Structures Congress 2015 1380

Performance Based Seismic Design of

Reinforced Concrete Structures with ACI 318-14
Andrew W. Taylor, Ph.D., SE, FACI1
1
KPFF Consulting Engineers, 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Chair, ACI 318 Building Code Subcommittee H on Seismic Provisions. E-mail:

andrew.taylor@kpff.com

Abstract

The Performance Based Seismic Design (PBSD) philosophy was introduced

and first gained popularity in the United States about 20 years ago. Since then,
seismic design guides, and some building codes, have increasingly adopted PBSD
methodologies. Although the current nationally-recognized building code for new
structures in the United States, the International Building Code, and its reference
standards have incorporated certain facets of PBSD, seismic design of new structures
in the United States is still based primarily on prescriptive rules rather than a
performance-based philosophy. With each new edition of the American Concrete
Institute building code, the ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete, new and revised seismic provisions are introduced. To date, however, few
of the recently-adopted changes in the ACI 318 code have directly supported
implementation of the PBSD approach. The 2014 edition of ACI 318 has been
completely revised into a format that is organized around the design and behavior of
individual member types. This paper provides an overview of the current state of
seismic design provisions in the ACI 318 code, and describes possible future ACI 318
developments that would further promote the implementation of PBSD for concrete
structures.

PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN

The first widely-adopted building code in the western United States was the
1927 Uniform Building Code (UBC), published by the Pacific Coast Building
Officials (PCBO 1928). Surprisingly, the destruction wrought by the 1906 San
Francisco earthquake did not immediately prompt state-wide adoption of seismic
design regulations in California. During the two decades following the 1906
earthquake, however, several cities in California adopted nascent seismic design
regulations. Over time, concern about the earthquake safety of buildings increased to
the point that, shortly after the destructive Santa Barbara earthquake in 1925, the first
seismic design provisions in the western United States were published in the 1927
UBC.
These provisions were presented in an appendix to the 1927 code, and were
offered for adoption by local jurisdictions on a voluntary basis. The seismic design
recommendations were prescriptive in nature: buildings should be designed with

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1381

sufficient strength to resist a lateral force at each floor level, and the roof level, equal
to 0.10 times the tributary dead and live load of that level (live load was not included
in the tributary load if it was 50 pounds per square foot or less). If the soil bearing
capacity was greater than 4,000 pounds per square foot, then the lateral force
coefficient was reduced from 0.10 to 0.075.
Over the next 70 years seismic design codes and guidelines in the United
States remained primarily prescriptive in nature. That is, seismic provisions specified
design loads, design procedures, and structural detailing requirements. There was
little public discussion of the performance, or damage, that could be expected of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

buildings that had been designed in accordance with code-specified procedures, when
subjected to code-specified earthquake loads. This lack of clearly-stated performance
objectives for earthquake design codes permitted growth of the commonly-held
public misconception that buildings designed and constructed according to the
building code should be virtually immune from earthquake damage.
The 1994 Northridge earthquake in the Los Angeles area, however, dispelled
this misconception. Building owners and tenants were surprised to find that many
structures that had been designed “according to code” experienced costly damage,
and some of these buildings were complete economic losses. With some notable
exceptions, the majority of recently designed buildings affected by the Northridge
earthquake remained safe during the earthquake, and allowed occupants to exit safely
after the event, even if the structural and nonstructural components of the building
had experienced significant damage. But the economic losses were staggering: direct
losses due to ground shaking were estimated by some to approach 40 billion dollars
(Eguchi et al. 1998).
In the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge earthquake, engineers and public
officials struggled to explain to building owners and occupants why code-designed
structures experienced significant damage in a moderate event (magnitude 6.8,
hypocenter depth 18 km). Up to that time there had been an understanding among
engineers and building officials, which had not been communicated well to the
public, that the primary objective of the building code was to protect the safety and
lives of building occupants, not necessarily to protect buildings against damage or
total economic loss. As far back as 1968, the Structural Engineers Association of
California had published recommended seismic provisions that included discussions
regarding expectations of seismic damage to code-designed buildings (SEAOC 1968),
and in the landmark 1978 Applied Technology Council publication ATC 3-06,
Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings (ATC
1978), there were discussions of the limitations of building codes to minimize
structural damage and to provide absolute safety for occupants in all anticipated
earthquakes.
In 1995, about a year after the Northridge earthquake, the Structural Engineers
Association of California published the report Vision 2000 – A Framework for
Performance Based Earthquake Engineering (SEAOC 1995), and in 1997 the Federal
Emergency Management Agency published the report FEMA 273 NEHRP Guidelines
for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 1997). These two documents
presented frameworks for a performance based seismic design philosophy for new
buildings, and for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Vision 2000 and

