Advocating for Performance-Based Design

Report to the Structural Engineering Institute Board of Governors

Submitted by:

Task Committee on Performance-Based Design

April 5, 2018
 -2-

Contributors

Mariapia Angelino
Robert Bachman
Henry Burton
Laura Champion
Steve Denton
Donald Dusenberry, Chair
Bruce Ellingwood
David Goodyear
Jennifer Goupil
Lawrence Griffis
Ronald Hamburger
James Harris
Andy Herrmann
John Hooper
Timothy Ibell
Alan Jeary
Oh-Sun Kwon
Therese McAllister
Robert Nickerson
Robert Pekelnicky
Chris Poland
James Rossberg
Donald Scott
John Silva
J. Greg Soules
Stephen Szoke
 -3-

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 – MISSION STATEMENT 4

CHAPTER 2 – THE STATE OF THE PROFESSION: 7

CHAPTER 3 – ONGOING PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN ACTIVITIES 11

CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS 13

 -4-

PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN
SEI Vision for Performance-based Design

The Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of ASCE believes that society and
stakeholders to the construction industry will benefit when performance-based
design (PBD) principles are applied during the design of structures. Performance
objectives will improve clarity of design requirements, quality, innovation and
communication with owners and the public. Performance-based design methods
will likely be applied to buildings and structures that are critical to a community or
individual owners; have unique or unusual structural systems; incorporate novel
materials and design approaches; or advance resilience, sustainability,
robustness, and conservation in the built environment. To this end, SEI will
support engineers who pursue and advance performance-based principles;
engage, educate and encourage stakeholders; and develop tools, standards, and
codes that advance implementation of performance-based design.

CHAPTER 1 – MISSION STATEMENT

Introduction

We, the structural engineering community, are confounded by a situation we created for
ourselves.1 As structural engineers, we operate in a design environment with easy access to
information, have the ability to collect and analyze more data than we have ever had in the past,
and have access to robust and reliable analysis and design software. Nevertheless, we are
prevented from fully leveraging these advantages by prescriptive codes and standards that restrict
innovation and are increasing prescriptive requirements at an unsustainable rate.2 In an era when
we face multiple demands on our designs – safety, economy, serviceability, sustainability,
robustness, and unreasonable schedule demands – we are constrained to follow a prescriptive
path to a solution that often does not optimally satisfy expectations.

Although nearly all modern design specifications are targeted to achieve some level of
performance, most structural design today is not performance-based. Rather, typical design
procedures evaluate design acceptability through conformance to prescriptive criteria on
materials, configuration, detailing, strength, and stiffness. Such criteria are deemed to result in
structures capable of achieving acceptable performance without clearly defining the performance
expectations. Furthermore, the engineer using such prescriptive procedures does not explicitly
verify the ability of the structure to achieve the desired performance.

As a result, structural engineers currently are not able to apply their full capabilities to the design
process. We are evolving into masters of the code, who add value by being able to negotiate the

1Appendix A – How We Got to Where We Are

2Appendix B – An Industry Conundrum: Ever Increasing Size and Complexity of Codes and Standards ‐ A
Contradiction to the Goals of Performance‐Based Engineering?
 -5-

complexity of prescriptive provisions rapidly, rather than by applying indispensable creative and
innovative solutions to multi-faceted structural engineering problems. As a result, the societies
we serve are not getting maximum value from their limited resources of time, money, energy, and
materials. Rather, they are getting designs that are constrained by prescriptive codes that are
generic, with uncertain reliability because design by prescription neither quantifies nor directly
evaluates performance.

How do we provide for straightforward designs of routine structures if the profession moves to
performance-based principles? There are at least two ways: 1) prescriptive provisions and 2)
separate design approaches for more complex structures. The prescriptive documents would
address the routine structures that are designed. The performance-based documents would
address the complex structures that justify a higher level of analysis and design.

Performance-Based Design by Definition

Performance-based design is a process that enables the development of structures that will have
predictable performance when subjected to defined loading.

