Infrastructures: Performance-Based Analysis in Civil Engineering: Overview of Applications

infrastructures
Review
Performance-Based Analysis in Civil Engineering:
Overview of Applications
Said M. Easa * and Wai Yeung Yan
Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada; waiyeung.yan@ryerson.ca
* Correspondence: seasa@ryerson.ca; Tel.: +1-416-979-5000 (ext. 7868)

Received: 3 April 2019; Accepted: 17 May 2019; Published: 23 May 2019
Abstract: Traditional design approaches in civil engineering mainly focus on codes/guidelines

related to building an infrastructure, while performance-based analysis (PBA), an emerging new
reality around the world, focuses on the performance of the end product. Professional organizations,
academicians, and the industry have made significant contributions in formulating PBA in various
civil engineering fields, where practical guidelines and principles have been adopted in infrastructure
analysis. This paper presents a critical review of PBA applications in three civil engineering fields:
transportation, environmental, and structural engineering. The applications are grouped into a
wide array of civil engineering areas, including highway transportation, pavement design and
management, air transportation, water-structures design and operation, landfill design, building
architectural design for evacuation, urban energy design, building earthquake-based design, building
wind-based design, and bridge design and management. A total of 187 publications on PBA were
reviewed and details on 122 application papers (from 23 countries/regions) are presented. The review
consists of vertical and horizontal scans of PBA applications. In the vertical scan, the applications in
each civil engineering area are summarized in tabular format that shows the system element modeled,
analysis objective, performance criteria, analytical tool, and specifications/codes. The horizontal
scan (discussion and lessons learned) addresses the following aspects of PBA: (1) the wide array of
analytical tools used, (2) the broad functional and process-related areas, (3) the advantages, challenges,
and opportunities, and (4) potential future applications. It is hoped that the state-of-the-art review
presented in this paper will help researchers/practitioners quickly find useful information about PBA
and promote its development in their respective fields.
Keywords: performance-based analysis; design; civil engineering; structural; transportation;

environmental; review; applications; reliability; pushover analysis; simulation
1. Introduction
Many developed countries around the world are moving toward performance-based analysis
(PBA) away from the traditional perspective design. The perspective approach focuses on the means
to develop a design and simply involves applying codes/standards to design an engineering element.
In fact, this approach assumes that the safety objectives are implicitly defined. On the other hand,
PBA requires explicit definition of objectives and performance specifications, as shown in Figure 1.
The design process primarily focuses on the objectives, related performance criteria, and development
of innovative solutions to optimize the design [1,2]. Thus, PBA can be viewed as the practice of thinking
and working in terms of the ends rather than the means. In this respect, the PBA concept used in this
paper can be applied to any stage of a project, including planning, design, operation, and management.
Infrastructures 2019, 4, 28; doi:10.3390/infrastructures4020028 www.mdpi.com/journal/infrastructures

Infrastructures 2019, 4, 28 2 of 41
Performance Identify
Specifications Objectives/Criteria
Develop Initial
Design Alternative
Apply Analytical
Tool
Assess Performance
Criteria
Criteria Satisfy No Revise Objectives/Criteria

Specifications? or Design Alternative
Yes
Final Design
Figure 1. Typical performance-based analysis (PBA) process.
Performance-based design (PBD) formally began in 1994 after the Northridge earthquake
in California when the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sponsored Vision 2000:
performance-based seismic engineering of buildings: interim recommendations, which was produced
by the Structural Engineers Association of California [3]. What is interesting is that in most
transportation and environmental engineering areas PBA is emerging and has not been fully developed.
Thus, numerous great opportunities for research developments exist in these civil engineering fields.
In fact, the progress of PBA in structural engineering has started to inspire professionals in other civil
engineering fields to develop formal PBA processes. In structural engineering, the PBA process has
been preceded for several decades by well-established reliability analyses, which form a key element
of PBA. However, in transportation and environmental engineering, reliability analysis appears
sporadically in some applications.
Traditionally, lab tests have been used to evaluate and diagnose the performance of proposed
structures. However, lab tests are time-consuming and expensive as they require long hours of
preparation, setup, data collection, and subsequent analysis [4,5]. Therefore, different analytical and
computer-aided tools have been developed in civil engineering, where PBA has been a beneficiary.
First, the latest PBA studies are no longer bound by a single objective. Modern infrastructure analysis
has involved multiple objectives related to safety, cost, environmental, and other considerations.
These have lead to the implementation of multi-criteria optimization that balances all requirements in
an efficient manner. For example, civil engineers place more concern on the deformation, displacement,
and inter-storey drift when designing tall buildings, while the stakeholders focus more on operational
budget and date of completion. Thus, the use of optimization tools can aid in balancing these needs to
yield an optimal design scheme.
During the past two decades, passionate discussions and research efforts emerged in the
civil engineering literature regarding PBA [2,6]. This can be attributed to improved sensor design
(to support measurement/monitoring in different stages), algorithmic development (to perform
mechanistic design), computer simulation (to foresee and evaluate infrastructure performance),
and most importantly increased awareness of safety concerns [7]. The first three advances have further
led to a wide array of new applications in all areas of civil engineering. Although the traditional design
method mainly focuses on serviceability, the emergence of PBA adds a new vision to the design and
testing mechanism with respect to the desired safety level. This way, civil engineers can establish
certain design guidelines and principles to assess potential risk of the proposed design.
This paper reviews a wide array of applications in different civil engineering fields with the aim of
understanding the breadth and depth of PBA applications in different areas. A total of 187 publications
in PBA were reviewed and details on 122 application papers (from 23 countries/regions) in three civil
engineering fields are presented (see Table 1). North America countries, the United States (28%) and
Canada (27%), take the lead in promoting and establishing specifications/codes for the use of PBA.
Asian countries, including China (8%), Japan (6%), Iran (4%), and India (3%), also have emerging focus
on this topic. Australia and European countries, such as France, Greece, and U.K., have comparatively
less publications in the PBA areas. The civil engineering fields (areas) covered in the paper include
transportation engineering (highway transportation, pavement design and management, and air
transportation), environmental engineering (water-structures design and operation, landfill design,
building architectural design for evacuation, and urban energy design), and structural engineering
(building earthquake-based design, building wind-based design, and bridge design and management).
The review consists of vertical and horizontal scans of PBA applications. In the vertical scan,
the applications in each area are briefly discussed and summarized in tabular format that helps the
reader to extract meaningful information efficiently. We also attempt to describe the recent applications
and their main findings. Some earlier references were included in an attempt to present a complete
perspective on PBA development. The horizontal scan (discussion and lessons learned) addresses
the following aspects of PBA: (1) the wide array of analytical tools used, (2) the broad functional
and process-related areas, (3) the advantages, challenges, and opportunities, and (4) potential future
applications. As such, this paper should be valuable for researchers in identifying areas for future
research and for practitioners in acquiring a perspective on key aspects of PBA.
Table 1. Summary of the number of applications reviewed in various civil engineering areas.
Number of
Civil Engineering Field Area of Application Application
Applications
Transportation Engineering (36) • Highway transportation 15
• Pavement design and management 17
• Air transportation 4
Environmental Engineering (33) • Water-structures design and operation 13
• Landfill design 6
• Building architectural design for evacuation 8
• Urban enegry design 6
Structural Engineering (53) • Building earthquake-based design (traditional) 17
• Building earthquake-based design (special) 18
• Building wind-based design 8
• Bridge design and management 10
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Sections 2–4 review representative
applications of PBA in transportation, environmental, and structural engineering. For each civil
engineering area, the characteristics of a variety of applications (arranged from the earliest to the most
recent) are summarized in a table and sample applications are described in the text in some details.
For each application, the table presents the system element modeled, analysis objective, performance
criteria, analytical tool, specifications/codes, country/region of the first author, and corresponding
reference. Section 5 presents an in-depth discussion and the lessons learned from the review of PBA
applications presented in the paper so as to pave the way for future developments. The lessons learned
include the wide variety of analytical tools used and potential future applications of PBA. The last
Section 6 presents concluding remarks.
2. Transportation Engineering Applications

Performance-based analysis in transportation engineering has been applied to varying degrees
in the areas of highway transportation, pavement design and management, and air transportation.
Applications related to highway design are just emerging [8–10]. The performance-based (PB) approach
in transportation engineering applications is implemented at the design, operation, and management
stages. Some specifications and guidelines that include performance have been established in different
transportation areas. Examples include the performance-based navigation (PBN) manual, published
by the International Civil Aviation Organization [11], American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design method and the mechanistic–empirical pavement design
guide (MEPDG), published by AASHTO [12]. In addition, the U.S. National Cooperative Highway
Research Program has published several PB documents in the area of highway geometric design [13],
highway maintenance and operations management [14], and transportation planning [15].
2.1. Highway Transportation

The conventional approach in highway geometric design relies on adherence to criteria based
mainly on empirical data that relate driver/vehicle performance to geometric characteristics (nominal
safety). Acceptable performance is presumed to be produced through proper application of the
technical guidance, but is nonetheless an indirect outcome of a process that produces physical design
dimensions [16]. Recently, designers have begun to recognize that design should be based on actual
performance, including crash experience (substantive safety), mobility, and cost. PB geometric design
has been sporadically applied using such concepts as reliability analysis, value engineering, and
context-based design. The concept has also been aided by several recent developments, most notably
the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model [17], Highway Safety Manual [18], and Roadside Safety
Analysis Program [19]. These developments provide designers with better analysis tools than the
conventional approach. However, they generally focus on single performance measures for two
reasons: (1) some performance measures are not well understood and have not been quantified yet and
(2) a comprehensive methodology that simultaneously considers all relevant performance measures is
lacking. Recognition of the importance of performance measures in real projects implies the need for
more formal and comprehensive tools to aid broader implementation in practice. This need has been
recently recognized by researchers and practitioners.
Various applications related to geometric design and traffic operations [20–34] are found in Table A1.
The applications rely mostly on the geometric design guides by AASHTO [35] and the Transportation
Association of Canada (TAC) [36]. As noted, most research has focused on a single performance measure
of geometric design, namely sight distance (SD). Navin [20] was the first to introduce reliability into
highway geometric design. He defined some rules to determine the margin of safety and reliability index
for highway horizontal and vertical curves based on stopping, decision, and passing SDs. For railroad
crossings, Easa [21] developed a multi-criteria model of SD using advanced first-order second-moment
(AFOSM) method that considered two failure modes and their correlations. Two cases of SD were modeled
as two parallel-components and with single-component systems. The method was validated using Monte
Carlo (MC) simulation. Easa [22] used reliability analysis to determine the required SD at stop-control
intersections for specified probability of non-compliance (Pnc ).
El-Khoury and Hobeika [23] applied MC simulation to estimate the uncertainty level contained in
passing sight distance (PSD) requirements on straight roadway segments. A reliability–based design
method was developed to estimate the uncertainty of the three-dimensional (3D) SD boundaries on
horizontal alignments that overlap with flat grades, crest curves, and sag curves [24]. For the horizontal
alignment of two-lane rural highways, Easa and Mehmood [25] developed a substantive-safety approach
based not only on minimum design guidelines, but also on actual collision experience. The model also
considered physical obstructions in selecting optimal alignment. A general framework was introduced
to determine a targeted value of design safety by calibrating the highway geometric design criteria
that deal with the uncertainty associated with input parameters [26]. Ibrahim et al. [27] introduced a
reliability-based quantitative measure of probability of non-compliance and used it to develop a safety

performance function for the relationship between design reliability and expected collision frequency.
Probabilistic approaches were also developed for the freeway acceleration distance [28] and freeway
speed-change lanes based on acceleration and gap acceptance behavior [29].
For roundabout operations, two optimization models were developed for roundabout design.
One model [30] maximizes design consistency based on operating speeds of various movements,
and the other [31] is a multi-criteria model that maximizes design consistency and minimizes delay.
Another operation-based reliability model was developed by Easa and Cheng [32] using FOSM to
estimate the required minimum green time for pedestrians at signalized intersections. The start-up time
and walking speed were considered as random variables. A closed-form solution for the minimum
supplied green interval is derived and a procedure for establishing walk and the flashing “do not walk”
intervals is presented. The method was validated using MC simulation. Osama et al. [33] developed a
reliability analysis framework based on FOSM and Importance Sampling to evaluate the risk of limited
SD for permitted left-turn movements. Data for two signalized intersection approaches in the city of
Surrey were used as case studies. Geometric and traffic video data were collected and analyzed using
a computer vision tool to extract the relevant probability distributions.
2.2. Pavement Design and Management

Pavement applications have addressed both design and rehabilitation. Since asphalt pavements
usually suffer from high distress due to massive traffic loads, particularly on primary highways and
urban roads, surface rutting and distresses (e.g., cracks and potholes) unavoidably occur. Thus, civil
engineers would seek an optimal design of pavement layers and subgrade so as to reduce the life-cycle
cost of designed pavements. Various applications in this area [37–53] are summarized in Table A2.
Early research on reliability analysis focused on aggregate blending which is the first step in
pavement mix design. Easa and Can [37] developed a stochastic optimization model to determine
the optimum proportions of the blended aggregates (course, fine, and mineral filler), subject to
specifications on percentage passing each sieve and blend properties. The model accounted for the
uncertainty in the percentage passing the sieves and considered two performance criteria: cost and
closeness to mid specifications. Subsequently, Easa et al. [38] applied AFOSM method for predicting
thermal cracking of asphalt pavements. Two failure modes were considered: low-temperature cracking
and thermal-fatigue cracking. The model accounted for the variability in the component design
variables and the correlation between the two failure modes. The model results were verified using
MC simulation.
Abaza and Abu-Eisheh [39] developed an optimal design approach by using a performance
prediction model to construct flexible pavement curves that minimize life-cycle disutility and yield
optimal terminal serviceability index. Later, Abaza [40] further proposed a PB model for overlay
design of flexible pavements. Both studies followed the basic design equation for incremental
analysis by AASHTO. Despite the development of prediction models, both lab testing and in-suite
measurements were reported to properly assess physical pavement response. Lambert et al. [41] used
four different materials for pavement subgrade design: mudstone, crushed concrete, site-won sandy
gravel, and crushed rock. They performed both lab and field tests to assess the performance of granular
materials in terms of composite stiffness and strength with respect to moisture content. The results
showed that composite stiffness increases as moisture content deceases for sandy gravel.
Recently, studies in pavement design shifted from optimal design to empirical design, and then
to mechanistic–empirical (M–E) design. McDonald and Madanat [42] presented an optimization
model for minimizing life-cycle cost of construction and maintenance of flexible pavements using
M–E design. Luo et al. [43] developed an approach based on first-order reliability method (FORM)
for M–E pavement design considering fatigue and rutting failures. Kalita and Rajbongshi [44]
conducted MC simulation to assess asphalt pavement performance considering traffic repetitions,
fatigue life, and rutting life. Since pavement design performance is associated with large uncertainties,
the preceding M–E design approaches follow an iterative design process to assess pavement response
following MEPDG [12].
The aggregate blending problem was re-visited by Kikuchi et al. [45], who developed an
optimization model based on fuzzy optimization. The model selected the best mix of aggregates
such that not only gradation and physical specifications were met, but also their desirability within
each range was satisfied as much as possible. The model addressed the practitioner’s uncertainty
about the limits of the specification ranges and the desire to achieve different objectives.
Despite the preceding research work, PBA of asphalt mixtures has been lacking. Recently, PBA
was fully incorporated in the superior performing asphalt pavement (Superpave) asphalt mix design
method, which is based on a multi-million joint US–Canada project (1988–1993). The method consists
of five stages. For stage 1, the performance grading of asphalt binders has two numbers that refer to
extreme high and low pavement temperatures at which the binder is expected to perform adequately.
These extreme temperatures are defined based on reliability which is established using the means
and standard deviations for design high and low-pavement temperatures [54]. The temperature data
have been collected for thousands of sites in the United States and Canada. For stage 2, a stochastic
optimization model was developed that includes the uncertainties of individual aggregate gradations,
primary aggregate (PA) properties, and related specifications [46]. The model can directly determine
three different trial blends. The constraints of the model include gradation control specifications,
restricted-zone (RZ) limits, PA properties, and special and unity constraints. The uncertainty is
formulated to ensure that the trial blends satisfy model constraints for a specified confidence level.
A binary variable is used to allow designers to produce a blend that passes below, above, or through RZ.
For stage 3, the design involves evaluation of selected trial blends of the Superpave aggregate
structure based on volumetric, compaction, and dust proportion requirements [47]. This research
incorporates the uncertainties of all variables involved in the process and develops a revised procedure
for comparing mixture properties with the PB criteria. The developed mathematical formulas of
uncertainty were verified using MC simulation. Figure 2 shows the mathematical path for four
asphalt mix properties (performance variables) involved in the PB evaluation process. The uncertainty
of the performance variables is calculated based on the uncertainty of eight measured variables.
However, there are 13 intermediate variables that also possess uncertainty and should be checked for
reliability [47]. This figure helps the designer trace the uncertainty of the unreliable variables back to
the measured properties so that their precisions may be revised. Some issues related to uncertainty
analysis are discussed in Section 5.1.
For stage 4, a design method of asphalt mixtures that consiered the uncertainties of the measured
properties that propagate to the calculated performance variables was developed [48]. The FOSM
method was used to establish acceptance sampling criteria that ensure that the performance variables
were reliable. In addition, a procedure for determining optimum asphalt content that ensures that
specifications were satisfied within the confidence intervals is presented. For stage 5, a new method for
evaluating moisture susceptibility considering uncertainty was developed [49]. The method considers
the uncertainties of the four measured properties (thickness and maximum load) of conditioned
and unconditioned specimens in formulating the uncertainty of the tensile strength ratio (TSR).
The probability distribution of TSR is established based on a normality assumption which is verified
using MC simulation. A simple formula is developed for checking whether the TSR criterion is
satisfied. The results show that the existing deterministic method overestimates the TSR value and
could inaccurately lead to the conclusion that the mix satisfies the minimum criterion.
In pavement management, Zheng et al. [50] proposed a comprehensive pavement life-cycle
sustainability assessment methodology that integrated three criteria: cost analysis, environmental
assessment, and social assessment. A four-step structure was developed for the proposed methodology,
including system definition, modeling, unifying, and interpretation. A multi-criteria decision-making
model was developed to unify the three criteria and select the best pavement alternative. A case study
in China was applied to illustrate the proposed methodology.
Gsb Pba
GB Gse Vba
Pb.est
GA Gsa
Pbi Pbe.est
Gb Ws
P075 DP
Gmb VMA VFAest
%Gmm
Gmm @Nd VTM VMAest
hd %Gmm %Gmm
@Ni @Ni est
hi
Performance Variables
Measured Variables
Figure 2. Mathematical paths of the variables involved in the performance evaluation of superior
performing asphalt pavement (Superpave) design aggregate structure [47].
2.3. Air Transportation