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1382

FEMA 273 were likely the first comprehensive treatments of PBSD that many
engineers studied in detail, and these documents catalyzed the the movement towards
adopting PBSD as the primary method for seismic design and rehabilitation in the
United States. Since that time many other PBSD research and development
programs, both public and private, have been undertaken, most notably the multi-
phase Applied Technology Council project ATC 58, sponsored by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, titled “Development of Next-Generation
Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines.”
The fundamental precept of Performance Based Seismic Design is that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

buildings should be designed (or rehabilitated) to achieve specific seismic

performance goals when subject to specific intensities of of ground shaking. Much of
the development of PBSD methods over the last 20 years has centered on definitions
of seismic performance, definitions and predictions of ground shaking intensities, and
development of analytical tools for relating ground shaking to structural (and non-
structural) damage. Schematically, the PBSD philosophy can be illustrated by the
matrix shown in Figure 1. Depending on the seismic performance objectives
established by regulations, or voluntarily adopted by the building owner, a level of
ground shaking intensity, shown on the left axis, can be matched with a seismic
performance goal, shown on the top axis. For example, one objective could be to
provide “life safety” performance for a “high intensity” level of ground shaking.
Various combinations of ground shaking intensity and seismic performance goals can
be specified to form “bands” of performance, as shown by the diagonal lines on the
plot. Names and definitions for intensity of ground shaking, and for seismic
performance goals, have varied considerably over the last 20 years, and these
definitions continue to evolve. The terms shown in Figure 1 are intended to be
generic, and are not representative of any particular consensus or standard.

Figure 1. General PBSD matrix

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1383

PBSD ACTIVITES WITHIN THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE

The American Concrete Institute (ACI) is a technical organization devoted to

the development and dissemination of consensus-based knowledge on concrete and
its uses. There are over 100 active ACI technical committees, supported by over
3,000 technical committee members. One important function of ACI technical
committees is to write reports, guidelines and standards for concrete design and
construction, including the concrete building code adopted throughout the United
States, ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 2014).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Certain ACI technical committees have been involved with exploring and developing
PBSD approaches for new design, and retrofit, of reinforced concrete structures, as
described below.

ACI 374: ACI Committee 374, “Performance-Based Seismic Design of Buildings,”

has existed since 1998. The committee has studied issues related to the
implementation of PBSD for concrete buildings, including analysis guidelines,
definitions of seismic performance limits, procedures for testing concrete structures,
methods for collecting damage data, and design of coupled shear walls. The
committee maintains two technical reports: ACI 374.1-05 Acceptance Criteria for
Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing and Commentary and ITG-4.3R-07
Report on Structural Design and Detailing for High-Strength Concrete in Moderate
to High Seismic Applications. The committee has recently published ACI 374.2R-13
Guide for Testing Reinforced Concrete Structural Elements Under Slowly Applied
Simulated Seismic Loads. ACI Committee 374 is currently developing technical
notes discussing nonlinear modeling parameters for special concrete structural walls,
coupling beams, and special concrete moment frames. In recent years the committee
has coordinated with ACI Committee 369 (see below) in developing analysis and
design guidelines to support implementation of the current performance based seismic
rehabilitation standard for buildings in the United States, ASCE 41 Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE 2014).

ACI 369: ACI Committee 369, “Seismic Repair and Rehabilitation,” was formed in
1991. The activities of ACI 369 are directed towards three goals:

1) Maintain the standard "Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Concrete

Buildings,” the source document for the concrete provisions of ASCE 41
2) Provide extended commentary for this standard
3) Develop guides and other documents on seismic retrofit techniques.

