See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222796972

Performance-based design in earthquake

engineering: State of development

Article in Engineering Structures August 2001

DOI: 10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00036-0

CITATIONS READS

166 2,689

1 author:

Ahmed Ghobarah
McMaster University
125 PUBLICATIONS 2,639 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Ghobarah on 04 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 878884
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Review Article
Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of
development
*
Ahmed Ghobarah
Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L7

Received 28 February 2001; received in revised form 17 March 2001; accepted 17 March 2001

Abstract

The design objectives in current building codes address life safety, control damage in minor and moderate earthquakes, and
prevent collapse in a major earthquake. However, the actual reliability of the design in achieving the objectives is not known. There
is a general agreement among researchers and professionals that future seismic design needs to be based on achieving stated multiple
performance objectives. Future seismic design practice will be based on explicit performance criteria that can be quantified, consider-
ing multiple performance and hazard levels.
There are several challenges to be addressed before procedures for performance-based design can be widely accepted. The
development in performance-based design in seismic engineering will be directed towards the definition of performance objectives,
a general design methodology, issues of ground motion modeling, and demand and capacity evaluations. 2001 Elsevier Science
Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Performance based-design; Performance objectives; Earthquake hazard; Design criteria; Design procedures; Evaluation; Challenges;
Future trends

1. Introduction formance-based design is a more general design philo-

In several countries, seismic design is in the process
of fundamental change. One important reason for the
need for change is that although buildings designed to
current codes performed well during recent earthquakes
such as the 1994 M6.7 Northridge and 1995 M7.2 Han-
shinAwaji (Kobe) earthquakes from a life safety per-
spective, the level of damage to structures, economic
loss due to loss of use, and cost of repair were unexpec-
tedly high.
Conventional methods of seismic design have the
objectives to provide for life safety (strength and
ductility) and damage control (serviceability drift limits).
The design criteria are defined by limits on stresses and
member forces calculated from prescribed levels of
applied lateral shear force. In the current code design
procedures, there are uncertainties concerning the seis-
mic demand and seismic capacity of the structure. Per-
* Tel.: +1-905-525-9140 ext. 24913; fax: +1-905-529-9688.
E-mail address: ghobara@mcmaster.ca (A. Ghobarah).
sophy in which the design criteria are expressed in terms
of achieving stated performance objectives when the
structure is subjected to stated levels of seismic hazard.
The performance targets may be a level of stress not to
be exceeded, a load, a displacement, a limit state or a
target damage state.
The idea of designing the structure based on perform-
ance objective is not new. A limit state is a form of
performance objective. Target displacement was first
applied as the response parameter of a substitute single-
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system [1]. The structural
response in terms of displacement can be related to
strain-based limit state, which in turn is assumed to be
related to the level of damage. For a defined performance
of a structure in terms of a state of damage, strain and
deformation give better indicators of damage than
stresses [2]. The use of serviceability limit strains
enables a consistent level of assessment to be achieved.
To reduce the high costs associated with loss of use and
repair of heavily damaged structures, different levels of
performance objectives need to be considered. In effect,
performance based-design is a powerful new approach

