Proceedings of the 8th U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

April 18-22, 2006, San Francisco, California, USA
Paper No. 1448

AN APPLICATION OF PEER PERFORMANCE-BASED EARTHQUAKE

ENGINEERING METHODOLOGY
T.Y. Yang1, J. Moehle2, B. Stojadinovic3 and A. Der Kiureghian3
ABSTRACT
Earthquake engineering has evolved from a set of prescriptive provisions,
indirectly aimed at providing life safety, to performance-based approaches with
direct consideration of a range of performance objectives. Performance-based
approaches have several advantages, including more comprehensive consideration
of the various performance metrics that might be of interest to stakeholders, more
direct methods for computing performance, and involvement of stakeholders in
deciding acceptability. Whereas engineers are familiar with performance
measures such as drift, acceleration, strain, and perhaps damage state, many
decision-makers prefer performance metrics that relate more directly to business
decisions, such as downtime or repair costs. An engineering challenge has been to
consistently consider seismic hazard, structural response, and resulting damage
and consequences, so that a fully probabilistic statement of expected performance
can be made.
A rigorous yet practical approach to performance-based earthquake engineering
has been pursued and demonstrated through an example building. The approach
considers the seismic hazard, structural response, resulting damage, and repair
costs associated with restoring the building to its original condition, using a fully
consistent, probabilistic analysis of the associated parts of the problem. The
approach could be generalized to consider other performance measures such as
casualties and down time, though these have not been pursued at this time. The
procedure is organized to be consistent with conventional building design,
construction, and analysis practices so that it can be readily incorporated as a
design approach. Sample results demonstrate the expected repair costs and their
distribution among various building components, illustrating how the results
could be used to guide decisions about investment or about structural design.
Introduction
Traditional structural engineering design focuses on adherence to a set of technologies
and prescribed means as an indirect way of achieving acceptable building performance. The
means usually are prescribed by the governing building code, using engineering criteria that
relate to quantities such as strain, strength, and lateral drift. Future performance is largely an
undefined byproduct of the design. Performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) focuses
1

Graduate Research Assistant, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Professor and Director, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
3
Professor, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
2

on the achievement of specified results rather than adherence to prescribed means. In a rigorous
application of PBEE, the final output is a probabilistic quantitative description of the seismic
performance of a structure using metrics that are of immediate use to engineers and other
stakeholders.
A challenge has been to implement PBEE in a way that is rigorous yet compatible with
common design, construction, and analysis procedures. Compatibility is desirable to foster
adoption of PBEE. A study was conducted of the procedures by which building construction
information is organized and by which advanced design is conducted today. A PBEE
methodology was devised consistent with this approach. The procedure was implemented in an
example building, thereby illustrating its main parts, its data needs, and the potential utility of its
results. In the implementation described here, the performance metric was the cost to repair the
structure to its original condition given earthquake damage, though other performance metrics
can be obtained by similar procedures. To maximize the usefulness of the results, a consistent
probabilistic analysis was conducted so risk of repair costs could be expressed probabilistically.
Building Description
To illustrate the PBEE methodology, a prototype building near the University of
California, Berkeley campus is designed and modeled. The prototype building is a three story
office building with regular floor plan as shown in Fig. 1.
SMRF

SMRF
SMRF

SMRF

Z
Y

Figure 1. Prototype building and the typical floor plan.

To ensure the prototype building represents a realistic design for the building site, the
structure was designed according to the 2003 edition of the International Building Code (IBC
2003) by local practicing engineers. The lateral force resisting system consists of four steel
special moment resisting frames (SMRFs) located around the perimeter of the building. The
remainder of the building comprises floor slabs and beams pinned to gravity columns. With
two axes of symmetry and rigid diaphragm assumption, the dynamic response of the building can
be analyzed using a two-dimensional analytical model (frames lining up in series). For this
simplified example, only the results in the global X direction are presented.
The building is assumed to be situated on soil site class B. The foundations of the
building are modeled as pinned for the gravity frame and the SMRF in the global Y direction.
The foundation of the SMRF is modeled as fixed for loading in the global X direction. The
beam-column connection in the SMRF is modeled with a rigid connection. For the gravity

