding torsional phenomena in ductile systems.

Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Engineering 2000;33(4):40320.
[73] Chandler AM, Su RKL, Lam NTK. Review of displacementbased seismic assessment of building structures. Joint internal
report, Department of Civil Engineering of The University of
Hong Kong and The University of Melbourne, 2001.
[74] Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL. Seismic evaluation of
building structures in Australia. In: Proceedings of the Australasian Structural Engineering Conference, Auckland, NZ,
1998:72734.
[75] Wong CK. Identification of non-linear damping of tall buildings
by the random decrement technique. Ph.D. thesis, City University
of Hong Kong. Kowloon, Hong Kong, 2000.
[76] Freeman SA. Racking tests of high-rise building partitions. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 1977;103(8):167385.
[77] Mayes R. Interstory drift: design and damage control issues. In:
Proceedings of the Seminar on Nonstructural Components:
Design and Detailing. Structural Engineers Association of Northern California, 1993.
[78] Beattie, GJ. The design of building services for earthquake resistance. In: Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand. Paper no. 2462,
2000.
[79] Naeim F. Learning from structural and non-structural seismic performance of 20 extensively instrumented buildings. In: Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Auckland, New Zealand. Paper no. 217, 2000.
[80] Bonacci JF, Wight JK. Displacement-based assessment of
reinforced concrete frames in earthquakes. ACI Special Publication nos 1626, 1995:11738.
[81] Wolf JP. Dynamic soilstructure interaction. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1985.
[82] Priestley MJN. Direct displacement seismic assessment of existing reinforced concrete buildings. Bulletin of the New Zealand
[83] Lam SSE, Wu B, Wong YL, Chau KT. Ultimate drift ratio of
rectangular reinforced concrete column in Hong Kong. In: International Conference on Advances in Structural Dynamics (ASD
2000). Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2000:8918.
[84] Su RKL, Chandler AM, Lam NTK, Li JH. Seismic assessment
of transfer plate high-rise buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2001, submitted for publication.
[85] Chen C, Lam NTK, Mendis P. The bifurcation behaviour of vertically irregular buildings in low seismicity regions. In: Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Auckland, NZ, Paper no. 1625 (PS1-M), 2000.
[86] Park R. Seismic behaviour and design of reinforced concrete
structures for earthquake resistance. In: International Conference
on Advances in Structural Dynamics (ASD 2000). Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, 2000:95107.

Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Engineering: A Multidisciplinary Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Engineering: A Multidisciplinary Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: a multidisciplinary review

, Nelson T.K. Lam

Major seismic events during the past decade, such as

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

of engineered buildings, bridges, industrial and port

poses. Secondly, the PHSCs are used to determine the

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

hazard parameter or PSHC by a process that considers

are highlighted. The disciplines will be considered

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

2. Engineering seismology and geology (seismic

with the mapping of significant historical earthquake

2.2. Modelling in areas of low or moderate seismic

In areas of low or moderate seismic activity

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

Sitesource distance R (km)

the probability of a small/moderate magnitude M=56

2.5. Distant earthquakes

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

nations (with equal PE), based on the uniform circular

ling strategy was first proposed in 1978 by the Applied

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

shortcomings, particularly the latter, have direct relevance to PBSE.

within an intraplate region. For example, the regional

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

related with Standard Penetration Test Blow Counts, or

warnings of resonance between the soil and the structure,

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

escape at the soilrock boundary. Consequently, most of

Structural dynamics deals with the estimation of the

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

5.2. Estimating displacement and inter-storey drifts

sistent with the level of displacement demand for the

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

where Hb is the total (roof) height of the building.

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

Standard (1992) [51] and associated literature state

mic hazard should be considered as an earthquake event,

6. Mechanics of materials (concrete used as

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

be determined by section strain analysis, assuming the

Hence, taking roof=1.7, n=2.6 (at roof level), and

Axial load ratio Section strain

He/Hb=0.7 for wall structures and using Eq. (2a) with

However, it is noted that the drift angle computed

HY steel reinforcement with ey=0.0023 and Grade 45 concrete

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

components (e.g. facades, partitions, pipes, and so forth)

is seldom modelled (as most FE models assume a rigid

in which the transverse confinement reinforcement has

and qussqysqsps (reinforcement tension)

where the inter-storey distortional yield drift qys is

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

jy)lp (reinforcement tension)

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

modes. Thus, additional dynamic factors may be

7. Recommendations and conclusions

In conclusion, the well-used phrase Probabilistic

A.M. Chandler, N.T.K. Lam / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 15251543

has become increasingly popular in recent years as a tool

(Project nos HKU 7023/99E and HKU 7002/00E),