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 3 6 - 0
 A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 878884
that includes traditional methods of seismic design with
significant upgrades.
There have been different interpretations of what is
meant by performance-based design [35]. The most
appropriate definition is that performance-based design
refers to the methodology in which structural design cri-
teria are expressed in terms of achieving a set of per-
formance objectives. The state of practice and trends in
performance-based design and performance evaluations
were discussed in several recent articles [612].
Performance-based design and displacement-based
design have been used interchangeably. This is based on
the idea that performance objectives can be related to
the level of damage to the structure, which in turn can
be related to displacements and drift. However, this
assumption is an oversimplification since the level of
damage is influenced by several other parameters such as
the accumulation and distribution of structural damage,
failure mode of elements and components, the number
of cycles and duration of the earthquake, and the acceler-
ation levels as in the case of secondary systems. An
attempt to develop a procedure to correlate damage of
various structural systems to drift, taking into account
various ground motion characteristics, was made through
the use of a damage index [13]. For effective design
criteria, the correlation between damage and drift must
be calibrated against the performance of structures in
actual earthquakes. In fact, displacement-based design
may be thought of as a subset of performance-based
design. The performance target can be any response
parameter attached to a certain threshold. A single
design parameter such as displacement or drift may not
adequately control all performance objectives for struc-
tural and nonstructural systems [14]. For example, force-
or stress-based criteria are more appropriate for short
period structures, when trying to achieve pre-yield limit
state, than displacement-based criteria.
Performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) is
a more encompassing concept that includes design,
evaluation and construction engineering [15]. The
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center
has PBEE as its principal focus for research and devel-
opment. Some progress has been made over the past
three years in the development of a global framework
and in various research aspects.
The general methodology for performance-based
design may include various approaches. In one approach,
traditional force-based analysis is conducted and, after
the design is completed, the deformation and damage
may be estimated and checked against established dis-
placement limits. Other approaches may start by estab-
lishing the displacement or drift associated with a certain
performance, proportion the structure and then conduct
the response analysis [16,17].
The objective of this study is to evaluate the state of
development of performance-based design, present a
879
summary of trends and challenges, and review the most
important contributions in the field.
2. State of development
There is increasing agreement among researchers and
professionals that future seismic design needs to be
based on achieving multiple performance objectives.
However, there are divergent viewpoints on the meaning
of performance-based design and its methods of
implementation. Three documents are credited with lay-
ing the foundation for performance-based design con-
cepts: SEAOC Vision 2000 [3]; ATC 40 [4]; and FEMA
273 and 274 [5]. The documents attempted to develop
procedures that can be used as seismic provisions in
building codes.
The goal of SEAOC Vision 2000 [3] is to develop the
framework for procedures that lead to design of struc-
tures of predictable seismic performance and is able to
accommodate multiple performance objectives. The
document presents the concepts and addresses the per-
formance levels for structural and nonstructural systems.
Five performance levels are described with specified
limits of transient and permanent drift. It is suggested
that capacity design principles should be applied to guide
the inelastic response analysis of the structure and to
designate the ductile links or forces in the lateral-force-
resisting system. Possible design approaches include
various elastic and inelastic analysis procedures such as:
(1) conventional force and strength methods; (2) dis-
placement-based design; (3) energy approaches; and (4)
prescriptive design approaches.
In the Applied Technology Council ATC 40 document
[4], performance-based design refers to the methodology
in which structural criteria are expressed in terms of
achieving a performance objective. The document is lim-
ited to concrete buildings and emphasizes the use of the
capacity spectrum method. The procedure involves
determining the capacity and demand spectra. To con-
struct the capacity spectrum, the forcedisplacement
curve of a point on the structure is determined using
nonlinear static (pushover) analysis. The forces and dis-
placements are converted to spectral accelerations and
spectral displacements using an equivalent SDOF sys-
tem. The demands of the earthquake are defined by
highly damped elastic spectra. At the performance point,
the seismic capacity is assumed equal to the demand,
which provides an estimate of acceleration (strength) and
displacement (demand). The probability of occurrence of
the earthquake may be related to the risk of occurrence
of the associated damage state. Not all the components
of the procedure are well established. For example, an
attempt was made to develop relationships between duc-
tility and damping using perfect, hardening and softening
models [18]; however, further research and development
880 A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 878884