Air transportation applications covered air navigation and airport terminal design. The concept
of PBN for air transportation aims to design routes, especially during congested demand periods.
The system includes two major components: area of navigation (RNAV) and required navigation
performance (RNP). Regardless of its applications, PBN for air transportation mainly improves the
efficiency of route operation (terminal or aircraft) and maintains the required safety level.
Various applications in this area [55–59] are summarized in Table A3. MacWilliams and Proter [55]
demonstrated the use of relative position criterion (RPC) to project actual aircraft route within the
qualification region, and deliver and sequence the aircrafts to runway by merging multiple flows
into a single flow. Additional rules, such as altitude, heading, runway assignment, heavy indicator,
and ground speed can also be considered. They claimed that an annual saving of USD $1.2 to $1.6
million can be achieved for the study airport while maintaining constant workload and ensuring safety.
Thipphavong et al. [56] evaluated terminal sequencing and spacing (TSS) system for PBN arrivals
using a case study in Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, United States. They used NASA
air traffic control simulation facility (multi-aircraft control system) to evaluate the TSS system with
different traffic volume scenarios. The experimental simulation showed that the TSS system achieved
benefits with PBN-enabled operation and maintained a high throughput rate of 10% above the baseline
demand level. In addition, the flight path prediction was improved and the self-reported controller
workload was reduced. Timar et al. [57] assessed RNAV’s standard instrument departure (SID) and
standard terminal arrival (STAR) procedures under PBN. They used a generic sequencing model to
capture SID/STAR inefficiency and mitigation mechanism using a case study in Northern California,
United States. This study quantified the benefits of PBN and paved the way for the next generation air
transportation system in the United States.
In addition to terminal route planning, applications of PBN can be found in the flight control
system. Zhao et al. [58] and Zhao et al. [59] developed an estimation model to assess the lateral
flight technical error (FTE), which is the distance between the estimated and pre-defined paths for
the automatic flight control system (AFCS). The algorithm, which minimizes FTE, considered such
parameters as environmental turbulence fluctuation disturbance, aircraft dynamics, and control
system parameters. The model was verified using MC simulation. They concluded that FTE was
mainly influenced by the atmospheric turbulence disturbance, performance characteristics of AFCS,
and system perturbation.
3. Environmental Engineering Applications

Similar to transportation engineering, the PBA concept has been applied in environmental
engineering to varying degrees in some areas, including water-structures design and operation, landfill
design, building architectural design for evacuation, and urban energy design. The applications
in the last area are emerging, compared to the first three areas. In addition, the PB approach in
environmental engineering applications is also implemented at the design and operational stages.
Although applications in the building evacuation area are somewhat emerging, related design
guidelines for PBA have been developed, including performance-based fire safety design [60] and
performance-based fire Engineering of Structures [61].
3.1. Water-Structures Design and Operation

Similar to any civil infrastructure, water structures (e.g., water distribution network, channel cross
sections, and river structures) require an optimal design to improve serviceability with a minimum
life-cycle cost. Various applications in this area [62–74] are summarized in Table A4. Earlier research
work on applying reliability in water structures was related to cross section design. Easa [62] applied
FOSM to design the dimensions of the cross section such that the runoff exceeds the capacity by a
specified Pnc . Later, Easa [63] extended this work to design a trapezoidal cross section based on three
failure modes(see Figure 3): runoff Q exceeds capacity Qmax , water velocity V is less than minimum
velcoity for deposition Vmin , and V exceeds maximum velocity for erosion Vmax . The performance
criteria were considered as random variables. AFOSM was used to model the three failure modes, and
the system probability of failure Pf that accounts for the correlations among the modes was formulated.
Another element of water-structures in which reliability has been implemented was port dredging.
Scott [64] applied FOSM for estimating the uncertainty of dredge production measures considering
the uncertainties of the component variables. Two types of production systems (pipeline and hopper
dredges) were considered. For these dredges, the production criteria were pipeline volumetric flow
rate (or hopper volumetric load) and pipeline solids flow rate (or hopper solids load).
Specifications
Qmax Vmin Vmax
Water Surface
AFOSM - Individual Criteria as random
1 and system Pf variables
h
z
Determine section
b dimensions
(a) Cross section geometry (b) Reliability analysis
Figure 3. Open channel design using reliability analysis considering three failure modes [63].
Xu and Goulter [65] proposed an optimization model for reliability-based design of water
distribution networks. The model considered a number of uncertainty components, including nodal
demands, pipe coefficients, and impacts of mechanical failure of system components. The model
adopted FORM to compute approximate reliability values. Buchberger and Nadimpalli [66] performed
statistical analysis to assess the design of water distribution network. They obtained continuous
measurements of flow rates within a demand monitoring area (DMA) in a residential service zone,
and applied a leak-detection algorithm to assess potential water leakage within DMA. An extended
model for optimal design and rehabilitation of water distribution network that considered multi-criteria
formulation was subsequently proposed by Jayaram and Srinivasan [67]. They used a modified
resilience index (MRI) that can handle networks with multiple sources to measure the ability of
the network to handle uncertainties. The formulation minimizes life-cycle cost of maintaining and
monitoring the pipes and maximizes the minimum MRI.
Coastal structures, such as breakwaters and seawalls, are established for coastline/shore area
protection. These structures must be well-designed and installed subject to hostile actions of winds,
waves, and earthquakes. Therefore, PBA has been used to assess the stability of the structure with
respect to these loads. Thus, similar structural performance criteria such as displacement, sliding
distance, and seismic coefficient have been used to measure the performance of the designed structure
(Table A4). Goda and Takagi [68] pointed out that the common failure of vertical caisson breakwaters
can be categorized as sliding of caissons, displacement of concrete blocks and large rubble stones,
breakage and displacement of armor units, rupture of front walls, and circular slip in the foundation
and subsoil. Therefore, they proposed a new reliability-based model by adding the concept of economic
optimization to design a breakwater structure to cater both shallow and deep waters. The study pointed
out that the limit of the expected sliding distance should be reduced from 0.3 m to 0.1 m.
In a subsequent study, Goda [69] further researched the extreme wave height and proposed
a spread parameter to characterize tail-spreading performance of external distribution functions
(Fisher–Tippett Types I and II, and Weibull distributions) as defined by the ratio of the 50-year
return wave height to the 10-year height. Suh et al. [70] further considered the effects of climate
change (sea level rise, wave-height increase, and storm surge increase) in PBA of caisson breakwaters.
They recommended that the caisson width should be increased by 1.5 m and 0.5 m for linear and
parabolic wave heights, respectively, and the return period should be designed only for 30 years with
the effects of climate change being considered. Takagi et al. [71] echoed the idea of climate change
and used a third-generation spectral wave model to perform simulation. They found that there may
be a 10% increase of wind speed caused by tropical cyclones in the Asia–Pacific area leading to a
21%-increase in wave height. Therefore, the engineer should consider such a factor in PBA for caisson
breakwater structures. Papadimitriou et al. [72] presented a new method for PBA of earth-dams and
tall embankments by estimating the seismic coefficients. The method used statistical regression of
decoupled numerical data for pseudo-static stability analysis, and is considered reliable for use in the
design of earth dams and tall embankments with heights ranging from 20 m to 120 m.
Recently, Easa [73] developed a new Muskingum hydrological routing model that adopts multiple
criteria in model calibration. The model minimizes two conflicting criteria: outflow criterion and
storage criterion. The multi-criteria function is expressed as a weighted function of normalized
outflow and storage criteria. A criterion weight of 0.4–0.6 was found to produce an excellent trade-off.
Another recent area in which uncertainty was incorporated was ice-covered channels. In such channels,
the roughness coefficient of the ice cover changes over time and space. Easa [74] presented an
optimization model for the best hydraulic section that incorporated the uncertainties of the roughness
coefficients of both ice cover and channel bed. The nonlinear discharge equation was linearized using
Taylor series expansion and was verified using MC simulation.
3.2. Landfill Design

Landfill applications focus on the design of landfill profiles (liner and cover systems) by
minimizing the leakages of landfill gas and leachate. Various applications in this area [75–81] are
summarized in Table A5. The practice of PBA for landfills has started as early as 1990s [75]. For example,
the solid waste guideline developed by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Solid
and Hazardous Waste Division (2013) pointed out that municipal solid waste landfills must contain a
composite liner and leachate collection system, where the approved landfills must ensure that pollutant
concentrations will not exceed maximum contaminant levels in the uppermost aquifer at the relevant
point of compliance. Therefore, PBA studies in landfill engineering mainly use leachate or landfill gas
parameters as the performance criteria to assess landfill profile or liner design. Tarhan and Ünlü [76]
proposed a PBA evaluation method to determine the best design component options for landfill sites
with three types of final cover and five types of bottom liners. They proposed a component selection
matrix with model parameters such as climate/precipitation, hydrogeology, waste properties, and size
of the landfill. Subsequently, they evaluated 18 different combinations of final cover and base systems
using visual hydrogeologic evaluation of landfill performance (HELP) leachate generation model and
VADSAT contaminant transport model. They concluded that the performance of landfill bottom liner
is more critical than that of the cover system, and therefore more attention should be paid to the base
system during the design process.
Subsequently, there was more focus on different landfill base systems. Katsumi et al. [77] proposed
a PBA method to assess the use of geomembrane, clay, or composite liners for landfill by comparing the
mass flux of chemicals. They concluded that the composite liner outperformed the other two types with
less contaminant leakage at the bottom of liner. Guyonnet et al. [78] compared ten geosynthetic clay
liners for the bottom barrier of landfill using four performance criteria: free swell index, cation exchange
capacity, CaCO3 content, and carbon and oxygen isotope. The authors stressed that authorities should
assess the suitability of choosing geosunthetic clay liners using these criteria, instead of giving priority
to supplier’s pricing over liner’s product quality.
Recently, more focus has been placed on post-closure monitoring and management of landfills.
Morris and Barlaz [79] developed an evaluation of post-closure care method that measured four
primary components: leachate management, landfill gas management, groundwater monitoring,
and cover maintenance. By sequentially addressing these components, the authority can determine
the optimal time and location for active care, rehabilitation, and monitoring. Finally, they presented an
economic analysis to determine how the cost of landfill management can be saved with respect to the
years of post-closure.
3.3. Building Architectural Design for Evacuation

PBD has been implemented in building architectural design to aid emergency evacuation. Various
applications in this area [82–89] are summarized in Table A6. The building evacuation model is one
of the important tasks to be designed to assess the level of life safety when a disaster, such as fire or
earthquake, happens. Thus, designers use different computer simulation methods during the design
stage to evaluate the impact of evacuation.
Depending on the design objective, most PBA applications in building evacuation mainly use
evacuation time as a performance criterion. The evacuation time is represented by the required
safety egress time (RSET) and the available safety evacuation time (ASET). This criterion is used to
assess the design options, such as exit width, fire sprinkler system, and total number of occupants.
A design option is considered acceptable if ASET is greater than RSET. Bensilum and Purser [82]
proposed an object-oriented building evacuation model, named GridFlow, for PBA with combination
of pre-movement and movement behaviors. The model considered individual building spaces as
2D rectangular cells and required specified occupant characteristics. The model output was able to
simulate people movements, flow through exits, merges of flows, and predicted evacuation time.
Kuligowski and Milke [83] compared two egress models (EXIT89 and Simulex) for PBA of a hotel
building. They found that EXIT89 produced a shorter evacuation time by 25% to 40% than that of the
Simulex for the same design scenarios. Zhang et al. [84] introduced a stranded-number model for PBA
of stadium egress. The authors highlighted the relationship between velocity, crowd density, and crowd
flow. They concluded that a 4 m egress is an ideal choice for stadium egress design. Zhao et al. [85]
proposed a 2D cellular automata random model for PBA of building exit. They performed simulation of
two different scenarios and found that the evacuation time was reduced nonlinearly with the increase
in exit width. Therefore, they recommended that the exit width (0.4 m in their experiment) should
be increased by a factor of 6.4 in the case of a single exit and a factor of 4.5 in the case of two exits.
In addition, the exit separation should be 30% of the total width of the building.
Wang et al. [86] proposed the adoption of PBA for smoke control and evacuation in a typical
building atrium. They used some assessment tools to perform smoke simulation with different
smoke density and velocity fields, and subsequently used EVACNET4 software to perform evacuation
simulation. They concluded that a 15-min RSET and a smoke screen within 80 cm can ensure safe
evacuation. Ma et al. [87] applied PB fire and safety evacuation design for a college library. They used
the fire dynamic simulator (FDS) to determine and evaluate evacuation time. With 410 s RSET and
500 s ASET, the design is affirmed to meet evacuation performance. Sujatmiko et al. [88] performed a
similar study for a 21-floor building located in Indonesia. They compared the travel time of evacuation
experiment using trained and non-trained occupants, and that generated from FDS-EVAC simulation.
The authors found that a value of RSET greater than 150 sec is much longer than ASET (35 s to 40 s),
and thus further enhancement to the fire protection system should be carried out in the building.
3.4. Urban Energy Design