Performance-based design (PBD) turns the traditional design paradigm upside down in the sense
that the required performance is the starting point for the design. Considering the desired
performance of the structure and selecting the scenarios that match the goals for structural
function in the presence of a specific hazard, the designer works toward achieving that stated,
desired goal. The performance of the design is demonstrated through analysis, simulation,
prototype testing, or a combination thereof.

Performance-based design is founded on the premise that structural systems and the
nonstructural systems they support, must meet specific performance objectives. The basic steps
are as follows:

 Establish the performance objectives,

 Conduct initial design, and
 Verify performance through analytical simulation, prototype testing, or a combination
thereof.

Defined performance objectives are key to the process, because they establish the expectations
for the design. Performance objectives may be qualitative when working with clients or building
owners, but engineering practice requires quantitative criteria for design and evaluation. Such
performance objectives most often include statements of the likelihood that a damage level or
service state will be exceeded over the structure’s life or if a specified event occurs. Examples of
both types of performance objectives include the following:

 Qualitative Performance Objectives

o The structure should have a low probability of being unusable following a design
level event.
o Occupants should have a high probability of being safe and able to exit the building
given design level earthquake.
 Quantitative Performance Objectives
 -6-

o The structure should have less than a 10% chance of collapse given the
occurrence of the Maximum Considered Earthquake.
o Members or connections should have less than a 3x10-5 chance per year of
structural failure as a result of live loading.
o Not more than 1 wind event in 10 years should cause swaying troubling to
occupants.

By starting with the end goal in mind, structural engineers have more flexibility and opportunities
to add value, as well as to develop innovative solutions. With performance objectives set in
advance, the engineer develops a design that can be verified through analytical or physical
means. This establishes the mechanism by which structural performance can be assured. Once
performance is verified against the performance objectives, the design can be completed, and
implemented with confidence.

Advantages of Performance-Based Design

Performance-based design offers several advantages over prescriptive design3. First, properly
executed performance-based approaches enable desired performance to be attained with
demonstrated confidence and reliability. Second, since the performance targets (or objectives)
for the design are explicitly defined, communities and individual decision makers can select the
performance level(s) that are appropriate and satisfies the applicable criteria. Third, since
performance is evaluated directly as part of the design process, engineers need not be limited by
requirements to conform to prescriptive solutions, thereby allowing for innovation and the use of
new design solutions including new materials and systems.

These advantages will enable the structural engineering profession to achieve the following:

 Declare the expected performance of individual building designs.

 Innovate to address today’s infrastructure problems, involving existing and new materials
and systems, as well as to develop designs that support future paradigms of resilience
and sustainability.
 Influence on broader public aspects, beyond the individual structure, to include roles and
impacts at the system, community, and regional scales for public safety, welfare and
resilience.4
 Advance the role of the structural engineer to the level where it is an informed and critical
partner in the community and within the design team process, enhancing value for the
public and private sponsors.

This is a process that is unfamiliar to many engineers and other professionals and stakeholders
in the construction industry. The process demands more of engineers, encouraging continuing
research and development and advances in engineering process. While not every structure will
warrant the method, with time and exposure, performance-based design processes will become
an accepted protocol for structures that can benefit from this practice.

3 Appendix C – The Case for Performance‐Based Design

4 Appendix D – Resilience‐Based Performance Standards for Buildings and Lifeline Systems
 -7-

The Charge to SEI

Fulfilling the SEI Vision for Performance-based Design will require strong leadership from the SEI
Board of Governors. To change the design paradigm will take time – many years, if not decades.
While a full list of detailed recommendations is included in this report, a summary of activities that
SEI must support to advance PBD include the following:

 Identify collaborations and partnerships within the social, economic, natural and built
environments that can be leveraged so that ongoing PBD activities can be fully aligned.
 Promote PBD principles through education and engagement of professionals and
stakeholders to the design process.
 Develop a consensus framework, or umbrella approach, for PBD that can guide ongoing
and future PBD documents and committees.
 Actively pursue development of PBD documents with code authorities and agencies.