are required. Although the capacity spectrum is simple, Table 1

the theoretical basis and physical interpretations are
questionable [3,6].
The Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA
273 document [5] presents a variety of performance
objectives with associated probabilistic ground motions.
Analysis and design methods for the multi-level per-
formance range from linear static to inelastic time his-
tory analysis. The document defines performance levels
for nonstructural elements and systems and proposes
drift limits for various lateral-load-resisting structural
systems at different performance levels.
An action plan for the development of new design
procedures and guidelines, directed towards the estab-
lishment of performance-based seismic design for new
buildings and the upgrading of existing buildings, was
proposed [19]. The action plan outlines studies needed
to define performance goals; development of design
guidelines and commentary; and conduct of cost/benefit
case studies.
A workshop on performance-based design for the
future generation of codes produced a valuable collec-
tion of 36 focused research articles [20]. The articles in
this important document address concepts, philosophy,
design methodologies and various applications of per-
formance-based design.
Recent studies investigated the application of per-
formance-based design to specific structural systems
such as concrete [16,21] and steel [22] moment-resisting
frames; structural walls [16,23,24]; bridge columns [25];
flat slab systems [26]; and lifeline electric utility build-
ings [27]. An interesting comparison was made between
force-based and displacement-based assessments with
the application of displacement-based seismic assess-
ment methodology to reinforced concrete structures [16].
Performance levels, corresponding damage state and drift limits
Performance level [35] Damage state Drift [3]
Fully operational, Immediate
No damage 0.2%
occupancy
Operational, Damage control,
Repairable 0.5%
Moderate
Life safe Damage state Irreparable 1.5%
Near collapse, Limited safety,
Severe 2.5%
Hazard reduced
Collapse 2.5%
quantitative estimates of driftdamage relationships. In
addition, design criteria that apply to various parameters
may be required by different performance objectives. To
implement performance-based design, there is a need for
consensus on the number and definition of performance
levels, associated damage states, and design criteria.
Structural system performance can also be quantified
using a reliable damage index such as that based on dis-
placement ductility and hysteretic energy [13,28]. The
performance of the contents of the structure and second-
ary systems may be quantified using damage indices
based on different parameters such as floor acceler-
ation levels.
Performance levels are associated with earthquake
hazard and design levels. Some of the proposed earth-
quake hazard levels are listed in Table 2.
There are unresolved issues concerning the need to
improve our quantitative understanding of site-specific
ground motion characteristics, their likely effects on
structures, and some aspects of near-field effects. This
research will lead to reduced uncertainties and the devel-
opment of improved procedures for prediction of seis-
mic demands.

3. Performance objectives
4. Design evaluation
Performance objectives are statements of acceptable
performance of the structure. The performance target can Acceptable procedures for design evaluation include:
be specified limits on any response parameter such as (1) elastic analysis; (2) component-based elastic analysis
stresses, strains, displacements, accelerations, etc. It is procedure; (3) simplified nonlinear analysis methods;
appealing to express the performance objective in terms
of a specific damage state or the probability of failure Table 2
against a prescribed probability demand level [3,13]. Proposed earthquake hazard levels
Various documents [35] promote the same concepts but
differ in detail and specify different performance levels. Return
Earthquake frequency period in Probability of exceedance
Some of the suggested performance levels can be years
grouped in equivalent categories as listed in Table 1.
It is recognized that drift levels associated with spe- Frequent 43 50% in 30 years
cific damage categories may vary considerably with the Occasional 72 50% in 50 years
structural system and construction material. An attempt Rare 475 10% in 50 years
5% in 50 years or 10% in
was made to define drift levels for different structural Very rare 970
100 years
systems and materials [3]. However, more research is Extremely rare 2475 2% in 50 years
needed, particularly in the development of realistic and
 A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 878884