frames, semi-rigid connections are modeled by reducing the beam stiffness to half the beam
flexural stiffness and limiting the strength to one-fifth of the beam moment strength. Gravity
load is uniformly distributed throughout the building. The P- effect is accounted for in the
nonlinear dynamic analysis.
Major structural and nonstructural components of the building are identified and
separated into different performance groups. Each performance group consists of one or more
building components whose performance is similarly affected by a particular engineering
demand parameter. For example, one performance group might consist of all similar
nonstructural components whose performance is sensitive to inter-story drift between the second
and third floor. Table 1 shows the performance groups used in this study.
The structural components are assigned to performance groups whose performance is
associated with inter-story drift ratio in the story where the components are located. The
nonstructural components and contents of the building are subdivided into displacementsensitive and acceleration-sensitive groups. The displacement-sensitive groups use inter-story
drift to define the performance of the group, while the acceleration-sensitive groups use absolute
acceleration at the different floor and roof levels to define the performance.
Table 1. Summary of the performance groups (PG) identified in the prototype building.
PG #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

PG Name
SH12
SH23
SH3R
EXTD12
EXTD23
EXTD3R
INTD12
INTD23
INTD3R
INTA2
INTA3
INTAR
CONT1
CONT2
CONT3
EQUIPR

Location
between levels 1 and 2
between levels 2 and 3
between levels 3 and R
between levels 1 and 2
between levels 2 and 3
between levels 3 and R
between levels 1 and 2
between levels 2 and 3
between levels 3 and R
below level 2
below level 3
below level R
at level 1
at level 2
at level 3
at level R

EDP
u1
u2
u3
u1
u2
u3
u1
u2
u3
a2
a3
aR
ag
a2
a3
aR

Components
Structural: lateral load resisting
system
Exterior enclosure: panels,
glass, etc.
Interior nonstructural drift
sensitive: partitions, doors,
glazing, etc
Interior nonstructural
acceleration sensitive: ceilings,
lights, sprinkler heads, etc
Contents: General office on
first and second floor,
computer center on third
Equipment on roof

where ui = inter-story drift at the ith story and ai = absolute acceleration at the ith floor.
Ground Shaking Hazard
Ground motions that represent the hazard at the University of California, Berkeley
campus are selected from the U.C. Berkeley Seismic Guidelines (UCB 2003). Tables 2 and
Table 3 summarized the list of the ground motions used for the dynamic analysis. For this
example, ground motions are scaled to match the target spectrum at the first-mode period of the

structure. Alternative approaches to scaling ground motions can be used. Fig. 2 shows the scaled
response spectra and the scaling factors for the ground motions used in this analysis.
Response Quantification
With the selected ground motions, a series of nonlinear dynamic analyses are used to
determine engineering demand parameters (EDPs) that will be used with fragility relations to
define performance of the different performance groups in Table 1. From the results of the
nonlinear dynamic analysis, peak structural responses are identified and summarized into EDP
matrices, one for each hazard level. Because each row of the EDP matrix is calculated by
dynamic analysis of the building for a single ground motion, the EDPs in each row are
correlated. The EDP matrix can be extended by considering any number of EDPs and any
number of ground motions. Table 4 shows the peak building response for the prototype building
for the three hazard levels considered.
Table 2. Ground motions representing the 50% in 50 years hazard level.
Earthquake
Coyote Lake,
1979/6/8
Parkfield,

Mw

Station
Coyote Lake, Dam Abutment
Gilroy # 6
Temblor
Cholome Array # 5
Cholome Array # 8

Distance
4.0
1.2
4.4
3.7
8.0

Site
C
C
C
D
D

Record
CL_clyd
CL_gil6
PF_temb
PF_cs05
PF_cs08

5.5

Morgan Territory Park

8.1

LV_mgnp

6.2

Coyote Lake, Dam Abutment

Anderson Dam, Downstream
Hall Valley

0.1
4.5
2.5

C
C
C

MH_clyd
MH_andd
MH_hall

5.7
6.0

1996/6/27
Livermore,
1980/1/27
Morgan Hill,
1984/4/24

Table 3. Ground motions representing 10% in 50 years and 5% in 50 years hazard levels.
Earthquake

Mw

Loma Prieta,
1989/10/17

7.0

Kobe, Japan
1995/1/17
Tottori, Japan
2000/10/6
Erzincan,
Turkey
1992/3/13

Station
Los Gatos Present Center
Saratoga Aloha Ave
Corralitos
Gavilan College
Gilroy Historic Building
Lexington Dam Abutment

Distance
3.5
8.3
3.4
9.5
6.3

Site
C
C
C
C
C
C

Record
LP_lgpc
LP_srtg
LP_cor
LP_gav
LP_gilb
LP_lex1

6.9

Kobe JM A

4.4

KB_kobj

6.6

Hino

TO_hino

6.7

Erzincan

1.8

C*

EZ_erzi

Response Spectrum 10% in 50 years (SMRFX T1 = 1.139 sec)