The performance-based design principles must be developed into functional standards that all
stakeholders can understand, endorse, and execute to their mutual benefit and the benefit of
society in general. Structural engineers need to replace the typical practice of writing prescriptive
provisions that direct how we perform every incremental step of the design, with a process that
defines the performance requirements for design and defines the process for confirming
satisfaction of performance requirements. All stakeholders – owners, developers, elected and
public officials, design professionals, contractors, financers, insurers, attorneys – must be
educated about the values returned by giving design professions the ability to solve problems
creatively and the responsibility to declare expected solutions in terms of usable metrics-based
approaches. Structural engineers must be educated in the new skills they will require when
designing to performance-based codes, and must establish effective methodologies to achieve
quality in the project. And perhaps the greater challenge is for the profession to decide which
projects should be designed by performance-based approaches, develop the content of
performance-based codes, and tackle the task of developing them.

CHAPTER 2 – THE STATE OF THE PROFESSION:

PRESENT STATE OF PRACTICE AND IMPEDIMENTS AND BARRIERS TO PBD

Aspects of PBD currently are being employed by designers. However, the use of the principles is
limited to certain hazards, building types and selected non-conforming existing buildings. To move
beyond this subset of structures, the profession must address several basic impediments to
encourage widespread acceptance of PBD5.

Present State of Practice

5 Appendix E – Present State of the Practice: Technical and Educational Challenges and Needs
 -8-

The current state of professional practice with regard to the use of performance-based design in
the US is fractured along the lines of design loading and the type of structure being designed.
Many of the prescriptive requirements in these codes and standards are based on past
experience. The summary of the present state of practice presented below reflects this fractured
nature of PBD in practice.

 PBD of Buildings for Seismic

o New Buildings6: Since the early 2000s, the basis for performance-based seismic
design (PBSD) of new buildings has used the performance approaches developed
for the seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings and contained in ASCE 41
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. PBSD is also used in the
design of new buildings to reduce the code‐specified, capacity‐based
requirements for members that are intended to remain essentially elastic. Finally,
PBSD can be used to provide other performance targets, such as functional
performance for a specified seismic hazard level. These alternative performance
targets are established by the project’s owner in conjunction with input from the
design team.

o Existing Buildings7: A significant number of seismic rehabilitation design of an

existing building utilizes PBSD either by the approaches provided by ASCE 41 or
through the use of other existing building guidelines.

o PBSD Tall Buildings: PBSD guidelines, especially for the design of tall buildings,
have been available since 2010. The two most prominent documents are the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Tall Buildings Initiatives (PEER
TBI) Guidelines and the Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council
(LATBSDC) Tall Building Guidelines.

 PBD of Buildings for Wind8: The use of Performance-Based Wind Design (PBWD) is in
its infancy for buildings due, in large measure, to the complex analysis that must be done
for the interaction between the buildings cladding and its structural system. Thus, most
designs completed to date using PBWD have been bridges and other transportation
structures that are not subjected to these interactions between elements.

 PBD of Non-building Structures9: The use of PBD for the design of non-building
structures is virtually nonexistent in the United States. Current design practice for
structural engineers is primarily based on the use of consensus codes, industry standards,
and internal owner-company standards that provide minimum life safety goals and a
mixture of performance goals.

6 Appendix F – Current State of Performance‐Based Seismic Design

7 Appendix G – Performance‐Based Design of Existing Buildings
8 Appendix H – Performance‐Based Design for Wind Loading
9 Appendix I – Performance‐Based Design of Non‐building Structures
 -9-

 PBD of Bridges10: The current American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) code is largely a methods specification. The
framework for code development and implementation has led code writers to favor the
prescription of calculation procedures as a means for achieving consistent outcomes
across the US for the standard bridge types addressed in the Code and consistency in
application. The lack of definitive performance criteria within the Code associated with
these engineering methods is intentional and a significant hurdle for a general
performance-based design implementation. For those structures that are not specifically
addressed in the Code, particularly long span bridge structures, PBD procedures are
generally applied for wind and seismic design. Wind tunnel-based confirmation of
performance criteria are typically specified for major bridges. Seismic design based on
the AASHTO Guide Specification for LRFD Seismic Design of Bridges has elements of
PBD that are applied at the discretion of the agency directing the bridge design.