and (4) dynamic nonlinear time history analysis. Simpli-
fied nonlinear analysis methods are based on pushover
analysis to determine capacity and on design spectrum
to represent demand. Some of the recent developments
include inelastic spectra [29], yield point spectra [30]
and the N2 method [31]. At each design step, design
evaluations may involve response parameters such as the
stresses, drift and deformation, structural accelerations,
ductility demand ratios, and energy dissipation in terms
of demand versus capacity. Typical limiting values for
these response parameters need to be established for
each performance level through research including lab-
oratory testing of specific components. The limiting
values may be calibrated by analyzing buildings that
have experienced measurable damage in seismic events
for which strong motion records are available.
The most realistic verification process is the prediction
of deformation and forces from inelastic time history
analysis. For the analysis to be reliable and credible, it
is necessary to ensure that:
appropriate site-specific ground motion with specified
hazard level can be generated with confidence;
the structural model is realistic;
the cyclic loaddeformation model for each element
is representative of the behavior;
analysis procedures and interpretation tools are
reliable; and
identification of modes and sequence of element and
component failure are also realistic.
The static nonlinear pushover analysis may provide
much of the needed information. In the pushover analy-
sis, the structure is loaded with a predetermined or adapt-
ive lateral load pattern and is pushed statically to target
displacement at which performance of the structure is
evaluated [32,33]. The target displacements are esti-
mates of global displacement expected due to the design
earthquake corresponding to the selected performance
level. Recent studies addressed limitations of the pro-
cedure [34] and the selection of lateral load distribution
including adaptive techniques to account for the contri-
bution of higher modes in long period structures [35].
5. Challenges and future trends
There are several challenges to be addressed before
procedures for performance-based design can be agreed
upon and generally accepted. These challenges are in the
areas of design criteria; probabilistic characterization of
capacity and performance; development of general
design procedures for multi-performance and hazard lev-
els; and analysis and modeling of the inelastic behavior
of structures for the realistic determination of transient
and residual deformations. Although several documents
881
[35] attempted to provide procedures that can be used
as seismic provisions of building codes, these develop-
ments require much supporting research in several areas
[20,36]. Some of the cited reasons are the current limited
ability to accurately predict deformation demands and to
accurately predict the inelastic building behavior [37].
There are several sources of uncertainties inherent in
the performance-based design process. The expectation
that the approach will produce structures with predict-
able performance may be only achieved in probabilis-
tic terms.
5.1. Design criteria
A fundamental question in performance-based design
is to validate the appropriateness of the selected per-
formance levels, the specific parameters used to define
their minimum performance, and the seismic hazard
definitions. For the case of three performance levels
(serviceability, damage control and life safety or collapse
prevention), three corresponding structural character-
istics (stiffness, strength and deformation capacity)
dominate the performance as illustrated in Fig. 1. If more
intermediate performance levels are selected, then it
becomes difficult to define which structural character-
istics dominate the performance. It can be argued that
different performance objectives may impose conflicting
demands on strength and stiffness [13]. Much research
is needed to associate the displacement or drift limits
with the damage states and the stated general perform-
ance objectives. The displacements or drift limits are
also functions of the structural system and its ability to
deform (ductility). Design criteria may be established on
the basis of observation and experimental data of defor-
mation capacity. For example, near the collapse point,
the drift limits of structural walls are different from a
moment-resisting frame, which suggest that different
structural systems will undergo unequal displacements.
Other issues related to the damage evaluation are the
Fig. 1. Typical performance curve for the structure.
882 A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 878884