The committee has published 369R-11 Guide for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Concrete Frame Buildings and Commentary which compliments Chapter 6 of the
2006 edition of ASCE 41. This guide describes modeling and analysis methods for
seismic rehabilitation of concrete buildings, as well as guidance for modeling
parameters and damage acceptance criteria for beams, columns, joints and slab-
column connections. The guide served as the starting point of a standard that is under
development by Committee 369, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1384

Concrete Buildings and Commentary. This standard will be adopted as the

“Concrete” chapter of the next edition of ASCE 41.

ACI 375: ACI Committee 375, “Performance-Based Design of Concrete Buildings

for Wind Loads” was founded in 1999. Although the committee does not directly
address issues related to seismic design, one of the main objectives of the committee
is to explore recommendations for equivalent moments of inertia, or “cracked section
properties,” of concrete walls and frames for use in linear analysis of concrete
structures subject to wind loads. Since wind loads are often similar in magnitude to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

lateral inertial loads caused by small and moderate earthquakes, the work of this
committee is relevant to linear modeling of the seismic response of concrete
structures

ACI 318 BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

The ACI 318 Building Code (henceforth referred to as “ACI 318”) serves as
the reference standard of the International Building Code (ICC 2011) and is
coordinated with the seismic load and design provisions of ASCE 7 Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 2010). Therefore, the seismic
design provisions of ACI 318 are adapted to the same seismic design philosophy as
the IBC and ASCE 7. The main tenets of this philosophy are as follows.

1) The majority of seismic design requirements in ACI 318, the IBC, and ASCE
7 are prescriptive in nature. That is, most seismic provisions state how
seismic analysis, design, and detailing should be performed, rather than
defining the required seismic performance of the completed structure and
leaving the choice of analysis, design, and detailing methods to the engineer.
2) Seismic design requirements of a structure are linked to the “Seismic Design
Category” (SDC) of the structure, defined in Section 1613 of the 2012 IBC.
The seismic design category is assigned to the structure based on factors such
as Risk Category (which is a function of the occupancy and importance of the
structure), site soil class, and severity of seismic hazard (site seismic spectral
coefficients). Six Seismic Design Categories, lettered A through F, are
defined, and seismic design requirements generally becoming more stringent
with increasing letter.
3) Seismic forces are not resisted simply by providing sufficient strength to
ensure purely elastic response of the structure during the design earthquake
(sometimes referred to as a “brute strength” approach to seismic design), but
by allowing inelastic action to occur at limited, predictable locations. This
inelastic behavior dissipates earthquake energy in a controlled manner, while
preserving the lateral strength and stability of the structure, and may lengthen
the natural period of the structure, tending to shift the response of the structure
out of the range of periods with highest earthquake energy. ACI 318 provides
explicit rules for detailing of reinforcement at locations where controlled
plasticity is expected to occur, with the objective of promoting the formation
of ductile, stable “plastic hinges,” primarily in beams and walls.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1385

4) Chapter 18 of the ACI Code contains the – mainly prescriptive – requirements

for seismic analysis, design, and detailing of concrete structures.
Requirements are organized by type of lateral force-resisting system (LFRS),
such as shear walls or moment frames, and by member type, such as walls,
wall segments, beams, columns, and diaphragms. As Seismic Design
Category increases, the prescriptive requirements become more demanding.
If all requirements for the LFRS and its individual structural elements are met,
then the design is considered complete, and the expected seismic performance
of the structure is deemed acceptable.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

What, however, is the expected seismic performance of a structure design in

accordance with the ACI 318 code, when the appropriate seismic design category is
applied, and the prescriptive detailing requirements at locations of potential inelastic
behavior are followed? Because the IBC, ASCE-7, and ACI 318 are primarily
prescriptive in nature, we do not have a clear answer to that question.
At best we can point to expected limitations on behavior, such as allowable
story drift specified in ASCE 7 Section 12.12.1, and expected lateral accelerations at
each floor level derived from global seismic analysis of the structure. We may also
attempt to relate expected inelastic deformations of walls, beams, and columns to
levels of expected damage in those elements. However, no guidance for carrying out
this performance evaluation is provided in current building codes. In short, for code-
designed reinforced concrete structures, the process of relating specified earthquake
load regimens to expected damage of elements of the lateral force-resisting system
requires analyses methods, modeling parameters, and acceptance criteria that are far
outside the bounds of the prescriptive design provisions of the IBC, ASCE-7, and
ACI 318.