 PBD for Fire Design11: Performance-based structural fire engineering (PB SFE) is an
internationally, fast-growing field of engineering where the design of the fire protection
strategy and structural detailing of a building is based on calculating the structure's
behavior under realistic fire scenarios. While current practice in the United States is
primarily prescriptive in nature, PBSFE has been used on many major international
projects and is beginning to have an impact on building design in the U.S. This is
particularly true as architects conceive more complex designs and engineers have an
increased understanding of structural fire response from recent events including the World
Trade Center collapse and the Windsor tower fire in Madrid.

 PBD for Nonstructural Components12: The current state of the art is generally
inadequate to provide predictions of the performance of nonstructural components with
sufficient accuracy to support PBD. For the foreseeable future, desired performance will
more commonly be achieved through good detailing and equipment testing dictated by
prescriptive requirements rather than enhanced analyses.

Impediments and Barriers to Performance-Based Design13,14,15,16

A number of impediments and barriers exist to the adoption of performance-based design (PBD)
by owners, building officials, suppliers, and the structural engineering profession. These
impediments and barriers fall in to several categories: lack of knowledge, lack of proficiency, and
resistance to change.

10 Appendix J – Bridge Engineering and Performance‐Based Design

11 Appendix K – Performance‐Based Design Issues for Fire Effects on Buildings, Bridges and Other Structures
12 Appendix L – Some Thoughts on the Application of Performance‐Based Design Concepts to the Seismic Design of

Nonstructural Components
13 Appendix M – Performance‐Based Requirements: Meaning, Limitations, and Ways Forward
14 Appendix N– Opportunities for the Advancement of Performance‐Based Design (Engaging Stakeholders)
15 Appendix B ‐ An Industry Conundrum: Ever Increasing Size and Complexity of Codes and Standards ‐ A

Contradiction to the Goals of Performance‐Based Engineering?

16 Appendix I ‐ Performance‐Based Design of Non‐building Structures
 - 10 -

 Lack of Knowledge: Most of the advances in PBD have occurred in the area of seismic
design. Design for live loads, wind, and snow is still mostly based on prescriptive design
provisions. Furthermore, performance objectives, particularly for Risk Category III and
IV buildings and non-building structures, are not well defined. Many structures are
considered to be part of essential facilities, hazardous facilities, important facilities, high
consequence facilities, or mission critical facilities. For these types of facilities, the
performance goal is the maintenance of function. The loss of function of these structures
can have catastrophic consequences, including substantial loss of life. Maintaining
function may mean remaining operational, limiting downtime / business interruption, or
maintaining containment in the event of extreme environmental loading. How one meets
these functional requirements is different for each type of structure. Meeting these
functional requirements requires a knowledge of how the structure and the facility
containing the structure are designed, operated, and are expected to perform.

An additional challenge in using PBD is the lack of knowledge of PBD among owners of
buildings and non-building structures. Many owners, insurance providers, and the public
do not understand the performance levels provided by codes and standards and assume
that code compliant systems and buildings will perform satisfactorily for a design event.

 Lack of Proficiency: When a performance-based design approach is used, the designer

is not executing the building code methods and prescriptions throughout the design. Often
the designer will need to apply new analysis and design techniques, materials, or systems
which have no previous track record and for which there are no consensus guidelines.
This application requires greater knowledge of engineering process, competence in
reliability and statistics, and design by first principles. The ability to operate in this
environment requires a broader skill set than that for applying prescriptive methods in a
code. It also requires that the sanctioning agencies and licensing boards have a means
for assuring the public that engineers engaged in these efforts have the education and
experience to do so. The risk of deferring to PBD for those who are not technically
qualified possible is that the design will not perform adequately.

 Resistance to Change: Engineers can be averse to change. There are some who raise
concern about the wisdom of removing long standing prescriptive language from our
standards and not continuing on a path of adding more and more as time goes on. Some
engineers focus on public safety and believe engineers must be told exactly what to do.
Exposure to litigation will limit some who are reluctant to engage in PBD. Others believe
that there is a subset of buildings that are not well served by prescriptive requirements
and benefit from the proper use of performance-based engineering. .