quantification of the relationship between building resto-
ration time/costs and earthquake hazard level. It is of
interest to identify the damage level at which building
restoration becomes impractical, which represents the
state of irreparable damage.
of element damage. Nonlinear static pushover analysis
coupled with new methods (other than SDOF-based
spectra) to determine demand, or nonlinear inelastic
dynamic analysis, may provide a more reliable predic-
tion of the performance.

5.2. Design methodology

A major challenge to performance-based design is to 6. Conclusions

develop an efficient and effective general methodology
for the design of structures at multiple performance and
There is general agreement that future seismic design
hazard levels. Improved procedures are needed for the
needs to be based on defined multiple performance
assessment of strength and deformation capacities of
objectives and associated earthquake hazard levels. The
structural elements, components and systems at all per-
advantage of performance-based design is the possibility
formance levels. Addressing multiple performance
of achieving predictable seismic performance with uni-
objectives will require more complex and time-consum-
form risk. However, the reliability of the approach may
ing analytical techniques to evaluate the building per-
ultimately depend on the development of explicit and
formance to more than one earthquake demand level.
quantifiable performance criteria that can be related to
This is expected to increase building development and
the response parameters (which can be calculated) such
design cost. These analysis procedures need to be cali-
as stresses, strains, displacements, accelerations and
brated and their adequacy verified [38]. Eventually, con-
their derivatives.
sideration needs to be given to the complete soilfoun-
The developments in performance-based design in
dationstructure system, all nonstructural systems and
seismic engineering will be directed towards a general
components and the building contents. Appropriate
design methodology that permits performance-based
acceptance criteria for site performance in terms of per-
design at multiple performance and hazard levels, and
missible foundation settlements, lateral spreading,
with due consideration given to the complete soilfoun-
liquefaction and faulting will need to be established for
dationstructure system, nonstructural systems and
each performance objective.
components and the building contents.
The framework for a unified seismic design approach
5.3. Deformation-controlled design
could be based on performance-based design concepts
for multiple performance levels. However, much
The most suitable approach to achieve the objectives
research and development remain to be done before such
of performance-based seismic design with displacement-
a design methodology can be implemented.
based performance objectives appears to be the defor-
mation-controlled design approach. It is anticipated that
deformation-controlled design will be implemented in
future codes, both by enhancing force-based design
7. Introduction to references
through verification of deformation targets and by the
development of direct deformation-based design pro-
cedures [16,17]. The following references are of outstanding interest:
Computer tools are needed to predict the inelastic
dynamic response of complex structures. Extensive
A comprehensive framework for performance-based
efforts are believed to be necessary to develop versatile
design procedures to achieve multi-performance
and robust, yet efficient, numerical standard programs to
objectives is detailed in Ref. [3].
simulate seismic response of three-dimensional struc-
Ref. [5] deals with multi-level performance with asso-
tures taking into account various nonlinearities. It is
ciated probabilistic earthquake ground motion and a
necessary that these tools be design-oriented rather than
variety of performance objectives. Analysis method-
research-oriented.
ologies range from linear static to inelastic time his-
The general design methodology may have to go
tory.
beyond the methods that assume a single-degree-of-free-
A workshop on performance-based design and the
dom representation of the structure. This assumption
future code developments produced a valuable collec-
results in severe restrictions on the reliability of the esti-
tion of 36 focused research articles, and this is listed
mated performance. At the risk of sacrificing simplicity,
as Ref. [20].
it is important to obtain a good estimate of the local
displacements within the structure, take higher-mode
effects into consideration, and account for the sequence Refs. [4,14,16] are also of special interest.
 A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 878884
Acknowledgements
The author is thankful and indebted to Professor A.S.
Elnashai of Imperial College, UK; Professor P. Fajfar
of the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Professor H.
Krawinkler of Stanford University, USA; and Professor
W.K. Tso of McMaster University, Canada, for their
time and effort to review the manuscript and for their
valuable comments and insight. Their contribution to this
study is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Shibata A, Sozen M. Substitute structure method for seismic
design in reinforced concrete. J Struct Div, ASCE
1976;102(1):118.
[2] Moehle JP. Displacement-based seismic design criteria. In: Pro-
ceedings of 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Acapulco, Mexico. Paper no. 2125. Oxford: Pergamon, 1996.
[3] SEAOC. Vision 2000, Performance based seismic engineering of
buildings, vols. I and II: Conceptual framework. Sacramento
(CA): Structural Engineers Association of California, 1995.
[4] ATC 40, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing concrete
buildings. Redwood City (CA): Applied Technology Council,
1996.
[5] FEMA 273, NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings; FEMA 274, Commentary. Washington (DC): Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 1996.
[6] Krawinkler H. New trends in seismic design methodology. In:
Proceedings of 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engin-
eering, Vienna, Austria, vol. 2. Rotterdam: AA Balkema,
1995:82130.
[7] Bertero V. State of the art report on: design criteria. In: Proceed-
ings of 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Aca-
pulco, Mexico. Paper no. 2005. Oxford: Pergamon, 1996.
[8] Hamburger RO. Implementing performance-based seismic design
in structural engineering practice. In: Proceedings of 11th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico. Paper
no. 2121. Oxford: Pergamon, 1996.