Smart infrastructure design is an emerging topic that has raised awareness not only from
architectural designers and urban planners, but also from the general public. The major goals are to
reduce energy consumption and preserve renewable energy. As a result, optimizing urban and building
design considering energy performance has recently become popular in the literature. To achieve
these goals, PBA has deemed to be a viable approach to leverage multiple design parameters (i.e.,
building cost, heating, cooling, lighting, solar potential, and electricity) in order to yield the best design
solution with respect to the corresponding planning stage. Various applications in this area [90–95] are
summarized in Table A7.
Tian and Love [90] conducted a simulation to assess the performance of two cooling systems:
conventional variable air volume (VAV) system and radiant cooling-VAV (RC + VAV) system. The system
was located in the ICT Building at the University of Calgary, Canada, which is operated in a very
cold, semi-arid climate. The authors initially acquired DOE-2 simulation model, but ultimately used
EnergyPlus to model heating and cooling to evaluate the building energy performance. They found
that the ICT building had 30% lower annual energy use with the conventional VAV system compared
with the as-built radiant cooling-VAV combination. However, the building could achieve 80% lower
annual energy use by fully exploiting the potential of radiant thermal control, by better control of solar
gains and envelope heat losses, and by improved system operation coupled with a dedicated outdoor
air system with exhaust air heat recovery and evaporative cooling. Eicker et al. [91] demonstrated a
case study in Munich, Germany, where they evaluated different options of urban city quarter to achieve
zero energy balances. Considering specific parameters, including building compactness, solar access,
and renewable heat distribution, the authors concluded that when the building compactness was
reduced, the energy demand for heating was increased by 10–20%. In heating dominated climates with
higher winter solar gains (e.g., Munich), mutual shading of building forms increased the simulated
heating demand, typically by 10%.
Asl et al. [92] proposed a framework for building information model (BIM) for performance
optimization, called BPOpt. The framework was built based on the BIM software, Autodesk Revit,
by using visual programming tool, Dynamo. The authors used BPOpt to assess a house project
BIM model and to optimize the design of window size (i.e., width and height) and glazing material
(casement, clearstory, and curtain panels) by evaluating annual energy cost and percentage of the area
with illuminance level within the LEED daylighting acceptable range for three design alternatives.
Delgarm et al. [93] introduced a multi-objective particle swarm optimization model to aid building
energy performance by minimizing the electricity consumption of cooling, heating, and lighting.
The authors modeled specific building parameters, including building orientation, shading overhang
specifications, windows size, and glazing, and wall conductivity. Using the optimization model,
the optimal design achieved 1.6% to 11.3% diminution of total annual building electricity demand.
Ascione et al. [94] reported an interesting case study of developing cost-optimal energy retrofit
solutions for buildings, and they applied the method to a reference building for hospitals built
in South Italy between 1991 and 2005. The proposed multi-stage multi-objective optimization approach
first investigated energy performance of the building and implemented a genetic algorithm to optimize
the combinations of energy retrofit measures for the reduction of thermal energy demand. The model
further improved energy efficiency of the primary energy systems and exploited renewable energy
sources. Their case study proved that the optimized retrofit solution can lead to a reduction in primary
energy consumption by 12.3% and in global cost by 24.5%, resulting in a reduction of 1260 t/year in
CO2 -eq emissions.
4. Structural Engineering Applications

The concept of PBA has been rapidly growing in structural engineering and has been used in
several areas, including earthquake engineering, wind engineering, and bridge engineering. The goal of
performance-based seismic design (PBSD) is to incorporate a pre-defined level of performance during
the design stage so that post-earthquake damage is retained to a certain acceptable level. The damage
level and performance differs depending on the type of structure and its usage. The National
Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Building codes (e.g., FEMA 356 and FEMA 445) laid a solid
foundation for the PBSD to evaluate the design options with respect to different performance/safety
levels, including operational level (OP), immediate occupancy level (IO), life safety (LS), and collapse
prevention (CP) (see Figure 4). The pushover analysis is commonly used in PBSD to assess the
safety level. It first starts with applying a certain load or base shear (V). Then, the displacement
of any weak link can be found within the structure. Through iteratively applying different loads,
the displacement (D) can be captured and the V–D relationship is plotted as a pushover curve.
Interested readers are referred to [2,96] regarding structural and nonstructural performance levels.
Practical implementation of PBA has been aided by the development of design guides and books.
Examples include National Performance-Based Design Guide [97], Performance-Based Building
Design [98,99], Performance-Based Optimization of Structures [100], Advances in Performance-Based
Earthquake Engineering [101], Performance-Based Seismic Engineering [102], and the latest Guidelines
for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, Version 2.03 [103].
LS CP
IO
Base Shear (V )
Collapse
Immediate Occupancy (IO) Life Safety (LS) Collapse Prevention (CP) Collapse
Roof Displacement (D )
Figure 4. Example of performance-based seismic design (PBSD) performance/safety levels based on

pushover analysis.
4.1. Building Earthquake-Based Design (Traditional Structures)

Many applications of PBSD have been conducted for traditional building structures (e.g.,
reinforced concrete (RC) beam, steel shear wall, and steel moment frame) to analyze earthquake
impact. Representative applications [5,104–120] are summarized in Table A8. Early studies mainly
used displacement-based analysis as a criterion to evaluate PBSD of traditional structures, where a

single parameter was considered. Whittaker et al. [104] evaluated inelastic and elastic displacements
for single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system and tested 20 earthquake ground motions on a stiff soil
to soft rock site. They concluded that the stated assumption (i.e., the means of elastic and inelastic
displacements are equal) is only valid when the elastic periods are greater than the characteristics
site period and the value of strength ratio is greater or equal to 0.2. Otherwise, they found that the
mean-plus-one-standard deviation of inelastic displacement equals 1.5 times the mean of inelastic
displacements for elastic periods greater than 0.3 s. Rosowsky [105] developed a PB framework using
partially-coupled reliability method to model the dynamic behavior of wood shear walls. The objectives
were to perform sensitivity analysis of different sources of uncertainty to shear-wall performance to
statistically characterize the peak response obtained using the suite of ground motions, and to develop
a risk-based procedure for PBA.
Hasan et al. [106] proposed a pushover analysis of steel building structure. The analysis included
three tasks: (a) applying gravity loads and lateral local increment, (b) determining nodal displacements
and member deformations and forces, assessing four performance levels, and (c) employing and
updating a “plastic-factor” to trace the elastic-plastic behavior. Gong et al. [107] performed a PBA
sensitivity analysis for inelastic steel moment frames subject to earthquake loading. They performed
a pushover analysis on a three-storey moment frame to determine the roof and inter-storey drift
displacements and plasticity-factor. To improve the reliability and durability of the designed structure,
multiple performance criteria were used at the design stage, thus raising the topic of structural
optimization in PBSD.
Ganzerli et al. [108] performed structural optimization of nonlinear behavior RC portal frame,
including area of beam bottom steel, area of beam top steel, area of column steel, beam width, beam
height, and cost. They considered performance constraints on plastic rotations of beams and columns,
and behavioral constraints for RC frames. The pushover curve was used to indicate the roof displacement
with respect to the lateral loads using Finite Element (FE) program, DRAIN-2DX. Zou et al. [109] proposed
a multi-criteria optimization for PBSD of RC frames by minimizing the life-cycle cost as the objective
function (initial material cost and expected future structural loss). The inelastic drift response and the
plastic rotation were acted as design constraints subject to specific performance levels, and the problem
was solved using the e-constraint method. Kaveh et al. [110] improved the performance of structural
optimization by using the ant-colony optimization method. The cost function was the weight of the
structure, which was based on the material mass density, length, and cross-sectional area. The constraints
were related to the lateral drift of the building with respect to four performance levels (OP, IO, LS, and CP).
Then, they employed a pushover analysis to assess the first-order elastic and the second-order geometric
stiffness properties of the steel frames.
4.2. Building Earthquake-Based Design (Special Structures)

Apart from the seismic induced damage for traditional buildings, PBSD are found useful for special
structures, such as tall buildings, wall systems, masonry infill walls, and cultural heritage structures.
Various applications in this area [121–138] are summarized in Table A9. Harries and McNeice [121]
pointed out that the traditional strength-based design method is not capable of dealing with a large class
of coupled core wall systems, since the method does not incorporate preferred yielding mechanism.
They proposed a PBA using a nonlinear pushover and dynamic analyses for a 30-storey coupled-core
wall structure and proved that the use of PBA yielded an acceptable performance according to the
collapse-prevention performance level.
Klemencic et al. [122] addressed several important issues for PBA of ductile concrete core wall
buildings, including frequent and maximum earthquakes and acceptable performance for serviceability
levels. They pointed out that it was necessary to understand the anticipated building behavior (using
response spectra) before performing a detailed analysis. Lagomarsino et al. [123] initiated the use of
PBA approach for earthquake protection of cultural heritage with several fundamental steps. The steps
included defining the performance limit states, identifying structural and artistic assets of the cultural
heritage, assessing seismic hazard and soil-foundation interactions, and developing structural models
for seismic analysis.
Olmati et al. [124] analyzed a precast concrete cladding wall panel subjected to blast load, such as
an explosion event. They used MC simulation to compute the fragility curve for the wall panel using
several component damage levels (limit states), and the probability of exceeding limit states. Franchin
and Cavalieri [125] presented a PBA procedure for analyzing earth-retaining diaphragm walls. They
used MC simulation and a nonlinear dynamic model to assess the soil–wall system. The demand
hazard curve served as a criterion to reveal the wall bending moments and displacements.
Although most structures are designed to resist the impact of seismic loads, other parameters (e.g.,
fire and flood) are also considered important to include during the design stage. Kodur (1999) analyzed
fire resistance of concrete-filled steel columns and square-hollow structural steel (HSS) using a PBA.
They recommended some guidelines for design and construction: (a) fire resistance of columns should
be greater than 2 h, (b) carbonate aggregate should be used in concrete filling since it outperformed those
of siliceous aggregate by 10%, and (c) bar reinforcement is not recommended for HSS columns smaller
than 200 mm. Liew et al. [126] simulated the natural fires using two models (multi-zone and radiation)
for a steel structure and studied the effect of fire spread on structural behaviors subject to different
fire intensities. Experiments were conducted on a multi-storey frame (car parking) and arched frame
structures for fire combustion. The results showed that passive fire protection on these structures is not
necessary. However, the analysis should ensure that the structure is safe for post-disaster investigation
and rehabilitation. Taggart and van de Lindt [127] proposed to use a PBA for wood frame structures
stuffed from flood hazard damage. They used MC simulation to generate fragility curves for different
flood scenarios (depth and duration) and model repair and replacement costs. Younsi et al. [128]
introduced a PBA to design concrete mixture with different substitution of cement by fly ash using
trials of porosity measurements and accelerated carbonation tests. Such a concrete mixture product can
lead to a significant reduction in terms of CO2 emission.
4.3. Building Wind-Based Design

Urban infrastructure, in particular tall buildings/towers, inevitably suffers from extreme winds
and hurricanes. Therefore, wind loading should be considered as one of the most important factors
during the design stage of these structures. Since strong wind load would cause lateral deflection,
resulting in human discomfort or even threats to human life, PBSD in wind engineering mainly measures
displacement, drift ratio, and human comfort subject to different design wind loads and speeds. As a
result, pushover analysis is commonly used to assess the performance level of the structure.
Various applications in this area [4,139–145] are summarized in Table A10. Jain et al. [4]
demonstrated how to use a mixed distribution and MC simulation to compute the design wind loads for
a 30-storey building. Beck et al. [139] incorporated the principle of PBA to design nonlinear/hysteretic
stochastic dynamical systems. Their approach considers a statistical linearization with time-variant
reliability analysis to optimize total life-cycle cost of RC buildings subject to wind excitation. Spence
and Kareem [140] proposed a PBA framework with reliability-based design optimization to assess large
scale uncertain linear systems driven by experimentally estimated stochastic wind loads. A case study
was reported for a 45-storey building, located in Miami, simulated with uncertain wind excitation so
as to prove the robustness of PBA and the optimization framework.
Bernardini et al. [141] presented a probabilistic framework for PBA of high-rise buildings for
occupant comfort using MC simulation. The performance measure was based on the probability that
the fraction of people on a target floor who perceive the motion exceeds a specified value under a
given wind event. They also developed a web-based information system that allowed users to specify
high-frequency base-balance data, which helped in the initial design stage. Do et al. [142] used a
simplified coupled dynamic model to compute the vibration of wind turbines for fatigue life problem
and fatigue-related design. The authors conducted an experiment to assess the design of wind turbine
tower base connections and concluded that the increase in tower-base diameter and thickness can
aid in improving fatigue life of the tower connection. Huang et al. [143] proposed a four-level PBA
framework for wind engineering: motion-perception performance objective, operational performance
objective, immediate occupancy, and life safety. They developed an augmented optimality criteria
method to optimize a PBA considering inelastic deformation with a case study involving a 40-storey
residential building.
4.4. Bridge Design and Management

Similar to the earthquake engineering applications, bridge engineering focuses on safety subject
to different seismic loads and thus the PB approach has been applied for designing bridge components
such as steel arch, bent, and columns, not only at the design stage but most recently at the retrofit stage.
Thus, most studies used lateral displacement or drift ratio to assess the behavior of the designed bridge
subject to different loadings, while other studies used time dependent reliability analysis. Various
applications in this area [146–155] are summarized in Table A11.
Kim et al. [146] used a practical inelastic nonlinear analysis to assess and predict the limit-state
system strength and stability of a steel arch bridge. The proposed method considered factors that affect
the behavior of the frame and truss members, such as the gradual yielding associated with flexure,
residual stresses, and geometric nonlinearity. Mackie and Stojadinović [147] proposed a probabilistic
seismic demand model that considered ground motion intensity measures and structural engineering
demand parameters for PBA of highway overpass bridges. Shamsabadi et al. [148] presented a model
with seven soil-related parameters to predict realistic nonlinear lateral force-displacement capacity of
a regular bridge abutment as a function of common backfill properties and structural configurations.
Roy et al. [149] used carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers for retrofitting a highway bridge bent,
where the retrofitted structure met prescribed ductility levels corresponding to selected seismic
events. They subsequently performed pseudo-dynamic tests to evaluate the performance of the
retorting technique and compared the results with those predicted from a 3D nonlinear FE model.
Mackie et al. [150] considered the ground-foundation interaction in PB evaluation of highway bridges
with different soil profiles, where the approach stressed the need to quantify the probabilistic response
of the component damage, and repair cost and time. Billah and Alam [151] proposed a multi-criteria
decision-making model for PB retrofit selection of a bridge bent that was designed in mid-1960.
They evaluated the solutions of both the entropy and TOPSIS methods for performance analysis.
Sharma et al. [152] developed a probabilistic demand model to design the desired behavior of reinforced
columns under different vehicle impact scenarios. The PB fragility estimates can be used to assess the
likelihood of a specified performance of an RC column in a given impact scenario.
Several researchers conducted time-dependent reliability analysis for evaluating existing or
rehabilitated bridges [154–160]. For example, using MC simulation, Zhu et al. [154] presented a
probabilistic method for evaluating time-dependent reliability of reinforced-concrete bridge components
to predict residual capacity after subsequent rehabilitation. The probability distributions of various
variables, such as surface chloride concentration, were based on the literature. The reliability analysis
was taken one step further by Guo et al. [155] who developed a hybrid reliability method for a
pre-stressed box-girder bridge used in high-speed railway. A time-variant deflection reliability analysis
was conducted, in which a hybrid method, consisting of the response surface (RS) method, the FE
method, and the joint committee on structural safety (called J.C. method) was used [156]. The proposed
approach can be used in the design optimization, speed control, and making rational maintenance/repair
strategies for such bridges. Wang and Morgenthal [157] conducted a reliability analysis of reinforced
concrete bridge piers subjected to barge impact that considered the uncertainties involved in barge
mass, impact velocity, oblique impact angle, water elevation, and material properties. A simple
coupled multi-degree-of-freedom model for the dynamic analysis was proposed. A simple coupled
multi-degree-of-freedom model for the dynamic analysis was proposed. Hedegaard et al. [158] evaluated
the interactions between temperature and time-dependent behavior of a post-tensioned concrete box
girder bridge using linear regression of in-situ deformation data. The results showed that bridge service
life decreased as the bearing capacity decreased, following the deterioration induced by a collision,
fatigue, corrosion, cracking, or concrete spalling.
5. Discussion and Lessons Learned
5.1. Wide Array of Analytical Tools