Not all structures need performance-based design to be efficient, sustainable, and robust.
Those characteristics, however conservative, can be achieve using prescriptive
standards. The vast majority of structures are repetitive and routine, for which routine
performance expectations can be achieved following prescriptive rules17. How do we
provide for straightforward designs of routine structures if the profession moves to
performance-based principles for the structures that will clearly benefit? Also, many firms

17 Appendix O – Designing the Other 95%

 - 11 -

will tend to favor conventional methods of determining compliance with building codes due
to increased costs or capabilities required to conduct PBD at present. However, this
paradigm could change as methods and practices improve.

Code enforcement officials might be reluctant to accept PBD because staff and technical
expertise might not be adequate to perform evaluations. Hence, third-party reviews likely
will be important components to the implementation of PBD18.

While PBD is applied for some specific and discrete project types, its use is not widespread or
commonly accepted as a general design protocol. To facilitate the acceptance of PBD for those
projects where it can be beneficial in establishing a superior design outcome, SEI must
understand and work to overcome the known barriers and impediments.

CHAPTER 3 – ONGOING PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN ACTIVITIES

This initiative to advance performance-based codes and standards in the industry is not new.
ASCE, SEI, and other related organizations have a variety of initiatives in progress, all of which
SEI should understand, and in some of which SEI should engage.

ASCE

ASCE is actively evaluating opportunities for performance-based design (PBD). During the spring
of 2017, ASCE held Performance-Based Design Roundtable sessions as part of the ASCE Grand
Challenge, during which the organizers collected information from ASCE Institutes and engineers
engaged in development of performance-based guidance. According to the announcement for
the roundtable sessions, the scope is to conduct the following study:

“Performance-Based Standards (PBS) is one of the more nuanced and long-term focus areas of
the Grand Challenge. To explore shifting standards within the industry, the Industry Leaders
Council (ILC) is hosting two roundtables. The first roundtable will focus strictly on exploring the
role of performance-based standards in the civil engineering industry. The second one will focus
on life cycle cost analysis (LCCA). Life cycle approaches and processes are already being used
and the discussion will focus on how to enhance and encourage more of these activities within
the industry.”

The organizers reported on the outcome of the roundtables in an article in Civil Engineering
magazine19 and informed ASCE as it pursues the Grand Challenge.

ASCE/SEI

18 Appendix P – Peer Review and Performance‐Based Design

19 Civil Engineering Magazine, Meeting ASCE’s Grand Challenge: Performance‐Based Standards, December, 2017.
 - 12 -

Technical committees and standards committees within ASCE and SEI are engaged in PBD
activities. Technical committees with interest in this area can be divided into the following three
groups:

1. Committees that are focused on performance-based design:

1.1. SEI Performance-based Design of Structures Committee
1.2. SEI Task Committee on Performance-based Design of Tall Buildings Under Wind
1.3. ASCE Committee on Performance-based Wind Engineering
1.4. ASCE Infrastructure Resiliency Division, specifically the Risk and Resilience
Measurement Committee (developing community-based performance goals)

2. Committees that have a significant interest with past or ongoing activities in PBD:
2.1. SEI Fire Protection Committee (developing performance-based guidance for structural
fire engineering, including Appendix E of ASCE 7-16)
2.2. SEI Aesthetics in Design
2.3. SEI Fatigue and Fracture Committee
2.4. ASCE Committee on Sustainability

3. Committees with multiple members working in the PBD area:

3.1. SEI Multi-hazard Mitigation Committee
3.2. SEI/ASCE Technical Council on Life-cycle Performance, Safety, Reliability and Risk of
Structural Systems
3.3. Task Group: Risk Assessment of Structural Infrastructure Facilities and Risk-based
Decision Making.