Response Spectrum 50% in 50 years (SMRFX T1 = 1.139 sec)

4.5

4
Target (maxAg,SF)
CLclyd (0.75g,2.68)
CLgil6 (0.27g,0.60)
PFtemb (0.53g,1.43)
PFcs05 (0.52g,1.57)
PFcs08 (0.55g,2.25)
LVmgnp (0.88g,2.96)
MHclyd (0.44g,0.50)
MHandd (0.88g,2.01)
MHhall (0.22g,0.73)

3.5

2.5

Target (maxAg,SF)
LPlgpc (0.51g,0.79)
LPsrtg (0.46g,1.28)
LPcor (0.81g,1.67)
LPgav (1.11g,3.79)
LPgilb (0.66g,2.35)
LPlex1 (0.21g,0.47)
KBkobj (0.42g,0.49)
TOhino (0.59g,0.56)
EZerzi (0.59g,1.23)

3.5

Sa [g]

Sa [g]

2.5

1.5
1.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.5

2
Period [Sec]

2.5

3.5

0.5

1.5

2
Period [Sec]

2.5

3.5

Response Spectrum 5% in 50 years (SMRFX T1 = 1.139 sec)

6
Target (maxAg,SF)
LPlgpc (0.66g,1.02)
LPsrtg (0.60g,1.65)
LPcor (1.04g,2.16)
LPgav (1.44g,4.88)
LPgilb (0.85g,3.03)
LPlex1 (0.28g,0.61)
KBkobj (0.55g,0.64)
TOhino (0.77g,0.72)
EZerzi (0.76g,1.59)

Sa [g]

0.5

1.5

2
Period [Sec]

2.5

3.5

Figure 2. Scaled response spectra for the three different hazard levels.
Computing additional EDP realizations using nonlinear dynamic analysis is hampered by
in the paucity of recorded strong ground motions. Therefore, instead of running additional
nonlinear dynamic analyses, a joint lognormal distribution is fitted to the EDP matrix. Additional
correlated EDP vectors are generated using the correlation matrix and artificially generated
standard normal random variables (u). To do this, the EDP matrix (as shown in Table 4), X, is
first assumed to have joint lognormal distribution. The EDP matrix is then transformed to a
normal distribution, Y, by taking the natural log of the EDP matrix. The mean vector, standard
deviations and the correlation coefficient matrix are then sampled from Y. With the generated
standard normal random variables, u, additional correlated EDP vectors, y, are generated using
Eq. 5. Finally, the generated EDP vector is transformed to the lognormal distribution, x, by
taking the exponential of y. Eq. 1, 2, 3 and 4 shows the formulas used for the statistical sample.
Fig. 3 shows the process of obtaining additional correlated EDP vectors.

Table 4a. Peak response quantity table for the 50% in 50 years hazard level.
Filename
CLclyd
CLgil6
PFtemb
PFcs05
PFcs08
LVmgnp
MHclyd
MHandd
MHhall

u1 (%)
0.66
0.68
0.80
0.76
0.65
0.61
0.56
0.76
0.63

u2 (%)
1.07
0.95
0.90
1.10
0.99
0.94
0.95
0.84
0.95

u3 (%)
2.02
0.98
1.69
1.51
1.54
1.09
1.32
1.44
1.04

ag (g)
0.75
0.27
0.53
0.52
0.55
0.88
0.44
0.88
0.22

a2 (g)
1.05
0.35
0.87
1.32
0.90
1.13
0.54
1.15
0.28

a3 (g)
0.85
0.34
0.76
1.04
0.61
0.89
0.59
0.97
0.31

aR (g)
0.75
0.40
0.74
0.75
0.57
0.60
0.56
0.67
0.42

Table 4b. Peak response quantity table for the 10% in 50 years hazard level.
Filename
LPlgpc
LPsrtg
LPcor
LPgav
LPgilb
LPlex1
KBkobj
TOhino
EZerzi

u1 (%)
1.40
1.31
1.53
1.84
2.14
1.26
0.77
1.38
1.66

u2 (%)
1.83
1.47
2.56
1.89
2.63
1.90
1.69
1.76
2.23

u3 (%)
1.79
1.63
3.10
2.79
2.94
1.89
2.29
2.07
2.35

ag (g)
0.51
0.46
0.81
1.11
0.66
0.21
0.42
0.59
0.59

a2 (g)
1.02
0.94
0.97
1.64
0.77
0.36
0.76
0.69
0.77

a3 (g)
0.65
0.99
1.01
1.45
0.74
0.40
0.72
0.58
0.77

aR (g)
0.64
0.64
0.85
1.04
0.72
0.48
0.64
0.61
0.61

Table 4c. Peak response quantity table for the 5% in 50 years hazard level.
Filename
LPlgpc
LPsrtg
LPcor
LPgav
LPgilb
LPlex1
KBkobj
TOhino
EZerzi