ACI 318-14 CHAPTER 18: EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT STRUCTURES

If PBSD is to find acceptance as a seismic design method for new structures in

the United States, then the building codes that govern seismic design for various
structural materials, such as steel, concrete, timber, and masonry, must be adapted to
the PBSD approach. This is not to say that the existing approaches to seismic design
should be abandoned, but that existing methods could be supplemented to permit the
application of PBSD when desired. With regard to the ACI 318 Building Code, it is
instructive to pose the following three questions.

What parts of ACI 318 Chapter 18 already assist designers in implementing a

PBSD approach? The answer to this question, in the author’s opinion, is that
Chapter 18 of ACI 318 provides little support for implementation of PBSD. To apply
PBSD principles to new construction, requirements must be provided for analysis
methods, nonlinear modeling parameters, and damage acceptance criteria for defined
levels of seismic performance. None of this guidance is currently provided in
Chapter 18.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1386

If an engineer wishes to implement a PBSD approach for a new concrete

structure under current ACI 318 provisions, there is a pathway available. This is
provided by Section 18.2.1.7:

18.2.1.7 A reinforced concrete structural system not satisfying this

chapter shall be permitted if it is demonstrated by experimental
evidence and analysis that the proposed system will have strength and
toughness equal to or exceeding those provided by a comparable
reinforced concrete structure satisfying this chapter.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The burden of proving that a structure designed according to PBSD principles

exhibits “strength and toughness” that are equivalent to or better than a code-designed
structure is substantial. Such an effort is rarely justifiable within the constraints of
typical project budgets and schedules.

What parts of ACI 318 Chapter 18 could be easily amended or modified to

provide partial support for implementation of a PBSD approach? Short-term
modifications to Chapter 18 that could facilitate application of PBSD for new
structures include adding information within the ACI 318 Commentary, and
references within the Commentary, to publications that provide guidance on analysis,
modeling parameters, and acceptance criteria.
Commentary could be added for Section 18.2.1.7, shown above, that would
describe PBSD as a possible alternative method for seismic design of concrete
structures that are evaluated for multiple levels of ground shaking intensity.
Practically speaking, though, for any given project the most expedient approach to
obtaining approval of an alternative PBSD approach would be to propose
implementation of PBSD as a supplement to the prescriptive minimum requirements
of Chapter 18. That is, it would be necessary to maintain compliance with all of the
prescriptive analysis, design, and detailing requirements of Chapter 18 to demonstrate
that the minimum level of safety provided by the code had been met. In that case the
PBSD approach would be treated as an adjunct method for evaluating seismic
performance under ground shaking intensities not normally addressed by the code.
The extensive commentary to Section 18.2 makes reference to supplemental
guidelines for design of specific types of lateral force-resisting systems: ACI 374.1
(ACI 2005) is referenced for guidance on the design of precast moment frames; and
ACI ITG 5.1 (ACI 2007) is referenced for the design of precast shear wall systems.
A similar reference could be made to the guideline document for PBSD of existing
concrete structures written by ACI Committee 369, 369R-11 Guide for Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Concrete Frame Buildings and Commentary (ACI 2011).
While this document is directed towards evaluation of existing structures, much of the
proposed methodology can also be applied to new structures. The 369R-11 guide is
currently undergoing a standardization process, and will be issued as an ACI standard
for seismic rehabilitation, forming the “Concrete” chapter of the next edition of
ASCE 41 (ASCE 2014).