Some SEI standards committees are advancing PBD. Among them are the following:

1. ASCE/SEI 41 Seismic Rehabilitation is a performance-based standard in its entirety.

2. ASCE/SEI 7 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other
Structures sets performance criteria in Chapter 1 and explicitly permits the use of PBD
approaches as an alternative to the prescriptive loading criteria contained elsewhere in the
standard. Based on work of the related technical committee, ASCE ASCE/SEI 7-16 added its
new appendix (mentioned above) on performance-based design for fire. Going forward during
the next cycle, the wind subcommittee of ASCE/SEI 7 is considering provisions for wind
design.

Other Organizations

We are aware of relevant activities outside ASCE and SEI. Notably, the following are active
structural standards development organizations, and the chairs of the related committees within
the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the American Concrete Institute (ACI), along
with the ASCE 41 Committee are coordinating:

1. AISC is developing a specification that is to be a companion to ASCE 41. It will specify

hysteretic relationships and capacities for steel components for use in PBD.
 - 13 -

2. ACI is developing a similar specification for concrete structures. ACI also has developed a
guideline document for performance-based design of new concrete building for earthquakes
that specifies modeling parameters and acceptance criteria for concrete components used in
new construction.

Outside of ASCE/SEI and with a scope that is broader than the SEI focus, many organizations
are working or have developed documents that frame or discuss performance-based design
aspects that are relevant with their organization’s initiatives, including the following:

1. NIST Guideline for Community Resilience Planning for Buildings and Infrastructure
Systems
2. International Code Council Performance Code
3. NFPA 5000 (sets performance goals)
4. NIBS Mulithazard Mitigation Council Performance Design papers

Other stakeholders outside of SEI standards, including AASHTO and the Eurocodes, participated
in this task committee effort. While both organizations have had discussions of performance-
based engineering, specific activities and outcomes have not been developed significantly at this
time.

As SEI pursues this initiative, we must remain diligent to engage collaborators and stakeholders
along the way.

CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS

The overview of the present state of practice, ongoing stakeholder outreach, and engagement
activities within and beyond ASCE/SEI has led to the following recommendations to advance PBD
within the structural engineering profession.

For the SEI Board of Governors, it is recommended that the overarching outcome and action be
adopted:

 OUTCOME: Establish a sustained process to advance PBD within the engineering and
construction industries.
 ACTION: Form a permanent Board-level committee to work with the SEI divisions (most
likely CSAD, BPAD, and TAD), other Institutes within ASCE, and organizations outside
ASCE to advance the profession toward PBD.

It is recommended that the proposed Board-level PBD committee provide oversight for the
development of PBD standards for professional designers, with supporting materials for code
adoption.

1. Establish SEI Board-Level Committee to Advance PBD Standards

The following five steps are proposed for establishing a Board-level PBD committee to support
development of a unified SEI approach for the final desired PBD standards:
 - 14 -

i. Identify steering committee

ii. Select Chairman and accept members that reflect committee scope and purpose
iii. Define a phased development plan and proposed coordination with other codes and
standards, within and outside of SEI
iv. Develop an umbrella ASCE/SEI framework and guidance document for coordinated
PBD activities within SEI and with other institutes.

2. Develop Outcomes and Activities for PBD Standards and Educational Materials

The Board-Level PBD committee should be charged with executing actions to achieve the
ASCE/SEI vision for PBD through the desired outcomes. It should oversee the development of
PBD guidance, standards and education materials through the outcomes and actions listed in
Table 1. The outcomes and actions are categorized as short term (0-3 years), medium term (4-6
years), and long term (7+ years) activities and products. The general sequence of development
is indicated in Table 1, though some areas or topics may be able to move toward standard
development more quickly. There are many more short-term actions than medium and long-term
actions listed in Table 1, but they do not all have to be started as short term actions. It is expected
that other actions will emerge over time and that the actual sequencing will depend on the number
of committees and members that are available to address the identified actions. The outcomes
and action in Table 1 are briefly reviewed below.

a. Develop Best Practice Guidelines for PBD

The first two outcomes (1 and 2) inform the process by evaluating current activities and
guidance documents by ASCE/SEI, and other organizations, and by identifying relevant
stakeholders that will need to be considered as products are developed20. An overview
of available practices and tools, information and data, and research needs should include
review of the following:

i. Current practice documents and case studies (PEER TBI, LATBSDC Tall
Buildings Guidelines, ASCE 7-16 Chapters 1, 16 and Appendix E, ASCE 41,
ICC Performance Codes, Other ASCE Institute documents, international
documents)
ii. Current PBD committees within ASCE Institutes and their scope/purpose
iii. Existing resources such as the NIST Community Resilience Planning Guide
for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems as a tool to define community
resilience needs.
iv. Perspective of the stakeholder groups: Consumers (owners and their
representatives, designers); Producers (manufacturers and their
consultants); General public and Regulatory (Federal, state, and local
agencies including building officials, commissions, etc.)