A wide array of analytical tools is used for PBA in the three civil engineering fields. Early studies
in PBA have mainly relied on lab testing or in-situ measurements, such as the use of wind tunnel [4]
and pavement deflectometer [41] to evaluate the physical characteristics of structural and geotechnical
systems. Due to the high operational cost and durable testing time, analytical tools have subsequently
been developed with the aid of computer simulation and mathematical modeling. This trend is
clearly found especially in transportation and structural engineering applications. A summary of the
analytical tools is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Main analytical tools used in performance-based analysis (PBA).
Civil Engineering Field Area of Application Analytical Tool Sample Recent References
Transportation Highway FOSM, AFOSM, FORM Easa [21], Fatema and Hassan [29], Osama et al. [33]
engineering transportation MC simulation El-Khoury and Hobeika [23]
Multi-criteria optimization Mehmood and Easa [31]
Pavements MC simulation Kalita and Rajbongshi [44], Dilip and Sivakumar Babu [51]
FORM, SORM, FOSM, AFOSM Easa [46], Dilip and Sivakumar Babu [51], Dilip et al. [52]
Multi-criteria optimization Easa and Can [37], Deshpande et al. [53]
FORM for M-E Luo et al. [43]
Uncertainty analysis Easa [48]
Air transportation MC simulation Zhao et al. [58], Zhao et al. [59]
Environmental Water structures MC simulation Goda and Takagi [68], Goda [69], Suh et al. [70]
engineering FOSM, AFOSM, FORM, SORM Xu and Goulter [65], Easa [74]
Multi-criteria optimization Easa [73]
Landfills Numerical/analytical models Morris and Barlaz [79], Safari et al. [81]
Simulation, GIS Tarhan and Ünlü [76]
Building Analytical models Wang et al. [61], Zhang et al. [84], Zhao et al. [85]
architecture Simulation Ma et al. [87]
Urban energy Simulation Tian and Love [90], Eicker et al. [91]
Multi-criteria optimization Asl et al. [92], Delgarm et al. [93], Ascione et al. [94]
Structural Buildings Pushover analysis Moghimi and Driver [119], Wongpakdee et al. [120]
engineering (earthquake-based) FE Ganzerli et al. [108], Tort and Hajjar [132]
SDOF, MDOF Pampanin et al. [113], Wiebe and Christopoulos [138]
Multi-criteria optimization Kaveh and Nasrollahi [130], Cha et al. [136], Veladi [137]
Uncertainty analysis Rosowsky [105]
MC simulation Olmati et al. [124], Franchin and Cavalieri [125]
Buildings Pushover analysis Huang et al. [143]
(wind-based) Multi-criteria optimization Li and Hu [144]
FE-Fragility analysis Do et al. [142]
Optimization Spence and Kareem [140], Li and Hu [144]
SDOF, MDOF Beck et al. [139]
MC simulation Jain et al. [4], Bernardini et al. [141], Li and Hu [144]
Wind-tunnel test Huang et al. [143], Özuygur [145]
Bridges FE-Fragility analysis Roy et al. [149], Sharma et al. [152]
Static/dynamic models Kim et al. [146], Mackie et al. [150], Lee and Billington [161]
Uncertainty analysis Mackie and Stojadinović [147]
Reliability-FE-RS Guo et al. [155]
AFOSM = advanced first-order second-moment, FE = finite element, FORM = first-order reliability method,
FOSM = first-order second-moment, GIS = geographic information system, MC = Monte Carlo, MDOF = multi
degree-of-freedom, M–E = mechanistic–empirical, RS = response surface, SDOF = single-degree-of-freedom, and
SORM = second-order reliability method.
As noted, reliability analysis has been used for conducting PBA in all civil engineering fields.
The analysis involves establishing a limit state function, which is the difference between supply and
demand (called resistance and load, respectively, in structural engineering). Typically, the supply
and demand are functions of random variables that are treated in the limit state function explicitly
and simultaneously (fully-couple analysis). Examples of related analytical tools are FOSM, AFOSM,
FORM, SORM, and J.C. method [51,65,156]. Note that in transportation and environmental engineering
applications, the supply is normally considered deterministic, making the analysis simpler, unlike the
resistance in structural engineering applications which is not only random, but also time dependent.
When one source of the uncertainty is far greater, as is the case of natural-hazard loads, the response is
separated from the hazard (uncouple analysis), which is the basis for the fragility analysis [142,149,152].
Another type of analysis that lies between the preceding two types (partially coupled analysis) has
been proposed [105]. Reliability analysis in structural engineering can also be performed using RS
method in association with FE and basic reliability principles [155]. The RS method is useful when
the LS function is known only implicitly, such as in FE analysis whose direct application would be
expensive. In this case, the implicit limit state function is replaced with an artificially constructed RS
function (generally a polynomial) around the design point.
The MC simulation is another numerical tool used for PBA. The method is simple and can be
applied to almost all reliability problems. However, the limit state function needs to be evaluated
many times with random sampling of the component random variables. This can be expensive and
time-consuming for problems with implicit limit state functions or where failure probability is low.
Further details on the preceding analytical and numerical reliability methods can be found in the
literature, see for example [162–164]. Note that MC simulation has also been used to verify PBA
analytical tools. For example, Figure 5 shows a comparison of the uncertainty-based mathematical
model and MC simulation for the volume of absorbed asphalt (Vba ) [47]. The simulation involved
generating 50,000 random values of the component random variables, substituting them in the
respective equation of Vba , and establishing the frequency histogram. The burble-colored columns
in the figure represent a normal distribution with the mean and standard deviation of Vba calculated
using uncertainty analysis. According to the central limit theorem [165], when a variable is a function
of several random variables, its probability distribution tends to be normal, regardless of the types of
distribution of the component variables. This explains the close agreement between the mathematical
and simulation results in the figure.
12
MC Simulation
10 Mathematical Model
Frequency (%)
0
-0.003
-0.001
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.007
0.009
0.011
0.013
0.015
0.017
0.019
0.021
0.023
0.025
0.027
0.029
0.031
0.033
0.035
0.037
0.039
Volume of Absorbed Asphalt (Vba)
Figure 5. Comparison of uncertainty-based mathematical model and MC simulation [47].
Uncertainty analysis is a useful analytical tool for considering the effect of uncertainty of the
measured variables on the uncertainty of the performance variables. Often, the analysis involves
propagation of uncertainty through intermediate variables. Although PB models in some applications
are deterministic (based only on the mean values of the measured variables), such models may
provide misleading results. In considering uncertainty in PBA, the analyst should pay attention to
several issues [46–49]. First, all variables (measured, intermediate, and design) should be reliable.
Reliability of a random variables is normally measured by the coefficient of variation (CV). In most
engineering applications, a variable is considered reliable if CV ≤ 25% and variables with CV > 40%
are certainly unreliable (25% < CV < 40% may be acceptable). Secondly, the analyst should ensure
that the probability distribution of a random variable does not have a negative tail as negative values
are normally not meaningful. This is ensured when the mean value of the random variable is greater
than three times its standard deviation. In practice, if the intermediate or performance variables are
found to be unreliable or have negative tails, the analyst should trace the measured variables that affect
that variable and try to reduce their uncertainties (see Figure 2). In this figure, CV of the measured
variables is very small (<1%). However, due to propagation of error CV of the performance variables
(yellow) and the intermediate variables (pink) reaches up to 39%. Third, most PBA applications
focus on the uncertainty of the performance measures and neglect the uncertainty of the performance
criteria. For example, in asphalt mix design performance criteria are established based on thousands
of good-performing pavements and such criteria also possess uncertainty that should be considered
in modeling [46].
Although different analytical tools are developed in PBA to deal with multiple criteria or numerous
coupled degrees of freedom, genetic algorithms and MC simulation have been found to be effective in
estimating optimal different design parameters considering uncertainty and life-cycle analysis. This can
be found in diverse applications, including breakwater design [70], cladding wall panels [124], diaphragm
wall [125], wood frame structure [127], pavement design [44], and flight control systems [58]. Different
solution methods, such as e-constraint method [109], ant-colony algorithm [110], and gene manipulation
method [136] have been proposed to improve the computational efficiency of multi-criteria optimization.
The reader is referred to a recent successful case study by Lamperti Tornaghi et al. [166], where the authors
proposed a sustainable structural design method that optimizes energy performance (in monetary unit),
life cycle (environmental) assessment, and structural performance (repair and downtime cost) in order
to obtain a global assessment parameter of the proposed design. Similar approaches of multi-criteria
optimization have been incorporated into some standards [167] and pre-standards [168].
Recently, M–E models have been emerging in pavement design. Such models explore the
relationship between the physical causes and the phenomenon using a mathematical model. These
models are advantageous over mechanistic models which mainly rely on the use of physical principles
(e.g., look-up table) or equations to determine the design parameters. The M–E models are also more
accurate than empirical models which are typically based on establishing empirical relationships that
may change if the input slightly changes.
In structural engineering, pseudo static/dynamic tests are commonly used to assess the imposed
displacement or inter-storey drift subject to different loads [72]. Physical approaches based on SDOF
and MDOF systems have been used to model displacement with respect to velocity and acceleration,
which are the fundamental principles found in structural and seismic studies [138]. Thus, different
FE models are developed to aid in assessing the geometric design subject to stress analysis, where
software such as DRAIN-2DX and LS-DYNA are used in various studies [152]. Another popular
analytical tool adopted in structural engineering applications is the pushover analysis. This analysis
is one of four procedures commonly used in PBA: linear static, linear dynamic, nonlinear static
(pushover), and nonlinear dynamic. Pushover analysis is attractive for PBA because it is simple to
perform and involves less calculation than NL dynamic analysis. It also uses a response spectrum
rather than ground accelerograms. Its main weakness is that it is approximate as it is static and cannot
account for dynamic structural behavior, and is reliable only if the building behaves essentially as a
SDOF structure. However, for most structures the analysis can be effectively used for preliminary
performance evaluation, but the final evaluation may best be done using dynamic analysis. For more
details on the accuracy of several of pushover methods and the most promising one, the reader is
referred to Powell [169].
5.2. Broad Functional and Process-Related Areas

The review of applications in this paper showed that the PBA concept has been applied to all the
stages of infrastructure life, including planning, design, operation, and management. A quick scan of
the reviewed applications showed that design-related applications have been more dominant (75%),
compared with planning applications (15%) and operation/management applications (10%). Thus,
great opportunities exist for researchers to explore various ways of implementing the PB concept in
functional areas other than design.
In addition to its application to academic civil engineering fields, PBA has emerged in processes
related to these fields. One example is assessment of engineering education. The traditional input-based
assessment of engineering education has primarily focused on the resources that are available to the
students with little attention to whether students ever learned any of the materials. In addition to this
traditional assessment, a relatively new type of assessment based on performance has been incorporated
in engineering education. Performance or outcome-based assessment focuses on empirically measured
outcomes that include a range of skills and knowledge that undergraduate students should acquire.
More details on this system can be found in “Framework and Guidelines for Graduate Attribute
Assessment in Engineering Education” [170]. Twenty countries from around the world have adopted
this approach in higher education since 1990s as part of the Washington Accord [171], including
Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States. The main objective
of the PB assessment is continuous improvement of the engineering program.
A typical process of graduate-attribute assessment is illustrated in Figure 6. The blue-shaded
activities are performed at the faculty level, while other activities are performed at the academic
program level. The faculty-level activities include the development of common indicators associated
with each graduate attribute, a common assessment schedule, and common indirect assessment
methods. Feedback from constituents and stakeholders (e.g., advisory council and faculty members)
are sought when identifying/revising program objectives and developing program improvements.
Start
Develop / implement
Identify / review program
Advisory program objectives improvements Advisory
Council, Council,
Faculty Curriculum
Members Committee
Develop / revise Identify
learning objectives strengths and
for grad. attributes weaknesses
Map curriculum Collect

courses to graduate information and
attributes analyze results
Design assessment:
Determine
- Select courses
assessment
- Identify methods
schedule
- Develop measures
Figure 6. Typical process of graduate-attribute assessment (faculty-level activities are shaded

in blue) [170].
Another example of process-related PBA is performance-based contracting (PBC) [172]. The main
parties involved in PBC are an agency that contracts the work to an external provider (a contractor)
who is responsible for completing the work specified in the contract. PBC is a support strategy
that focuses on optimizing system support to meet the needs of the user. As such, PBC involves
outcome performance goals, provides incentives for reaching these goals, and aids overall life-cycle
management. PBC is popular around the world and in industry sectors, including defence, health
services, energy sector, and construction. However, civil engineering as a discipline seems to be
lagging in PBC implementation. According to a study in 2015 by Selviaridis and Wynstra [173] that
reviewed 241 PBC applications across disciplines, the share of construction applications was only 4.1%.
Another related area in which the PB concept has been implemented is performance-based contractor
prequalification [174]. It is expected that the PB approach will be the future vision in all professional
and academic aspects of civil engineering.
5.3. Advantages, Challenges, and Opportunities