u1 (%)
2.17
1.33
1.54
2.68
3.00
1.66
0.93
1.64
1.81

u2 (%)
2.87
1.59
2.53
2.79
3.65
2.42
1.77
2.13
2.44

u3 (%)
3.10
1.93
3.78
2.95
4.30
2.44
2.55
2.56
2.63

ag (g)
0.66
0.60
1.04
1.44
0.85
0.27
0.55
0.76
0.76

a2 (g)
1.20
1.36
1.21
1.92
0.99
0.42
0.93
0.94
0.93

a3 (g)
0.82
1.25
1.14
1.63
1.01
0.46
0.86
0.63
0.92

aR (g)
0.72
0.71
0.94
1.11
0.74
0.51
0.74
0.73
0.75

Mean vector: M = mean(Y )T

Standard Deviation Matrix: D = diag ( std (Y ))

(1)

(2)

Correlation Coefficient Matrix: R = corrcoef (Y )

(3)

Cholesky Factorization of correlation coefficient matrix: L = chol ( R )

ln(EDP) vector: y = D * L * u + M

ln

(5)

Y = ln(X).
u = generated standard normal random variables.

y = simulated ln(EDP data).

exp

(4)

X = EDP matrix for a given IM level.

M , D , R

x = exp(y) = simulated EDP data.

Figure 3. Correlated EDP generator.

Damage Assessment

Different damage states are defined for each performance group in Table 1. The damage
states are defined in relation to the repair actions. For each damage state, a damage model
(fragility relation) defines the probability of damage being equal to or greater than the threshold
damage given an EDP. Fig. 4 shows an example of the fragility curves defined for the first three
performance groups. Depending on the EDP values, the probabilities of the performance group
being in each damage state can be computed. A uniformly distributed random number generator
is used to select the damage state for the performance group, given the EDP. Once the damage
state is identified, the repair quantities for each of the performance groups are located from a
lookup table, as shown in Fig. 4.
1

PG1 - SH12
0.9
DS1

DS2

DS3

DS4

0.8
0.7

P(DS>= DSi)

0.6

0.5
0.4

0.3
0.2
0.1
0

PG2 - SH23

PG3 - SH3R

DS1

DS2

DS3

DS4

DS1

DS2

DS3

DS4

DS1

DS2

DS3

DS4

Finish_protection

6000

6000

6000

6000

6000

6000

6000

6000

6000

Ceiling_system_removal

2000

3000

5000

3000

3000

5000

3000

3000

5000

Drywall_assembly_removal

800

800

6000

800

800

6000

800

800

6000

Miscellaneous_MEP

Remove_exterior_skin

5600

4000

3000
1500

Welding_protection

1500

1500

1500

1500

1500

1500

1500

1500

Shore_beams_below_remove

12

12

12

Remove_replace_connection

3000

3000

2000

Replace_slab

70

70

1600

70

70

1600

70

70

1600

Miscellaneous_MEP_and_cleanup

Wall_framing(studs_drywall_tape_paint)

800

800

6000

800

800

6000

800

800

6000

Replace_exterior_skin(from_salvage)

5600

5600

5600

Ceiling_system

2000

3000

5000

3000

3000

5000

3000

3000

5000

U1,Max (%)

Figure 4. Performance group fragility curves and the associated repair quantities.
The process is repeated for each performance group to identify the total repair quantities
for each item in the building. In the methodology adopted here, the simulation procedure

described is used to generate a single realization of total repair quantities for the scenario
earthquake. The process is repeated a sufficiently large number of times to obtain a
representative sample of the total repair quantities. For this simplified example, the performance
groups are assumed to be statistically independent.
Loss Calculation

Once the total repair quantities are identified, the total repair cost for the building is
computed by multiplying the total repair quantity by the unit price obtained from a look-up table.
The price uncertainty is represented by using a random number generator, based on the tabulated
beta factors for the cost functions, to adjust base unit costs up or down before multiplying by
the total quantities associated with each repair measure. Fig. 5 shows the tri-linear cost function
that represented the relation between unit cost and quantity. This is the repair cost for one
realization of EDPs. The process is repeated for all the calculated total repair quantities to obtain
a distribution of costs given the hazard level represented by the IM.
Unit Cost, $
Uncertainty