20 Appendix E – Present State of Practice: Technical and Educational Challenges and Needs
 - 15 -

Best Practice Guidelines for PBD topics are developed in the next set of outcomes (3 to
6) with activities to provide a sound technical basis for PBD methods and criteria21,22,23,24.
The following topics should be included25,26:
v. Situations for pure PBD (e.g., ICCPC) and mixed PBD/prescriptive (e.g.,
ASCE 41)
vi. ‘Deemed to comply’ performance goals and solution methods in codes and
standards
vii. Performance objectives based on target functionality for operation and during
design events, and methodology for developing other performance goals
(hazard independent)
viii. Scale of PBD – components, assemblies, structure, infrastructure system
ix. Criteria for selecting appropriate analytical methods, applications, etc.
(hazard specific)

b. Develop Pre-standard(s) for PBD

Pre-standards should be developed from the Guidelines (Outcomes 7 and 8), where
topics for designers are combined into a single document. The pre-standard for
designers should target performance goals and objectives (all hazards),
evaluation/design methods, and acceptance criteria for primary hazards.
c. Develop Standard(s) for PBD
Standards should be developed from the Pre-standard documents, with refinements and
additions as needed. Draft code language for adoption of the standard in applicable
codes should also be developed.
d. Develop Educational Materials for PBD
For broad dissemination, acceptance, and proper application, an education program
should be developed that addresses the design professional, building code officials and
peer reviewers, college students, and other key stakeholders.
e. Develop Professional Qualifications for PBD
Through SEI and the national reach of NCEES, address engineering qualifications for
PBD, and implementation of testing standards for SE qualification that are needed to
assure the public that those licensed to perform PBD are properly certified to do so.

3. Standards Development Process

21 Appendix D ‐ Resilience‐Based Performance Standards for Buildings and Lifeline Systems

22 Appendix I – Performance‐Based Design of Non‐building Structures
23 Appendix J ‐ Bridge Engineering and Performance‐Based Design
24 Appendix M – Performance‐Based Requirements: Meaning, Limitations and Ways Forward
25 Appendix O – Designing the Other 95%
26 Appendix B – An Industry Conundrum: Ever Increasing Size and Complexity of Codes and Standards ‐ A

Contradiction to the Goals of Performance‐Based Engineering?

 - 16 -

For the development of Standards/Pre-standards for PBD a few common steps are required within
the ASCE/SEI framework of standards development. These steps are found in the ASCE Rules
for standards development and thus not repeated here; however one additional step is
recommended to facilitate use of these PBD Standards in the design community. That additional
step is to charge the standard chairs with the task of leading the adoption/inclusion of their PBD
standard into the appropriate code, standard, or practice guideline.
 - 17 -

Table 1. Outcomes and Actions for Developing ASCE/SEI PBD Standards

Actions to Achieve Outcome

Outcome Short Term Medium Term Long Term
(0 – 3 years) (4 – 6 years) (7+ years)
1. Report summarizing Hold a summit of the
current PBD activities leaders of the various PBD
and efforts (within SEI activities on-going within
and by other ASCE (or perhaps
organizations). structural engineering in
general) to discuss existing
activities and associated
goals, objectives and
desired outcomes related to
both community resilience
and the resilience of
individual buildings and
lifeline systems. The goal of
the summit is to identify
gaps and overlaps and
develop relationships for
ongoing coordination
among those groups.