As previously mentioned, PBA focuses on the desired objectives rather than the means by
which they are achieved. As such, PBA is believed to be a more cost-effective approach than
the prescriptive approach. Specifically, there are three main advantages of the PB approach [175]:
(1) PBA enables desired performance to be attained with demonstrated confidence and reliability,
(2) since the performance objectives are explicitly defined, PBA allows decision makers to select
appropriate performance levels that satisfy applicable criteria, and (3) since performance is evaluated
directly as part of the design process, PBA promotes research and innovation, and the use of new
design solutions (new materials and systems). These advantages give the analyst the freedom to solve
harder problems with better tools.
As an example of PBA advantage, common PBA objectives can be found to guarantee the safety
level of the design scheme regardless of the civil engineering application. Examples include the
reduction in potential hazard in landfill engineering, minimization of inter-storey drift displacements
in seismic engineering, and improving the safety evacuation time in building architectural design.
These objectives would lead to a common ground for PBA, regarding how safety levels are defined.
Indeed, this was a major topic for PBA research during the past decades, to which different research
and professional organizations have contributed to standardize the performance level. For example,
the FEMA has established guidelines for buildings that define seismic performance levels and
rehabilitation objectives. Structural performance levels (three) and ranges (two) were defined.
Each level has a clear definition of how the designed building looks like after a seismic event and how
much efforts should be allocated for rehabilitation. Thus, civil engineers can map the design scheme to
the corresponding performance level.
The challenges associated with PBA arise because it is a new creative alternative that substantially
differs from the traditional perspective approach. The challenges may slightly vary from one discipline
to another. However, based on this review, the common challenges are as follows [175,176]:
• Lack of knowledge. One major challenge is lack of knowledge. For example, in structural
engineering, application of PBA includes completely new features, such as nonlinear modeling
and response-history analysis. There is a need to provide design engineers with appropriate
design tools to help them, at least at the preliminary design stage, to smoothly transit to PBA.
A related challenge is lack of PBA knowledge among owners of the infrastructures, insurance
providers, and the public.
• Lack of proficiency. The use of codes and standards of the perspective approach is straightforward.
However, PBA is more complex and requires broader skills in using new design techniques,
new materials, and new systems for which no consensus guidelines exist. Thus, greater knowledge
of the engineering process and competence in reliability and optimization would be required.
• Lack of decision tools. Innovative decision-support systems (DSS) for PBA are needed. The DSS
should explicitly allow for demand and supply concepts and multi-criteria analysis. Early research
work in PBA used a single performance criterion. However, recent research has adopted multi-criteria
optimization along with criteria weights, where the criteria are often conflicting. When the criteria
are conflicting, many Pareto optimal solutions exist and finding such solutions is not straightforward.
Innovative ideas to decompose and breakdown the problem into different sub-systems that would
eliminate the need for complex multi-criteria optimization are emerging [176].
• Lack of Data. Another technical challenge of PBA, especially in transportation and environmental
engineering, is related to the lack of data on the variability of the input random variables.
Reliability analysis methods require information on the mean and standard deviation of the
random variables (some require the type of the probability distribution as well) and the
correlations among the variables, but often such data do not exist. There is a need for establishing
databases in various areas of civil engineering to promote PBA applications [47].
• Resistance to change. At present, many companies and organizations favour the perspective
approach as its application is routine and resist the PBA approach because of the associated cost
or required skills to perform the evaluations. This, however, may change as better methods and
guidelines are developed. In addition, some engineers believe that PBA need not be implemented
for all structures, which is true. However, identifying the structures or elements for which the
perspective approach is adequate remains a challenge.
Opportunities to address PBA challenges are numerous. Clearly, a thorough knowledge and
practical experience are required for professionals to perform PBA. This can be aided by organizing
regular conferences and workshops, developing white papers, developing best-practice guidelines,
and developing continuing education courses. International organizations that can help in this effort
include International Organization for Standardisation, International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering, Institute of Transportation Engineers, and Association of Environmental
Engineering and Science Professors. Several professional bodies have been organizing regular
conferences on PBA, such as 1st International Conference on Safety and Crisis Management [177] and
International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods. Learned
societies are becoming involved in promoting PBA. For example, the Structural Engineering Institute
(SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers has developed a report in 2018 that has recommended
formation of a permanent SEI Board-level committee to advance the profession toward PBD [175].
Professional associations, such as Structural Engineers Association of British Columbia, are starting
to incorporate PBA into their certificate programs. New books on PBA have been published; see for
example Kasimzade et al. [178] and Bryan et al. [179]. All these efforts have stimulated the practical
use of PBA in the diverse civil engineering fields.
Several academic research centers have been established in North America. For example,
the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, located at University of California at Berkeley,
has a vision “to develop and disseminate technologies to support PB earthquake engineering”.
The center includes investigators from over 20 universities, several consulting companies, and
researchers at various state and federal government agencies. Another example is the Canadian
Seismic Research Network which is funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada. The center includes 26 researchers from eight universities across Canada. The themes of the
network directly contribute to the development of PB seismic assessment and rehabilitation guidelines.
In graduate studies, PBA has been incorporated as one of the core research areas of graduate
programs in civil engineering at several universities, including Lakehead University, Colorado State
University, Stanford University, and University of Maryland. For example, the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University [180] has developed a graduate program on
performance-based engineering. We recommend that civil engineering programs at universities should
at least incorporate a new course on performance-based civil engineering in the curriculum as a
core or elective course. Alternatively, in case this not possible, existing courses should be revised to
incorporate relevant elements and case studies of PBA.
5.4. Potential Applications of PBA

The review presented in this paper shows that PBA has been implemented in various civil
engineering fields not only at the design stage, but also at the planning, construction, operation,
and management. Table 3 presents a summary of past and potential future applications of PBA in the
three civil engineering fields. The third column presents the elements that have already been modeled
in the reviewed applications as presented in Tables A1–A11. The fourth column presents potential
future applications that are mostly identified from recent research journal papers and reports.
Table 3. Potential applications of PBA.
Civil Engineering Field Application Area System Element Already Modeled Potential PBA Application or Consideration
Transportation Highway – Traffic lights (yellow, LT offset) – Pedestrian crossing (SD)
engineering transportation – Roundabout design – Two-lane highways (SD)
– Uncontrolled intersections (SD) – Truck escape ramp design
– Stop-controlled intersections (SD) – Dilemma zone at traffic lights
– Railroad crossings (SD) – Roundabout design
– Horizontal alignments (safety) – Transportation logistics
– Autonomous vehicles
Pavements – Aggregate blending – Combined pavement failure modes
– Asphalt mixture design – LID for improving drainage
– Pavement design – Thermal effect under all weather conditions
– Thermal cracking prediction – Recycled aggregates
Air transportation – Terminal operation – Noise modeling
– Route planning in terminal – Trajectory negotiation
– Performance with big data analytics
– Facility location within existing system
Environmental Water structures – Breakwater – Artificial island
engineering – Water channel cross section – Offshore windmill, data barges
– Dams, River, Port dredging – Offshore oil rig, sea dikes
– Ocean wave hazard
– Resilience of built environment to natural hazard
Landfills – Composite liners – Landfill mining
– Cover systems – Air injection /gas extraction wells
– Landfill gas collection for monitoring methane/odour emission – Other landfills: coal mine waste, earthquake generated debris
Building – Evacuation routes and paths – Human behavioral effect
architecture – Exit, stairs and egress for atrium – Communication and hearing effect
– Library, stadium, gallery, building – Design for disabilities and sclerosis
– Landscape architecture
Urban energy – Window size and material – Local microclimate and energy demand
– Building geometry & orientation – Building cluster, district and city
– Shading overhang – Building occupants’ behavior model
– Glazing and the wall conductivity – Access to measured building energy use
Structural Buildings – Wall structure – Evaluation of special structures
engineering (earthquake-based) – Steel frame, Wood frame – Integrated soil/rock-structure interaction
– Structures with non-rigid connection
– Skycraper
– Carbon fire exterior rods
– Non-building structures
Buildings – Tall building – Wind and acoustics
(wind-based) – Steel frame – Wind energy in built environment
– Sports aerodynamics
Bridges – Reinforced concrete – Abutment bridge
– Steel arch, Column bents – Automatic bridge
– Truss, cantilever – Bascule bridge
– Suspension, bridge – Floating bridge
– Cable-stayed bridge – High speed rail effect
– Integral abutment bridge
– Use of mage-based systems
LID = low impact development, SD = sight distance.
In transportation engineering, the opportunities for future research are enormous. For highways,
PBA can be applied to several transportation engineering areas, including SD analysis for pedestrian
crossing, SD analysis for two-lane highways, length of truck escape ramps, and dilemma zones at
signalized intersections. Another potential area is infrastructures of smart cities that will embrace
the next generation of transportation technologies (e.g., autonomous vehicles, self-flying air taxi, and
high-speed rail). This area requires more research effort to leverage the balance among operating cost,
safety, comfort, and efficiency. For pavements, the focus on the serviceability can be further expanded
by improving surface drainage and layer infiltration. For example, low impact development (LID)
technologies such as porous pavements and bio-retention can be retrofitted in existing urban areas
to improve rainfall infiltration and evapotranspiration, resulting in a reduction in flood risk [181].
With the development of new materials and technologies, related analytical tools and performance
criteria should be re-visited to improve life-cycle performance and functionality. For air transportation,
future research on PBA may address modeling of aircraft noise, trajectory negotiation, improving
transportation performance with big data analytics, and facility location (e.g., new factory, warehouse,
and distribution center) within the framework of an existing distribution system.
In environmental engineering, many opportunities for future research on PBA have been
identified. For water structures, PBA can be adopted for offshore structures such as artificial island,
windmill, oil rig, and data barges installed near-shore platform, similar to PBA of breakwater structures
to resist extreme weather conditions involving strong wave and wind. Other potential applications
include ocean wave hazard and resilience of built environment to natural hazard. For landfills, potential
applications include design of air injection and gas extraction wells, landfill mining, and consideration
of other landfill types (e.g., coal mine waste). For building architectural design, future research areas
include incorporating the effect of human behavior and communication/hearing, design for disabilities
and sclerosis, and landscape architecture. In urban energy design, further improvements of building
energy performance and substantial use of green energy can further aid in designing smart homes
and low carbon neighorhood cities. Other factors including local microclimate and its relationship to
building-energy demand and occupants’ behavior modeling should be considered [182]. In addition,
authorities should address the privacy issue of releasing measured building energy use so that this
information can be used to calibrate urban building-energy models [183].
In structural engineering, potential new elements for PBA are relatively limited since the PBA
concept has already been well implemented for decades. However, there are opportunities for
improving the already developed methods. For buildings (earthquake-based), current practice
for traditional structures can be slightly modified so that similar approaches can be implemented
for special structures considering other performance criteria. Another area that deserves more
focus is soil/rock-structure interaction, where reliability analysis of structural elements has been
far ahead of that of geotechnical elements. This research would be particularly useful for integral
abutment bridges that offer numerous advantages over traditional bridges [184]. For building
(wind-based), it is foreseeable that more tall buildings are being built in different metropolitan areas as
landmarks or condominiums, and thus other aspects of building design considerations that integrate
building information modeling and smart homes/cities are expected. In this respect, Blocken [185]
highlighted the following five potential research areas that computational wind engineering should
consider: surface convective heat transfer, wind and acoustics, wind-borne debris, wind energy in
built environment, and sports aerodynamics. For bridges, PBA can be applied to other types of
bridges, including abutment bridges, bascule bridges, and floating bridges. In addition, non-contact
image-based systems for measuring bridge deformation are emerging, but their performance needs to
be evaluated compared with contact-based methods [186].
6. Concluding Remarks
This paper has presented a comprehensive review of PBA applications in different civil
engineering fields: transportation, environmental, and structural engineering. The review shows
that PBA implementation in structural engineering has been more advanced and systematic than in
other fields, where the implementation has been sporadic and incomprehensive. In all fields, most
applications of the PBA concept focus on design and more applications in other functional areas and
processes should be promoted. It is also found that there are several challenges to the application
of the PBA approach, but many efforts were simultaneously emerging to address them, including
educational outreach, creation of research centers, and graduate studies.
As the PBA concept advances, will the traditional approach to design become obsolete? To answer
this question, note that although the benefits of PBA are significant, it is more complex and expensive
than the traditional perspective approach. Therefore, the traditional approach will continue to be useful
in the design of many situations, especially for simple projects, while the PBA approach will become
an accepted protocol for complicated, mission-critical, and high-value structures, such as hospitals
and high-rise buildings [175]. In addition, adopting PBA at every step of the project (planning, design,
operation, and management) is unlikely in the foreseeable future and a blend of the two approaches
will continue to be used for some time. For example, the Australian PB building code allows the design
of elements using PBA, the traditional approach (for elements that are deemed to satisfy performance),
or a combination of both [187].
There is a need for developing a formal PBA process in transportation and environmental
engineering, similar to that of structural engineering. In addition, a civil engineering field that has not
been addressed in this paper is geomatics engineering. This field seems to be substantially lacking in
PBA implementation compared with other fields. In most geomatics engineering applications, accuracy
has been traditionally the only performance criterion and consideration of multiple performance
criteria should be explored. This fact is clear in the areas of remote sensing and satellite positioning.
To move fully toward PBA, additional criteria, such as computational time, risk, environmental impact,
and operating/maintenance cost should be considered. There is also a need to develop analytical tools
for PBA that are more adaptable to this unique field of civil engineering.
The literature review presented in this paper is based not only on peer-reviewed journal articles,
but also on other sources such as design codes and guidelines, books, conference papers, and technical
reports. Therefore, we believe that the review reflects, to a large extent, the current state-of-the-art of
PBA in civil engineering. It is hoped that the presented vertical and horizontal scans of the literature
will help inspire systematic research efforts to make the performance-based concept an accepted
practice in civil engineering.
Author Contributions: conceptualization, S.M.E.; data curation, S.M.E. and W.Y.Y.; formal analysis, S.M.E.
and W.Y.Y.; supervision, S.M.E.; writing—original draft, S.M.E. and W.Y.Y.; writing—review and editing,
S.M.E. and W.Y.Y.
Funding: This study is financially supported by a Discovery Grant and a Discovery Accelerator Supplement from
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive
and most helpful comments that have substantially aided the organization and contents of the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this paper:
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ACI American Concrete Institute
AFCS automatic flight control system
AFOSM advanced first-order second-moment
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASET available safe egress time
ATC Applied Technology Council

BSI British Standards Institute
CASHEW Cyclic Analysis of SFEar Wall
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CHBDC Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code
CSA Canadian Standards Association
CV coefficient of variation
DMA decision support system
EN European Standards
EPBD Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FE Finite Element
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMP Federal Energy Management Program
FORM first-order reliability method
FOSM first-order second-moment
FRP fiber-reinforced polymer
FTE Flight Technical Error
PBC performance-based contracting
PBD performance-based design
PBN performance-based navigation
PBSD performance-based seismic design
PGA peak ground acceleration
PSD passing sight distance
RSET required safe egress time
RC reinforced concrete
RNAV area of navigation
RNP required navigation performance
RS response surface
RSET required safety egress time
RZ restricted-zone
SD sight distance
SDOF single-degree-of-freedom system
SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
SID standard instrument departure
SORM second-order reliability method
STAR standard terminal arrival route
Superpave superior performing asphalt pavements
TAC Transportation Association of Canada
TOPSIS technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution
TSR tensile strength ratio
TSS terminal sequencing and spacing system
UBC Uniform Building Code
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VAV variable air volume
Appendix A. List of Tables with PBA Applications
Table A1. Characteristics of highway transportation applications.
System Analysis Performance Analytical Specification/ Country/

Reference
Element Objective Criterion Tool Code Region
Perform PBD of to
Horizontal and vertical • Safety margin • Agency
determine H and V • FOSM Canada Navin [20]
curves • Safety index specifications
curves
• Safety margin for
Perform PBD of limited
highway leg • AFOSM
Railroad crossing SD for highway • AASHTO Canada Easa [21]
• Safety margin for • Multi-criteria
vehicles
railway leg
No-control, yield, and
Perform PBD of SD
stop control • Safety margin • FOSM • AASHTO Canada Easa [22]
along approach legs
intersections
PSD on two-lane Perform PBD of PSD for • MC United El-Khoury and
• Reliability index • AASHTO
highways passing vehicles simulation States Hobeika [23]
3D alignment involving Perform PBD of SD on • AASHTO Sarhan and
• Probability of hazard • FOSM Canada
H-V curves combined H-V curves • TAC Hassan [24]
• NL
Horizontal alignment Perform PBD of • Mean collision optimization • AASHTO Easa and
Canada
(two-lane highways) horizontal alignment frequency • Collision • TAC Mehmood [25]
models
• FOSM
Framework of design
Perform PBD of risk in • Performance • FORM • Past Ismail and Sayed
elements (Case study: Canada
geometric design function Calibration practice [26]
crest curves)
factors
Determine optimum • FOSM, FORM
• Risk balance
Highway cross section cross section • Multi-criteria
• Number of collisions • AASHTO Canada Ibrahim et al. [27]
with two directions dimensions to • NL
• Overall risk
minimize risk optimization
Develop a probabilistic • FOSM
Freeway acceleration
method for acceleration • Significance level • MC • TAC Canada Hassan et al. [28]
distance
distance simulation
Develop a probabilistic
Freeway speed-change design of SCL • Target merge speed • FOSM • AASHTO Fatema and
Canada
lane (SCL) considering • Acceptable gap • Multi-criteria • TAC Hassan [29]
acceleration and gaps
•
Roundabout geometric Perform PBD of • NL Easa and
• Design consistency Roundabout Canada
design roundabout design optimization Mehmood [30]
Guide
Perform multi-criteria •
Roundabout geometric • Design consistency • Multi-criteria Mehmood and
PBD of roundabout Roundabout Canada
design • Mobility optimization Easa [31]
design Guide
Perform PBD of • FOSM
Pedestrian green • Safety margin of Easa and Cheng
pedestrian green • MC • MUTCD Canada
interval minimum green [32]
interval simulation
• FORM
Perform PBD of SD of • Safety margin of • AASHTO
Signalized intersections • Importance Canada Osama et al. [33]
left-turn vehicles available left-turn SD • TAC
Sampling
Perform PBD of • Safety margin of • AASHTO Hussain and Easa
Signalized intersections • FOSM Canada
left-turn offset available left-turn SD • TAC [34]
ASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AFOSM = advanced first-order
second-moment, FORM = first-order reliability method, FOSM = first-order second-moment, H = horizontal,
MC = Monte Carlo, MUTCD = manual of uniform traffic control devices, NL = nonlinear, PSD = passing sight
distance, TAC = Transportation Association of Canada, and V = vertical.
Table A2. Characteristics of pavement design/management.