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1387

What aspects of ACI 318 Chapter 18 could be augmented to support full

implementation of a PBSD approach for new concrete structures? The seismic
provisions of ACI 318, as expressed in Chapter 18, have been developed and refined
over a period of decades through intensive experimentation, analysis, debate, and
observation of real-world earthquake behavior. These provisions will continue to
evolve as new data and observations become available. Yet, the focus of the ACI 318
seismic provisions is primarily on prescriptive requirements for analysis, design, and
detailing of concrete structures. In order for PBSD to be accepted as a design
methodology supplementing the minimum prescriptive requirements of ACI 318, it
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

will be necessary for ACI 318 to provide, either directly or by reference, requirements
for analysis methods, modeling parameters, and damage acceptance criteria for a
range of defined seismic performance levels.
If such guidance is provided within Chapter 18, this would represent a
substantial expansion of the scope and length of the chapter. Currently, the ACI
Committee 369 guideline for performance-based evaluation of existing concrete
structures (ACI 2011) is 35 pages long. The ACI 369 guideline describes procedures
and criteria covering a wide range of structural systems, member types, and material
properties, including archaic structure types stretching back some 100 years.
Presumably PBSD procedures and criteria for new structures would be more compact,
as the variability of lateral force-resisting systems and materials would be less than in
the ACI 369 guideline. If PBSD provisions were provided, they could be added to
each section of Chapter 18 that addresses a specific lateral force-resisting system, e.g.
Intermediate Moment Frames, or Special Structural Walls. The provisions could
initially be added as guidance in the Commentary, then possibly moved into the Code
after a trial period.
Alternatively, Chapter 18 could refer to other codes or standards for guidance
on supplementing the Chapter 18 minimum requirements with additional PBSD.
Currently no such code or standard exists for new concrete construction. A code or
standard for PBSD of new concrete structures could be developed within ACI, and
referenced by ACI 318, or adopted as an Appendix to ACI 318. A model for this
standard could be the standard for PBSD of existing structures currently under
development by ACI Committee 369, which will replace the existing ACI 369
guideline document (ACI 2011).

SUMMARY

In this paper a brief history of the development of Performance Based Seismic

Design (PBSD) in the United States has been presented, followed by a description of
technical activities within the American Concrete Institute that have supported the
development of PBSD methods for new and existing concrete structures. It is
observed that current seismic design provisions of the ACI 318 Building Code,
contained in Chapter 18, are primarily prescriptive in nature, and provide little
guidance for implementation of PBSD. General suggestions are made for short-term
and long-term modifications to Chapter 18 that would facilitate adoption of PBSD for
new concrete structures, and align the ACI 318 Building Code with the general trend
towards performance based seismic design methods.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1388

REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2005), 374.1-05—Acceptance Criteria for

Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing and Commentary, Farmington
Hills, Michigan.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2007), ITG-5.1-07—Acceptance Criteria for
Special Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast Structural Walls Based on
Validation Testing and Commentary, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/26/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2011), 369R-11—Guide for Seismic

Rehabilitation of Existing Concrete Frame Buildings and Commentary,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2014), Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary on Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-14), Farmington Hills,
Michigan.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010), ASCE/SEI 7-10 Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Reston, Virginia.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2014), ASCE/SEI 41-13 Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, Reston, Virginia.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1978), Tentative Provisions for the
Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, ATC Publication ATC 3-
06.
Eguchi, R.E.; Goltz, J.D.; Taylor, C.E.; Chang, S.E.; Flores, P.J.; Johnson, F.L.;
Seligson, H.A.; and Blais, N.C. (1998), “Direct Economic Losses in the
Northridge Earthquake: A Three-Year Post-Event Perspective,” Earthquake
Spectra, Vol. 14, No. 2, May 1998, pp. 245-264.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1997), FEMA 273 NEHRP
Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Washington, D.C.,
October 1997.
International Code Council (ICC) (2011) 2012 International Building Code, Country
Club Hills, Illinois.
Pacific Coast Building Officials (PCBO) (1928), Uniform Building Code, Long
Beach, California.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) (1968), Recommended
Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) (1995). Vision 2000 - A
Framework for Performance Based Design, Volumes I, II, III, SEAOC Vision
2000 Committee, Sacramento, California.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015