2. Report summarizing Hold a summit (as

key PBD needs of envisioned by the Case for
stakeholders, Change report, and led by
challenges, necessary the TAD committee
collaborations, and charged to hold summits)
obstacles. with representatives of
structural engineering and
invited participants from
other disciplines and
professions impacted by
the definition of
performance goals and by
transition to PBD. This
summit will explore setting
appropriate risk levels, the
advantages and obstacles
to advancement of PBD
standards, and identify
essential collaborators
outside the structural
engineering profession.

Develop a program and

activities aimed at
educating building officials
owners, the insurance
industry, and other
construction industry
participants (in addition to
 - 18 -

Actions to Achieve Outcome

Outcome Short Term Medium Term Long Term
(0 – 3 years) (4 – 6 years) (7+ years)
designers) on the benefits
of PBD to them – articles in
magazines, presentation at
conferences, etc.

3. Prepare Best Practice Develop methodology for

Guidelines for Design specifying consistent
Professionals on performance goals and
Building Structures, objectives that are
Non-structural supportive of community
Building Systems, and resilience planning. (for all
Non-building hazards, methodology
structures. should be hazard
independent).

Determine performance
goals and objectives for
specified design levels
(e.g., Risk based
performance levels of
structures for consistency
with (and transparency of)
existing prescriptive codes
and standards. Document
in PBD Guidelines.

Develop example set of

consistent performance
goals/objectives for
systems-level operational
performance; identify gaps
and inconsistencies.

4. Report documenting Identify standards for Promote removing ASD

how to specify review and assessment. load combinations from
performance goals all design
and objectives for a Conduct critical codes/standards by
desired reliability and assessment of structural improving LRFD
risk levels. performance between methods for
structural types, member vs foundations and other
system approaches, and systems that primarily
reliability and risk for a rely on ASD.
given hazard (gravity, wind,
EQ) and identify gaps and
inconsistencies.

Develop a consistent basis

of structural performance
and reliability/risk for
hazards and all ASCE
 - 19 -

Actions to Achieve Outcome

Outcome Short Term Medium Term Long Term
(0 – 3 years) (4 – 6 years) (7+ years)
design standards. (This
should help promote
resilient infrastructure as
well.)

5. PBD Best Practice Develop guidance for peer

Guidelines for the review process that
peer review process. includes assessment of
performance
goals/objectives, as well as
engineering assumptions
and analysis methods.
(This document will benefit
Building Officials, and
designers, to further
understand the PBD
process.)

6. PBD Pre-Standards Develop a consensus

for Design Pre-standard for Design
Professionals on Professionals that
Building Structures, incorporates the Best
Non-structural Practice Guidance
Building Systems, and (Outcome 3) and
Non-building Report on reliability and
structures. risk levels (Outcome 4).
7. PBD Pre-Standards Develop a consensus
for the peer review pre-standard for peer
process and Building review process based
Officials. on Outcome 5.
8. PBD Standards for Develop a consensus
Design Professionals Standard for Design
on Building Professionals that
Structures, Non- incorporates the Best
structural Building Practice Guidance
Systems, and Non- (Outcome 6).
building structures.
9. PBD Standards for Develop a consensus
the peer review Standard for peer
process and Building review process
Officials. (Outcome 7).
10. Educational materials Develop educational Develop educational Update educational
to educate design materials for professional materials for materials to reflect PBD
professionals on PBD engineers on the thought engineering curriculums Standards.
topics. process and perspectives on the thought process
that benefit/improve and perspectives that
structural design for both benefit/improve
prescriptive and PB structural design for
designs. both prescriptive and
PB designs.
 - 20 -

Actions to Achieve Outcome

Outcome Short Term Medium Term Long Term
(0 – 3 years) (4 – 6 years) (7+ years)
Develop a Guided Online
Course that introduces Extend Guided Online
practitioners/building Course to build a
officials to performance- certificate program with
based design. more in-depth courses
for various disciplines
Partner with other major which other Institutes
SDOs to develop additional could develop.
Guided Online Courses that
would couple performance
objectives and prescriptive
methods in codes. These
could lead to certification.

Partner with universities to

encourage/focus on
fundamental design
principles and concepts that
include performance
objectives.