Reference
Predict the proportions • Stochastic
• Cost • Agency Easa and Can
Aggregate blending of three types of quadratic Canada
• Blend specifications specifications [37]
aggregates optimization
• Thermal fatigue • AFOSM
Design a
Asphalt concrete cracking two-failure • Agency
reliability-based Canada Easa et al. [38]
pavement • Low-temperature modes specifications
approach for pavement
cracking • MC simulation
• Initial serviceability
2-layer asphalt Design cost-effective index • AASHTO
• Performance Abaza and
pavement with pavement with min. • Terminal design Palestine
prediction model Abu-Eisheh [39]
limestone aggregates life-cycle (LC) disutility serviceability index method
• LC disutility index
• Serviceability index
Assess severability of • AASHTO
Asphalt pavement • Pavement condition • Performance
overlay thickness and • Caltrans Palestine Abaza [40]
overlay indicator prediction model
design rehab methods
• Service time
Crushed concrete, Assess stability of • Material stiffness • Lab and in-situ • UK Standards
United Lambert et al.
sandy gravel, crushed recycled aggregates for • Strength assessment with (IAN 73,
Kingdom [41]
rock foundation • Water content deflectometer 2006)
Minimize life-cycle cost • Structural response • Mechanistic -
Extended-life and United McDonald and
of construction and • Fatigue distress empirical design • MEPDG
perpetual pavements States Madanat [42]
maintenance • Rutting distress • optimization
• Layer thickness
Develop a method
Asphalt layer and • Modulus of layers United
considering fatigue and • FORM • MEPDG Luo et al. [43]
granular layer • Wheel spacing States
rutting failures
• Tire pressure
Develop reliability • MEPDG
Asphalt concrete • Fatigue Kalita and
design of pavement • MC simulation design India
pavement • Rutting Rajbongshi [44]
thickness guideline
• Material cost
Predict proportions of • Plasticity index • Fuzzy • Agency United Kikuchi et al.
Aggregate blending
three aggregate types • Fineness modulus optimization specifications States [45]
• Gradation
• Closeness to upper,
Aggregate blending Predict proportions of • Stochastic • Agency
lower, and middle Canada Easa [46]
(Superpave) three aggregate types Optimization specifications
specifications
Aggregate structure Evaluate performance • VMA, VFA, • Agency
• FOSM Canada Easa [47]
(Superpave) of aggregate structure %Gmm @Ni and DP specifications
• Volumetric criteria
Asphalt mixtures Determine optimum • FOSM • Agency
• Flow, stability, unit Canada Easa [48]
(Superpave) asphalt content • MC simulation specifications
weight
Design asphalt Evaluate moisture • Agency
• Tensile strength ratio • FOSM Canada Easa [49]
mixture (Superpave) susceptibility specifications
Model life-cycle • Cost analysis • MEPDG
Pavement alternatives sustainability • Environmental • Life-cycle cost • UNEP/ China
Zheng et al. [50]
for maintenance assessment for assessment analysis SETAC
pavement alternatives • Social assessment Guideline
• Elastic moduli
Perform pavement • Poisson’s ratios Dilip and
Three-layer asphalt
design using reliability • Layer thickness • MC Simulation • IRC: 37-2001 India Sivakumar Babu
concrete pavement
approach • Wheel spacing [51]
• Tire contact pressure
• Elastic moduli
Perform reliability • Poisson’s ratios • FORM
Three-layer asphalt • Agency
analysis for design of • Layer thickness • SORM India Dilip et al. [52]
concrete pavement specifications
flexible pavements • Wheel spacing • MC simulation
• Tire contact pressure
Design a • Rehabilitation time
• Multi-criteria
3-layer asphalt reliability-based • Rehabilitation • Agency United Deshpande et al.
genetic
concrete pavement approach for pavement budget specifications States [53]
optimization
rehab • Rehabilitation cost
AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AFOSM = advanced
first-order second-moment, Caltrans = California department of transportation, DP = dust proportion, FORM
= first-order reliability method, FOSM = first-order second-moment, IRC = Indian roads congress, LC = life-cycle,
MEPDG = mechanistic–empirical pavement design guide, MC = Monte Carlo, SETAC = Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, SORM = Second-Order Reliability Method, UNEP = United Nations Environment
Programme, VMA = Voids in mineral aggregate, VFA = Voids filled with asphalt, and %Gmm @Ni = max.
density at Ni .
Table A3. Characteristics of air transportation applications.

Reference
• Airline direct
Route planning in Perform PB analysis • Relative position • Roadmap MacWilliams and
operating cost United States
terminal for routes sequencing indicator tool for PBN Porter [55]
• Flight time reduction
• RNP and RNAV
• Air traffic control • FAA Next Thipphavong et al.
Terminal system Evaluate PBN of TSS • Learning effects United States
simulation Generation [56]
• Controller’s feedback
Terminal Assess SID and STAR • SID • PBN
• TARGETS software United States Timar et al. [57]
operation using PBN procedure • STAR Manual
Model the FTE of • PBN Zhao et al. [58] and
AFCS • Lateral FTE • MC simulation China
AFCS manual Zhao et al. [59]
AFCS = Automatic Flight Control System, FAA = Federal Aviation Administration, FTE = flight technical error,
MC = Monte Carlo, PBN = performance-based navigation, RNP = required navigation performance, RNAV = area of
navigation, SID = standard instrument departure, STAR = standard terminal arrival, and TSS = terminal sequencing
and spacing.
Table A4. Characteristics of water-structures design and operation applications.

Reference
Perform reliability- based
Channel cross • Channel • Agency
design of channel cross • FOSM Canada Easa [62]
section capacity/runoff specifications
section
Perform reliability-based • Channel
• AFOSM for
Channel cross design of channel cross capacity/runoff • Agency
multi-failure Canada Easa [63]
section section with multiple • Maximum velocity specifications
modes
failure modes • Minimum velocity
• Volumetric flow
Incorporating uncertainty • Agency United
Port dredging rate/load • FOSM Scott [64]
dredge production specifications States
• Solids flow rate/load
Channel cross Perform reliability-based • System capacity • Agency Xu and Goulter
• FORM method Australia
section design reliability index specifications [65]
Water distribution Estimate water leakage for • Leak detection • Agency United Buchberger and
• Leakage rate
network monitoring area algorithm specifications States Nadimpalli [66]
Water distribution Determine optimal design • Modified resilience • Genetic • Agency Jayaram and
India
network and rehabilitation index optimization specifications Srinivasan [67]
Design breakwater with
• Sliding distance • Agency Goda and Takagi
Breakwater optimal wave • MC simulation Japan
• Total cost specifications [68]
height/return period
Perform PBD for coastal
• Agency
Breakwater structures considering • Spread parameter • MC simulation Japan Goda [69]
specifications
spread parameter
• Total sliding distance
• JPHA and
Perform PBD considering • Probability of
Breakwater • MC simulation OCDI Japan Suh et al. [70]
climate change effect exceeding sliding
standards
distance each year
Perform PBD considering • Spectral wave • Agency
Breakwater • Total sliding distance Japan Takagi et al. [71]
climate change effect model specifications
Earth-dams/ Estimate seismic-based • Pseudo-static • ICOLD Papadimitriou
• Seismic coefficient Greece
embankment PBD analysis guide et al. [72]
Estimate optimal outflows
• Outflow criterion • Multi-criteria • Agency
River that best match observed Canada Easa [73]
• Storage criterion optimization specifications
ones
Perform reliability-based
Ice-covered cross • Hydraulic efficiency • FOSM • Agency
design of best hydraulic Canada Easa [74]
section reliability index • MC simulation specifications
section
AFOSM = advanced first-order second-moment, FORM = first-order reliability method, FOSM = first-order
second-moment, ICOLD = International Commission on Large Dams, JPHA = Japan Port and Harbor Association,
MC = Monte Carlo, OCDI = Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan, PBD = performance-based design.
Table A5. Characteristics of landfill design applications.

Reference
Three cover • Leachate leakage rate • GIS, simulation
Develop design matrix • Agency
systems and five • Maximum chloride models (Visual Turkey Tarhan and Ünlü [76]
for PBD of landfill specifications
base systems concentration HELP, VADSAT)
Bottom liners • 1D
Conduct PBD of landfill • Leakage rate • Agency
(geomembrane, advection–dispersion Japan Katsumi et al. [77]
liners • Solute flux specifications
clay, composite) reaction model
• Swell index
•
Develop PB criterion to • Cation exchange • Agency
10 GCLs Oedo-permeameter France Guyonnet et al. [78]
assess landfill GCL capacity specifications
test
• CaCO3 level
• Leachate, gas, and • Analytical modules
Design post closure United
Closed landfill groundwater (leachate, gas, • USEPA 2008 Morris and Barlaz [79]
care of landfill States
monitoring data groundwater)
Estimate impact of • Numerical models
Stabilized-waste • Peak aquifer • Agency
waste disposal on (CONFINE and France Guyonnet et al. [80]
disposal sites concentration specifications
groundwater MARTHE)
• Hydraulic measure
Compacted clay Determine CCL
• Saturation depth of • HYDRUS-1D • USEPA 1995 Iran Safari et al. [81]
liners (CCL) effective thickness
compacted soil
GCL = geosynthetic clay liner, GIS = geographic information system, HELP = hydrogeologic evaluation of landfill
performance, MARTHE = modelling aquifers with an irregular rectangular grid, transport, hydrodynamics and
exchanges, and USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Table A6. Characteristics of building architectural design for evacuation applications.

Reference
Building floor with Estimate building • Evacuation time • GridFlow • UK prescriptive United Bensilum and
1800 m2 and four exits evacuation time • Exist flow capacity model guidance Kingdom Purser [82]
21-storey hotel
• Two egress • Hotel / motel fire United Kuligowski and
building two major Conduct PB analysis • Evacuation time
models statistics States Milke [83]
exits
• Evacuation time • Design code for
Tianjin Olympic Perform PB analysis • Stranded-
• Stranded crowd sports building for China Zhang et al. [84]
Stadium of stadium egress crowd model
number China
• Exit separation • Cellular • Building Fire
Different building Perform PBD of
• Exit width automata Protection Code China Zhao et al. [85]
floor plans building exits
• Evacuation time model (GBJ16-87)
• EVACNET4 • Agency
Atrium Perform PBD of atrium • Safety egress time China Wang et al. [86]
model specifications
Perform PBD of • Design codes, fire
College Library • Safety egress time • Fire simulator China Ma et al. [87]
library guidelines
21-storey high-rise Perform PBD of • FDS-EVAC • NFPA, National Sujatmiko et al.
• Safety egress time Indonesia
building building software Standards [88]
Conduct PB fire safety • EVACNET+ • Agency
National Gallery • Evacuation time Australia Johnson et al. [89]
analysis model specifications
ASET = available safety evacuation time, and RSET = required safety egress time.
Table A7. Characteristics of urban energy design applications.

Reference
A multi-floor Evaluate the optimal • Indoor temperature • DOE-2
• IPMVP Tian and Love
radiant slab building energy simulation model Canada
• US DOE FEMP [90]
cooling system performance • EnergyPlus V2.0
• Integral energy
• Google Sketch-up
concept
Urban 3D Determine the optimal • DIN V 18599
• Induced energy
building form geometry of building • INSEL • Effizienzhaus Germany Eicker et al. [91]
demand
model clusters meteorological
• Solar access
database
• Renewable supply
Minimize the annual
• Annual energy cost
Window size energy use and • Nondominated • LEED Version-4
• Percentage of the
and glazing maximize the occupied Sorting Genetic Daylight USA Asl et al. [92]
area with daylight
material area of the residential Algorithm-II Option-2
illuminance level
unit
Table A7. Cont.

Reference
• Multi-objective
A single room • Electricity particle swarm
model in a Enhance building consumption of optimization • Agency Delgarm et al.
Iran
multi-storey energy performance cooling, heating and • EnergyPlus specifications [93]
building lighting.
• Delegated
Develop robust • Energy retrofit • Multi-stage and Regulation (EU)
Reference
cost-optimal energy measure multi- objective No. 244/2012 Ascione et al.
buildings for Italy
retrofit solutions for • thermal energy optimization • EPBD [94]
hospital
buildings demand • EnergyPlus 2010/31/EU
(EPBD Recast)
• Heat losses
(windows, walls,
Integrate building • German Energy
A building roofs and floors) • Design
performance Savings Schlueter and
information • Lighting power Performance Switzerland
assessment into design Regulation Thesseling [95]
model • Solar gains Viewer
staages EnEV
• Ventilation
• Internal gains
Effizienzhaus = Energy efficiency standard of Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (German credit institute for
reconstruction), EPBD = Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, FEMP = Federal Energy Management Program,
IPMVP = International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol, LEED = Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design.
Table A8. Characteristics of building earthquake-based design applications (traditional structures).

Reference
• Collision energy
Perform PBD of RC • Time response • Low speed impact • Agency Tachibana et al.
RC beam Japan
beam under impact • Max. displacement, tests (experiment) specifications [5]
other
Estimate • Ratio of mean inelastic • FEMA 222A
Building on a United Whittaker et al.
displacements in to mean elastic • SDOF system • FEMA 273
stiff soil States [104]
building frames displacement • FEMA 274
Develop PB • Uniform
Wood shear framework for WSW • Peak displacement (for • Partially- coupled building code United
Rosowsky [105]
walls (WSW) using reliability seismic weight) reliability model • NEHRP States
analysis guide
Multi-storey Assess earthquake • Plasticity-factor
• FEMA 273
steel moment resistant capacity of a • Elastic geometric • Pushover analysis Canada Hasan et al. [106]
• FEMA 274
frame building frame stiffness
Three-storey Perform PBD • Roof displacement
steel moment sensitivity analysis of • Inter-storey drift • Pushover analysis • FEMA 273 Canada Gong et al. [107]
frame inelastic SMF • Plasticity factor
• FEMA 273
Perform PBSD of
• FE software • FEMA 274 United Ganzerli et al.
RC portal frame beam steels and • Roof Displacement
(DRAIN-2DX) • ACI building States [108]
column steels
code
10-storey, • Inter-storey drift • Multi-criteria • Chinese
Perform PBD of RC
two-bay • Material cost optimization seismic China Zou et al. [109]
frames
concrete frame • Damage loss • e-constraint method design code
• 1st order elastic
Three-storey • Pushover analysis
Perform PBD of steel • 2nd order geometric • FEMA-273
and nine-storey • Colony optimization Iran Kaveh et al. [110]
frame stiffness • FEMA-350
steel frame • Genetic algorithm
• Plasticity index
• FEMA
Perform PBSD of • SDOF system United Filiatrault and
Shear Wall • Displacement • Uniform
wood frame building • CASHEW model States Folz [111]
building code
Christopoulos
Model structural • Residual deformation • NEHRP
Multi-storey RC • SDOF system New et al.
response of residual damage index • SEAOC
frame building • MDOF system Zealand [112], Pampanin
deformations • Performance index Vision 2000
et al. [113]
• Direct displacement
Four-storey RC Perform PBSD of RC Xue and Chen
• Target displacement model • FEMA 273 Taiwan
building building [114]
• DRAIN-2D
Christopoulos
Five-storey Perform PBSD with • SDOF system • International
• Residual displacement Canada and Pampanin
frame structure residual deformations • MDOF system building code
[115]
Table A8. Cont.