[9] Rojahn C, Whittaker A. Proposed framework for performance-
based design of new buildings. In: Proceedings of 6th US
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Oakland (CA):
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1998 [CD-Rom].
[10] Fajfar P. Trends in seismic design and performance evaluation
approaches. In: Proceedings of 11th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering. Rotterdam: AA Balkema, 1998:23749.
[11] Tassios TP. Seismic design: state of practice. In: Proceedings of
11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Rotter-
dam: AA Balkema, 1998:25567.
[12] Priestley MJN. Displacement-based approaches to rational limit
states design of new structures. In: Proceedings of 11th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Rotterdam: AA Balk-
ema, 1998:31735.
[13] Ghobarah A, Aly NM, El-Attar M. Performance level criteria and
evaluation. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, editors. Seismic Design
Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes. Rotterdam: AA
Balkema, 1997:20715.
[14] Krawinkler H. A few basic concepts for performance based seis-
mic design. In: Proceedings of 11th World Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico. Paper no. 1133. Oxford:
Pergamon, 1996.
[15] Bertero V. Performance-based seismic engineering: a critical
review of proposed guidelines. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, edi-
883
tors. Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of
Codes. Rotterdam: AA Balkema, 1997:131.
[16] Priestley MJN. Displacement-based seismic assessment of
reinforced concrete buildings. J Earthquake Eng 1997;1(1):157
92.
[17] Bachmann H, Dazio A. A deformation-based seismic design pro-
cedure for structural wall buildings. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H,
editors. Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation
of Codes. Rotterdam: AA Balkema, 1997:15970.
[18] Borzi B, Elnashai AS. Assessment of inelastic response of build-
ings using force- and displacement-based approaches. Struct
Design Tall Bldgs 2000;9(4):25177.
[19] FEMA-283, Performance based seismic design of buildings: an
action plan for future studies. Washington (DC): Federal Emerg-
ency Management Agency, 1996.
[20] Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, editors. Seismic Design Methodologies
for the Next Generation of Codes. Rotterdam: AA Balkema,
1997.
[21] Heidebrecht AC, Naumoski ND. Development application of dis-
placement-based design approach for moment-resisting frame
structures. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, editors. Seismic Design
Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes. Rotterdam: AA
Balkema, 1997:21728.
[22] Mazzolani FM, Piluso V. A simple approach for evaluating per-
formance levels of moment-resisting steel frames. In: Fajfar P,
Krawinkler H, editors. Seismic Design Methodologies for the
Next Generation of Codes. Rotterdam: AA Balkema,
1997:24152.
[23] Sasani M. Two level performance-based design of reinforced
concrete structural walls. In: Proceedings of 6th US National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Oakland (CA): Earth-
quake Engineering Research Institute, 1998, [CD-Rom].
[24] Munshi JA, Ghosh SK. Seismic performance of coupled wall sys-
tem designed by displacement based approach. In: Proceedings of
6th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Oakland
(CA): Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1998, [CD-
Rom].
[25] Taylor AW, Stone WC. Performance-based seismic design of
reinforced concrete bridge columns. In: Proceedings of 5th US
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 1. Oakland
(CA): Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1994:45968.
[26] Nikolic-Brzev S, Stojadimovic B. Performance-based seismic
evaluation of concrete flat slab structures. In: Proceedings of 8th
Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver:
Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering, 1999:4338.
[27] Harris SP, Herman K. Performance-based seismic upgrading of
lifeline electric utility buildings using probabilistic risk assess-
ment methods. In: Proceedings of 6th US National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering. Oakland (CA): Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, 1998, [CD-Rom].
[28] Cosenza E, Manfredi G. The improvement of the seismic resistant
design for existing and new structures using damage concepts.
In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, editors. Seismic Design Method-
ologies for the Next Generation of Codes. Rotterdam: AA Balk-
ema, 1997:11930.
[29] Reinhorn AM. Inelastic analysis techniques in seismic evalu-
ations. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, editors. Seismic Design Meth-
odologies for the Next Generation of Codes. Rotterdam: AA Bal-
kema, 1997:27787.
[30] Aschheim M. Yield point spectra for seismic design and rehabili-
tation. Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(2):31735.
[31] Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based
seismic design. Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(3):57392.
[32] Tso WK, Moghadam A. Pushover procedure for seismic analysis
of buildings. Prog Struct Eng Mater 1998;1(3):33744.
[33] Ghobarah A. Seismic assessment of existing structures. Prog
Struct Eng Mater 2000;2(1):6071.
884 A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 878884
[34] Krawinkler H. Pushover analysis: why, how, when and when not
to use it. In: Proceedings of 65th Annual Convention of the Struc-
tural Engineers Association of California, Maui (Hawaii). Sacre-
mento (CA): Structural Engineers Association of California,
1996:736.
[35] Mwafi AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic col-
lapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng Struct 2001;23(5):40724.
[36] Freeman SA. Trying to define performance-based seismic engin-
eering: is there a consensus? In: Proceedings of 8th Canadian
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver: Canadian
Association for Earthquake Engineering, 1999:4959.
View publication stats
[37] Paret TF, Saki KK, Freeman SA. Performance-based engineering:
can the engineering profession deliver the goods? In: Proceedings
of 6th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Oak-
land (CA): Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1998,
[CD-Rom].
[38] Poland CD, Derrick BH. Opportunities and pitfalls of perform-
ance based seismic engineering. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, edi-
tors. Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of
Codes. Rotterdam: AA Balkema, 1997:6978.