Ci

Qi

Quantity

Figure 5. Cost function model for repair measures for the example building.
Fig. 6 shows the fitted lognormal distribution of the building repair cost for four different
IM levels. (Repair cost for 36-yr return period was obtained by assuming linear response of the
structure and scaling the EDP vectors according to the ratio of the hazard curves at the first mode
period, for the 36-yr and 72-yr return periods.) Curves such as these can be used to quantify the
annual frequency of the total repair cost exceeding a given threshold as follows: the complement
of each CDF (cumulative distribution function) curve presented in Fig. 6 is multiplied by the
slope of the hazard curve at the corresponding IM level; the resulting curves are integrated across
IM levels. Fig. 7 shows the annual rate of exceeding various total repair cost thresholds for all
the IM levels. Furthermore, the mean cumulative annual total repair cost can be obtained by
integrating the loss curve shown in Fig. 7 along the range of repair cost thresholds (Der
Kiureghian 2005). For this simplified example, the expected mean cumulative annual total repair
cost is approximately $US 31,300.

P(Total Repair Cost < = $C)

0.8

Annual Rate of Exceeding Total Repair Cost = $C

0.9

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

5
6
$C (dollar)

Loss Curve (Mean Cumulative Annual Total Repair Cost = $ 3.13e+004)

0.045

Return Period = 36 yrs

Return Period = 72 yrs
Return Period = 475 yrs
Return Period = 975 yrs

0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0

10
6

0.5

1.5

x 10

Figure 6. CDF for P(TC<=$C|IM).

2
$C (dollar)

2.5

3.5

4
6

x 10

Figure 7. Loss curve.

In addition, with the procedure presented above, the total repair cost can be deaggregated
to identify which performance groups contribute most to the total repair cost. Such information
can be useful in making design decisions. Fig. 8 shows an example of the deaggregation of the
total repair cost for the 975 return period hazard level. It shows performance groups 1 to 6
contribute most to the total repair cost. As these performance groups are displacement-sensitive,
this suggests a more economical design (considering downstream consequences) might be
achieved by a design that reduces lateral drifts. Analyses for a stiffer structure likely would show
reduced costs for displacement-sensitive performance groups but increased costs for
acceleration-sensitive performance groups. Therefore, tradeoffs between stiff and flexible
building systems can be considered.
Distribution of repair cost for each performance group(s)

probability

0.5

0
0
5

x 10

10
Total repair cost ($C)

1 2

5
3 4

8 9
6 7

10 11

12

13 14

PG(s)

Figure 8. Cost function model for repair measures for example building.

15

16

Other information, such as the expected repair cost for a M7 earthquake scenario and
probability that repair cost exceeds a given threshold for a 975-yr return period hazard level, can
be obtained using the procedure presented above.
Conclusion

Performance-based earthquake engineering can be extended to express performance

using metrics that are of direct interest to engineers and to non-engineer stakeholders. A
methodology is illustrated through a simplified example, in which a prototype building near the
University of California, Berkeley campus is designed and analyzed. Suites of ground motions
that represent the hazard are used in a series of nonlinear dynamic analyses to determine peak
building responses. Major structural and nonstructural components are identified and separated
into different performance groups. Depending on the building response, different damage states
and the corresponding repair costs for all performance groups are identified. Simple statistical
simulation procedures are used to efficiently generate large numbers of cost realizations, making
it possible to describe probabilities of repair costs exceeding threshold values. The procedures
described are rigorous and can be extend to other structural types and performance measures.
Acknowledgment

R. Hamburger and A. Dutta (SGH-San Francisco) developed the building design. C.

Comartin, A. Whittaker, B. Bachman and G. Hecksher (ATC-58 project team, funded by FEMA)
provided fragility relations, materials quantities, and unit costs. Seismic hazard data were
developed by URS for the University of California, Berkeley; Capital Projects Office is thanked
for allowing their use. This work was supported in part by the Earthquake Engineering Research
Centers Program of the National Science Foundation under award number EEC-9701568
through the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Any opinions, findings,
and conclusion or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation.
References
Der Kiureghian, A. 2005. Non-ergodicity and PEERs framework formula. Earthq. Engrg. Struct. Dyn.
International Code Council. 2003. International Building Code, International Code Council, Fall Church,
VA, USA .
UCB. 2003. U.C. Berkeley seismic guideline, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California,
USA