Reference
Perform PBD of
Two-storey structural/ • Inelastic time-history
• Inter-storey drift angle • FEMA 350 United
special moment non-structural analysis Rojas et al. [116]
• Peak floor acceleration • HAZUS States
frame elements • Genetic algorithm
Three-storey, • Chinese
Perform PBD of FRP • Material cost • Optimality criteria
three-bay RC seismic China Zou et al. [117]
seismic retrofit • FRP Jacket thicknesses approach
frame design code
Two-storey and • Nonlinear response Fragiadakis and
Perform PBSD of RC • Maximum inter-storey • ATC 40
six-storey RC analysis Greece Papadrakakis
structures drift • FEMA 356
frames • OpenSEES software [118]
Perform PBD of • NBCC
• Roof deflection
Three-steel plate column demands in • CSA S16 Moghimi and
• Yield displacement • Pushover analysis Canada
shear wall steel plate shear walls • AISC 341 Driver [119]
• Ductility factor
• AISC 360
Perform PBD and of
Four-storey • Collapse probability • Pushover analysis
buckling- restrained Wongpakdee et al.
truss frame • Inter-storey/roof drifts • Incremental dynamic • FEMA P695 Thailand
frame [120]
building • Collapse ratio, other analysis
ACI = American Concrete Institute, AISC = American Institute of Steel Construction, ATC = Applied Technology
Council, CASHEW = Cyclic Analysis of SFEar Walls, CSA = Canadian Standards Association, FEMA = Federal
Emergency Management Agency, FRP = fiber-reinforced polymer, MDOF = multi degree-of-freedom,
NBCC = National building code of Canada, NEHRP = National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program,
PBSD = performance-based seismic design, RC = reinforced concrete, and SDOF = single degree-of-freedom.
Table A9. Characteristics of building earthquake-based design applications (special structures).

Reference
• FEMA 356
Perform PBD of • Pushover
30-storey coupled • Normalized base • ASCE 7–02 United Harries and
high-rise coupled wall • NL time history
wall structure shear • ACI 318–02, States McNeice [121]
systems (RUAUMOKO)
other
Assess serviceability of • Response spectra
40-storey tower with • Linear elastic • Agency United Klemencic et al.
ductile concrete core • Inter-storey drift
three-level parking analysis (CSI ETABS) specifications States [122]
wall building • Wall shear/ moment
Assess vulnerability • FEMA 356
Cultural heritage • NL static pushover Lagomarsino et al.
and design strategies • Displacement • Italian code Italy
structures analysis [123]
for cultural heritage 2008, other
Perform PBD for • Scaled distance • ACI Building
United
Cladding wall panels cladding wall panels • Probability of • MC simulation Code Olmati et al. [124]
Kingdom
subjected to blast load exceeding limit state • Eurocode 2
Perform PBSD for
• Wall top • MC simulation Franchin and
Diaphragm wall flexible earth-retaining • Eurocode 8 Italy
displacement • NL dynamic model Cavalieri [125]
diaphragm walls
Perform PBD of steels • Horizontal/vertical
Multi-storey/ arched • Radiation fire model • BSI BS5950
structure exposed to displacement Liew et al. [126]
frame structures (SINTEF) Parts I and 8 Singapore
fires • Exposure time
Perform PBD of
Residential • Flood depth • ASCE-7 United Taggart and
building against flood • MC simulation
wood-frame building • Damage percentage • FEMA-15 States van de Lindt [127]
hazard
• Porosity
Perform PBD for • AFPC-AFREM,
High-volume fly ash • Porosity measurements
concrete with high fly • EN 206-1 France Younsi et al. [128]
concrete • Carbonation depth • Accelerated
ash content Standard
carbonation tests
Perform fire resistance
• CAN/CSA
75 concrete-filled steel design for • Design equation for
• Fire resistance time • ASTM E119-88 Canada Kodur [129]
columns concrete-filled steel fire resistance
• NBCC, other
columns
Four-bay three-storey, • Pushover
Perform PBSD of steel Kaveh and
five-bay nine-storey • Base shear • Charged system • AISC code Iran
frames Nasrollahi [130]
steel frames search optimization
Perform PBD with • Seismic stress
26-storey steel-frame • Seismic response • Agency
semi-active structural • Deformation Japan Kurata et al. [131]
building analysis specifications
techniques • Acceleration
Table A9. Cont.

Reference
Perform PBD of RCFT • Deform. damage
Concrete-filled steel • FEMA 273 United Tort and Hajjar
and beam-columns • Energy damage • FE analysis
tube (RCFT) • FEMA 350 States [132]
• Ductility
Estimate exceedance of
• Maximum inelastic United Ruiz-García and
Firm soil site max. inelastic displac. • SDOF system • FEMA 356
displacement States Miranda [133]
(MID) demand
• FEMA 227
Design RC building • Target displacement
• NL analysis • FEMA 273 Lagaros et al.
Masonry Infill Walls with consideration of • Peak ground Greece
• Genetic algorithm • FEMA 350 [134]
infill walls acceleration
• FEMA 356
Perform PBD for • FEMA
20-storey steel/ RC • Target drift • Pushover analysis United
earthquake-resistant • ASCE 7-05 Goel et al. [135]
moment frames • Yield mechanism • Time history analyses States
structures • ACI 318R-05
Perform PBD of • FEMA 350
Nine-storey moment • Max. inter-storey • Multi-criteria genetic United
magnetorheological • FEMA 356 Cha et al. [136]
frame building drift optimization States
dampers • FEMA 450
Four-bay three-storey, • Pushover analysis
Perform PBSD for steel
five-bay nine-storey • Roof drift • Colliding bodies • FEMA 350 Iran Veladi [137]
frames
steel frame optimization
• Peak drift
• Global uplift
Perform PBSD of Wiebe and
Two-storey, six-storey • Residual
controlled rocking steel • SDOF system • FEMA P695 Canada Christopoulos
and 12-storey frames displacement
braced frames [138]
• Post-tensioning
strain
ACI = American Concrete Institute, AISC = American Institute of Steel Construction, ASCE = American
Society of Civil Engineers, BSI = British Standards Institute, EN = European Standards, FE = finite element,
FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency, MC = Monte Carlo, NBCC = National Building Code of
Canada, PBSD = performance-based seismic design, NL = nonlinear, RC = reinforced concrete, and SDOF = single
degree-of-freedom.
Table A10. Characteristics of building wind-based design applications.

Reference
Perform PBD of tall • MC simulation
30-storey steel • Inward and outward United
buildings with extreme • Wind tunnel • ASCE 7–95 Jain et al. [4]
frame building pressure States
wind load testing
Perform PBD of RC
20-storey RC • Displacement • Bouc–Wen MDOF • Agency
structures (stationary Brazil Beck et al. [139]
building • Stiffness hysteretic system specifications
wind)
Perform PBD of • Auxiliary variables • ASCE 7–10
45-storey United Spence and
wind-excited building • Inter-storey drift vectors • FEMA 273
building States Kareem [140]
systems optimization • FEMA 445
Perform PBD of high-rise • Japan Arch.
High-rise • Wind tunnel tests United Bernardini et al.
building with human • Human comfort Institute code
building • MC simulation States [141]
comfort • ISO 10137
• Time-domain • FAST or
5-MW Wind Perform PBD of a wind • Probability of failure United
analysis ADAMS Do et al. [142]
Turbine turbine tower • Fatigue life (years) States
• FE model codes
Perform PBD of tall • Inter-storey drift • Hong Kong
40-storey • Wind tunnel test Hong
framed structure with ratio code of Huang et al. [143]
building • pushover analysis Kong SAR
wind excitations • Lateral displacement practice
Perform PBD of wind • Multi-criteria
45-storey tall • Stiffness
resistance for tall optim. • AISC code China Li and Hu [144]
steel frame • Vibration
buildings • MC simulation
• Seismic
• Lateral displacement • Wind tunnel model
design and
50-storey RC Perform PBSD of • Drift ratio • elastic seismic
Turkish Turkey Özuygur [145]
building irregular tall building • Shear/axial forces • time history
earthquake
• Chord rotation analysis
codes
ASCE = American Society of Civil Engineers, FE = finite element, FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency,
MDOF = multi degree-of-freedom, PBSD = performance-based seismic design, and RC = reinforced concrete.
Table A11. Characteristics of bridge design and management applications.

Reference
Perform PBD for • Inelastic NL South
Steel-arch bridges • Displacement • AASHTO-LRFD Kim et al. [146]
steel-arch bridges analysis Korea
• Peak ground
acceleration • Uncertainty
RC concrete Perform PBD using • Arias intensity analysis of damage United Mackie and
• FEMA
bridge damage/loss limit states • Displacement and loss to States Stojadinović [147]
• Pseudo-spectral structure
acceleration
Two-span Estimate abutment • NL displacement
• Hyperbolic United Shamsabadi et al.
non-skewed backfill force- • Force displacement • Caltrans
stress–strain model States [148]
bridge displacement capacity Response
Perform PBSD for bridge • 3D FE model
Carbon FRP • Displacement Ductility • CHBDC 2000 Roy et al. [149]
retrofit using CRFPs • dynamic tests Canada
Two-span bridge Perform PBSD of bridge • OpenSees
• Lateral deformation • Caltrans seismic United
with four soil with ground-foundation • NL time history Mackie et al. [150]
• Residual displacement design criteria States
types interaction analysis
• Shear
Bridge with Perform PBSD of bridge capacity/demand ratio
United Billah and Alam
multi-column using different retrofit • Residual displacement • TOPSIS method • FEMA P695
States [151]
bents techniques • Energy dissipation
capacity
• Dynamic shear force
Perform PBD of RC
Bridge RC demand • FE analysis United
columns with vehicle • AASHTO-LRFD Sharma et al. [152]
columns • Fragility of velocity (LS-DYNA) States
collisions
and mass
• Damage response
Perform PBSD for bridge factor
Four-span • NL monotonic Sheikh and
designed according to • Force-displacement • CHBDC
highway bridge static analysis Canada Legeron [153]
CHBDC • PGA-displacement
response
Estimate time-dependent • Durability failure of • Specifications for
Reinforced
reliability and residual reinforcement • MC simulation corrosion Zhu et al. [154]
concrete bridge Australia
service • Reliability index durability
Pre-stressed • J.C. reliability
Perform PBA to predict • Bridge deflection • Chinese design
concrete HSR method China Guo et al. [155]
bridge service life • Reliability index code
bridge • RS method, FE
AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Caltrans = California Department
of Transportation, CHBDC = Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, FRP = fiber-reinforced Ppolymer, LRFD = load
and resistance factor design, NL = nonlinear, PBSD = performance-based seismic design, PGA = peak ground
acceleration, RS = response surface, and TOPSIS = technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution.
References
1. Priestley, M. Performance based seismic design. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 2000, 33, 325–346.
2. Ghobarah, A. Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of development. Eng. Struct. 2001,
23, 878–884.
3. SEAOC. Vision 2000: Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings; Structural Engineers Association of
California: Sacramento, CA, USA, 1995.
4. Jain, A.; Srinivasan, M.; Hart, G.C. Performance based design extreme wind loads on a tall building.
Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2001, 10, 9–26.
5. Tachibana, S.; Masuya, H.; Nakamura, S. Performance based design of reinforced concrete beams under
impact. Nat. Hazard Earth Syst. Sci. 2010, 10, 1069–1078.
6. Hadjisophocleous, G.V.; Benichou, N.; Tamim, A.S. Literature review of performance-based fire codes and
design environment. J. Fire Prot. Eng. 1998, 9, 12–40.
7. Krawinkler, H.; Zareian, F.; Medina, R.A.; Ibarra, L.F. Decision support for conceptual performance-based
design. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2006, 35, 115–133.
8. Transportation Research Board. Trade-off Considerations in Highway Geometric Design; Volume NCHRP
Synthesis 422, National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Transportation Research Board:
Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
9. McGee, H.W., Sr. Practical Highway Design Solutions; Volume NCHRP Synthesis 443, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
10. Transportation Research Board . Theory, Explanation, and Prediction in Road Safety; Volume TRB Circular
E-C179; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
11. International Civil Aviation Organization. Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) Manual, 4th ed.;
The Internaltional Civil Aviation Organization: Montréal, QC, Canada, 2013.
12. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement
Design Guide: A Manual of Practice; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials:
Washington, DC, USA, 2008; p. 204.
13. Ray, B.L.; Ferguson, E.M.; Knudsen, J.K.; Porter, R.J.; Mason, J. Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric Design
of Highways and Streets; Volume NCHRP Report 785, National Cooperative Highway Research Program;
Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
14. Markow, M.J. Performance-Based Highway Maintenance and Operations Management; Volume NCHRP
Report 426, National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Transportation Research Board:
15. Cambridge Systematics Inc. A Guidebook for Performance-Based Transportation Planning; Volume NCHRP
Report 446, National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Transportation Research Board: Washington,
DC, USA, 2000.
16. Neuman, T.; Robinson, J.; Mahoney, K. Rethinking the design process. In Geometric Design Strategic
Research; Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Eds.; Transportation Research Circular E-C110:
Washington, DC, USA, 2007; pp. 95–109.
17. Federal Highway Administration: Interactive Highway Safety Design Model. Available online:
http://www.ihsdm.org/wiki/Welcome (accessed on 15 May 2019).
18. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Highway Safety Manual; American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
19. Transportation Research Board. Roadside Safety Analysis Program; Transportation Research Board: Washington,
DC, USA, 2012; Volume 3.
20. Navin, F.P. Safety factors for road design: Can they be estimated? Trans. Res. Rec. 1990, 1280, 181–189.–189.
21. Easa, S.M. Reliability-based design of sight distance at railroad crossings. Trans. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
1994, 28, 1–15.
22. Easa, S.M. Reliability approach to intersection sight distance design. Trans. Res. Rec. 2000, 1701, 42–52.
23. El-Khoury, J.; Hobeika, A. Incorporating uncertainty into the estimation of the passing sight distance
requirements. Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2007, 22, 347–357.
24. Sarhan, M.; Hassan, Y. Three-dimensional, probabilistic highway design: sight distance application.
Trans. Res. Rec. 2008, 2060, 10–18.
25. Easa, S.M.; Mehmood, A. Optimizing design of highway horizontal alignments: New substantive safety
approach. Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2008, 23, 560–573.
26. Ismail, K.; Sayed, T. Risk-based framework for accommodating uncertainty in highway geometric design.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2009, 36, 743–753.
27. Ibrahim, S.E.; Sayed, T.; Ismail, K. Methodology for safety optimization of highway cross-sections for
horizontal curves with restricted sight distance. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 49, 476–485.
28. Hassan, Y.; Sarhan, M.; Salehi, M. Probabilistic model for design of freeway acceleration speed-change lanes.
Trans. Res. Rec. 2012, 2309, 3–11.
29. Fatema, T.; Hassan, Y. Probabilistic design of freeway entrance speed-change lanes considering acceleration
and gap acceptance behavior. Trans. Res. Rec. 2013, 2348, 30–37.
30. Easa, S.; Mehmood, A. Optimizing geometric design of single-lane roundabouts: consistency analysis. Can. J.
Civ. Eng. 2004, 31, 1024–1038.
31. Mehmood, A.; Easa, S.M. Optimizing geometric design of roundabouts: Multi-objective analysis. Can. J.
Civ. Eng. 2006, 33, 29–40.
32. Easa, S.M.; Cheng, J. Reliability analysis of minimum pedestrian green interval for traffic signals. J. Trans. Eng.
2013, 139, 651–659.
33. Osama, A.; Sayed, T.; Easa, S. Framework for evaluating risk of limited sight distance for permitted left-turn
movements: Case study. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2016, 43, 369–377.
34. Hussain, A.; Easa, S.M. Reliability analysis of left-turn sight distance at signalized intersections. J. Trans. Eng.
2016, 142, 04015048.
35. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: Washington, DC,
USA, 2011.
36. Transportation Association of Canada. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads; Transportation Association
of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2017.
37. Easa, S.M.; Can, E.K. Stochastic priority model for aggregate blending. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1985,
111, 358–373.
38. Easa, S.M.; Shalaby, A.; Halim, A.A.E. Reliability-based model for predicting pavement thermal cracking.
J. Trans. Eng. 1996, 122, 374–380.
39. Abaza, K.A.; Abu-Eisheh, S.A. An optimum design approach for flexible pavements. Int. J. Pavement Eng.
2003, 4, 1–11.
40. Abaza, K.A. Performance-based models for flexible pavement structural overlay design. J. Trans. Eng. 2005,
131, 149–159.
41. Lambert, J.P.; Fleming, P.R.; Frost, M.W. The assessment of coarse granular materials for performance based
pavement foundation design. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2008, 9, 203–214.
42. McDonald, M.; Madanat, S. Life-cycle cost minimization and sensitivity analysis for mechanistic-empirical
pavement design. J. Trans. Eng. 2012, 138, 706–713.
43. Luo, Z.; Xiao, F.; Sharma, R. Efficient reliability-based approach for mechanistic-empirical asphalt pavement
design. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 64, 157–165.
44. Kalita, K.; Rajbongshi, P. Variability characterisation of input parameters in pavement performance
evaluation. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2015, 16, 172–185.
45. Kikuchi, S.; Kronprasert, N.; Easa, S.M. Aggregate blending using fuzzy optimization. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
2012, 138, 1411–1420.
46. Easa, S.M. Superpave design aggregate structure considering uncertainty: I. Selection of trial blends.
J. Test. Eval. 2018, 48, doi:10.1520/JTE20170682.
47. Easa, S.M. Superpave design aggregate structure considering uncertainty: II. Evaluation of trial blends.
J. Test. Eval. 2018, 48, doi:10.1520/JTE20170745.
48. Easa, S.M. New design method of asphalt mixtures considering uncertainty. J. Test. Eval. 2018, 47, 402–423.
49. Easa, S.M. Evaluation of superpave moisture susceptibility considering uncertainty. J. Test. Eval. 2019, 48.
50. Zheng, X.; Easa, S.M.; Yang, Z.; Ji, T.; Jiang, Z. Life-cycle sustainability assessment of pavement maintenance
alternatives: Methodology and case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 213, 659–672.
51. Dilip, D.M.; Sivakumar Babu, G. Methodology for pavement design reliability and back analysis using
Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. J. Trans. Eng. 2012, 139, 65–74.
52. Dilip, D.M.; Ravi, P.; Sivakumar Babu, G. System reliability analysis of flexible pavements. J. Trans. Eng.
2013, 139, 1001–1009.
53. Deshpande, V.P.; Damnjanovic, I.D.; Gardoni, P. Reliability-based optimization models for scheduling
pavement rehabilitation. Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruc. Eng. 2010, 25, 227–237.
54. Jenks, C.W.; Jenks, C.F.; Harrigan, E.T.; Adcock, M.; Delaney, E.P.; Freer, H. A Manual for Design of Hot Mix
Asphalt with Commentary; Volume NCHRP Report 673, National Cooperative Highway Research Program;
Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
55. MacWilliams, P.; Porter, D. An Assessment of a Controller Aid for Merging and Sequencing Traffic on
Performance-Based Arrival Routes; MITRE Technical Paper; MITRE Corporation: McLean, VA, USA, 2007.
56. Thipphavong, J.; Jung, J.; Swenson, H.; Martin, L.; Lin, M.; Nguyen, J. Evaluation of the terminal sequencing
and spacing system for performance-based navigation arrivals. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/AIAA 32nd
Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), East Syracuse, NY, USA, 5–10 October 2013.
57. Timar, S.; Hunter, G.; Post, J. Assessing the benefits of NextGen performance-based navigation. Air Traffic
Control Q. 2013, 21, 211–232.
58. Zhao, H.; Xiaohao, X.; Jun, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Yang, C.; Hong, S. Lateral flight technical error estimation model for
performance based navigation. Chin. J. Aeronau. 2011, 24, 329–336.
59. Zhao, H.; Xu, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, Y. Extended estimation method for lateral flight technical error of perturbed
system in performance based navigation. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2013, 30, 278–285.
60. Hurley, M.J.; Rosenbaum, E.R. Performance-Based Fire Safety Design; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015.
61. Wang, Y.; Burgess, I.; Wald, F.; Gillie, M. Performance-Based Fire Engineering of Structures; CRC Press:
Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012; p. 394.
62. Easa, S.M. Probabilistic design of open drainage channels. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 1992, 118, 868–881.
63. Easa, S.M. Reliability analysis of open drainage channels under multiple failure modes. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
1994, 120, 1007–1024.
64. Scott, S.H. Uncertainty analysis of dredge-production measurement and calculation. J. Waterw. Port Coast.
Ocean Eng. 1993, 119, 193–203.
65. Xu, C.; Goulter, I.C. Reliability-based optimal design of water distribution networks. J. Water Res. Plan. Manag.
1999, 125, 352–362.
66. Buchberger, S.G.; Nadimpalli, G. Leak estimation in water distribution systems by statistical analysis of flow
readings. J. Water Res. Plan. Manag. 2004, 130, 321–329.
67. Jayaram, N.; Srinivasan, K. Performance-based optimal design and rehabilitation of water distribution
networks using life cycle costing. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44, doi:10.1029/2006WR005316.
68. Goda, Y.; Takagi, H. A reliability design method of caisson breakwaters with optimal wave heights.
Coast. Eng. J. 2000, 42, 357–387.
69. Goda, Y. Spread parameter of extreme wave height distribution for performance-based design of maritime
structures. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 2004, 130, 29–38.
70. Suh, K.D.; Kim, S.W.; Mori, N.; Mase, H. Effect of climate change on performance-based design of caisson
breakwaters. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 2011, 138, 215–225.
71. Takagi, H.; Kashihara, H.; Esteban, M.; Shibayama, T. Assessment of future stability of breakwaters under
climate change. Coast. Eng. J. 2011, 53, 21–39.
72. Papadimitriou, A.G.; Bouckovalas, G.D.; Andrianopoulos, K.I. Methodology for estimating seismic
coefficients for performance-based design of earthdams and tall embankments. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2014,
56, 57–73.
73. Easa, S.M. Multi-criteria optimisation of the Muskingum flood model: A new approach. ICE Water Manag.
2014, 168, 220–231.
74. Easa, S.M. Incorporating roughness uncertainty into ice-covered channel design. J. Cold Reg. Eng. 2017,
31, 06016005.
75. Estrin, D.; Rowe, R.K. Landfill design and the regulatory system. Proc. 5th Int. Landfill Symp. Sard. 1995,
95, 15–26.
76. Tarhan, B.; Ünlü, K. Performance-based landfill design: Development of a design component selection
matrix using GIS and system simulation models. Environ. Geol. 2005, 49, 133.
77. Katsumi, T.; Benson, C.; Foose, G.; Kamon, M. Performance-based design of landfill liners. Eng. Geol. 2001,
60, 139–148.
78. Guyonnet, D.; Touze-Foltz, N.; Norotte, V.; Pothier, C.; Didier, G.; Gailhanou, H.; Blanc, P.; Warmont,
F. Performance-based indicators for controlling geosynthetic clay liners in landfill applications.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2009, 27, 321–331.
79. Morris, J.W.; Barlaz, M.A. A performance-based system for the long-term management of municipal waste
landfills. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 649–662.
80. Guyonnet, D.; Seguin, J.J.; Côme, B.; Perrochet, P. Type curves for estimating the potential impact of
stabilized-waste disposal sites on groundwater. Waste Manag. Res. 1998, 16, 467–475.
81. Safari, E.; Ghazizade, M.J.; Abdoli, M.A. A performance-based method for calculating the design
thickness of compacted clay liners exposed to high strength leachate under simulated landfill conditions.
Waste Manag. Res. 2012, 30, 898–907.
82. Bensilum, M.; Purser, D.A. Grid flow: An object-oriented building evacuation model combining
pre-movement and movement behaviours for performance-based design. Fire Saf. Sci. 2003, 7, 941–952.
83. Kuligowski, E.D.; Milke, J.A. A performance-based egress analysis of a hotel building using two models.
J. Fire Prot. Eng. 2005, 15, 287–305.
84. Zhang, Q.; Liu, M.; Wu, C.; Zhao, G. A stranded-crowd model (SCM) for performance-based design of
stadium egress. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 2630–2636.
85. Zhao, D.; Li, J.; Zhu, Y.; Zou, L. The application of a two-dimensional cellular automata random model to
the performance-based design of building exit. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 518–522.
86. Wang, H.R.; Dong, W.L.; Liang, D. Performance-based design of smoke control and evacuation in a building
atrium. Proc. Eng. 2011, 11, 431–436.
87. Ma, C.; Sun, B.; Sun, S.; Liu, H. Analysis of performance-based fire safety evacuation in a college library.
Proc. Eng. 2012, 43, 399–406.
88. Sujatmiko, W.; Dipojono, H.K.; Nugroho Soelami, F. Performance-based fire safety evacuation in high-rise
building flats in Indonesia—A case study in Bandung. Proc. Environ. Sci. 2014, 20, 116–125.
89. Johnson, P.; Beck, V.; Horasan, M. Use of egress modelling in performance-based fire engineering
design—A fire safety study at the National Gallery of Victoria. Fire Saf. Sci. 1994, 4, 669–680.
90. Tian, Z.; Love, J.A. Energy performance optimization of radiant slab cooling using building simulation and
field measurements. Energy Build. 2009, 41, 320–330.
91. Eicker, U.; Monien, D.; Duminil, É.; Nouvel, R. Energy performance assessment in urban planning
competitions. Appl. Energy 2015, 155, 323–333.
92. Asl, M.R.; Zarrinmehr, S.; Bergin, M.; Yan, W. BPOpt: A framework for BIM-based performance optimization.
Energy Build. 2015, 108, 401–412.
93. Delgarm, N.; Sajadi, B.; Kowsary, F.; Delgarm, S. Multi-objective optimization of the building energy
performance: A simulation-based approach by means of particle swarm optimization (PSO). Appl. Energy
2016, 170, 293–303.
94. Ascione, F.; Bianco, N.; De Stasio, C.; Mauro, G.M.; Vanoli, G.P. Multi-stage and multi-objective optimization
for energy retrofitting a developed hospital reference building: A new approach to assess cost-optimality.
Appl. Energy 2016, 174, 37–68.
95. Schlueter, A.; Thesseling, F. Building information model based energy/exergy performance assessment in
early design stages. Autom. Construct. 2009, 18, 153–163.
96. Bertero, R.D.; Bertero, V.V. Performance-based seismic engineering: the need for a reliable conceptual
comprehensive approach. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2002, 31, 627–652.
97. National Performance-Based Design Guide; NIBS: Washington, DC, USA. Available online: http://www.
wbdg.org/pbdg/ (accessed on 26 March 2019).
98. Hens, H.S. Performance Based Building Design 1: From Below Grade Construction to Cavity Walls;
John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; p. 276.
99. Hens, H.S. Performance Based Building Design 2: From Timber-Framed Construction to Partition Walls;
John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; p. 292.
100. Liang, Q.Q. Performance-Based Optimization of Structures: Theory and applications; CRC Press:
Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005.
101. Fardis, M.N. Advances in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering; Volume 13; Springer Science & Business
Media: Berlin, Germany, 2010.
102. Fischinger, M. Performance-Based Seismic Engineering: Vision for an Earthquake Resilient Society; Springer: Berlin,
Germany, 2014; Volume 32.
103. Tall Buildings Initiative. Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings (Version 2.03); Volume
PEER Report No. 2017/06; Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2017.
104. Whittaker, A.; Constantinou, M.; Tsopelas, P. Displacement estimates for performance-based seismic design.
J. Struct. Eng. 1998, 124, 905–912.
105. Rosowsky, D.V. Reliability-based seismic design of wood shear walls. J. Struct. Eng. 2002, 128, 1439–1453.
106. Hasan, R.; Xu, L.; Grierson, D. Push-over analysis for performance-based seismic design. Comput. Struct.
2002, 80, 2483–2493.
107. Gong, Y.; Xu, L.; Grierson, D.E. Performance-based design sensitivity analysis of steel moment frames under
earthquake loading. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 2005, 63, 1229–1249.
108. Ganzerli, S.; Pantelides, C.; Reaveley, L. Performance-based design using structural optimization. Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 2000, 29, 1677–1690.
109. Zou, X.; Chan, C.M.; Li, G.; Wang, Q. Multiobjective optimization for performance-based design of reinforced
concrete frames. J. Struct. Eng. 2007, 133, 1462–1474.
110. Kaveh, A.; Azar, B.F.; Hadidi, A.; Sorochi, F.R.; Talatahari, S. Performance-based seismic design of steel
frames using ant colony optimization. J. Construct. Steel Res. 2010, 66, 566–574.
111. Filiatrault, A.; Folz, B. Performance-based seismic design of wood framed buildings. J. Struct. Eng. 2002,
128, 39–47.
112. Christopoulos, C.; Pampanin, S.; Nigel Priestley, M. Performance-based seismic response of frame structures
including residual deformations part I: Single-degree of freedom systems. J. Struct. Eng. 2003, 7, 97–118.
113. Pampanin, S.; Christopoulos, C.; Nigel Priestley, M. Performance-based seismic response of frame structures
including residual deformations part II: Multi-degree of freedom systems. J. Earthq. Eng. 2003, 7, 119–147.
114. Xue, Q.; Chen, C.C. Performance-based seismic design of structures: a direct displacement-based approach.
Eng. Struct. 2003, 25, 1803–1813.
115. Christopoulos, C.; Pampanin, S. Towards performance-based design of MDOF structures with explicit
consideration of residual deformations. ISET J. Earthq. Technol. 2004, 41, 53–73.
116. Rojas, H.A.; Pezeshk, S.; Foley, C.M. Performance-based optimization considering both structural and
nonstructural components. Earthq. Spectra 2007, 23, 685–709.
117. Zou, X.; Teng, J.G.; De Lorenzis, L.; Xia, S. Optimal performance-based design of FRP jackets for seismic
retrofit of reinforced concrete frames. Compos. Part B Eng. 2007, 38, 584–597.
118. Fragiadakis, M.; Papadrakakis, M. Performance-based optimum seismic design of reinforced concrete
structures. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2008, 37, 825–844.
119. Moghimi, H.; Driver, R.G. Column demands in steel plate shear walls with regular perforations using
performance-based design methods. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2014, 103, 13–22.
120. Wongpakdee, N.; Leelataviwat, S.; Goel, S.C.; Liao, W.C. Performance-based design and collapse evaluation
of buckling restrained knee braced truss moment frames. Eng. Struct. 2014, 60, 23–31.
121. Harries, K.A.; McNeice, D.S. Performance-based design of high-rise coupled wall systems. Struct. Des. Tall
Spec. Build. 2006, 15, 289–306.
122. Klemencic, R.; Fry, J.A.; Hooper, J.D.; Morgen, B.G. Performance-based design of ductile concrete core wall
buildings - issues to consider before detailed analysis. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2007, 16, 599–614.
123. Lagomarsino, S.; Modaressi, H.; Pitilakis, K.; Bosiljkov, V.; Calderini, C.; D’Ayala, D.; Benouar, D.; Cattari, S.
PERPETUATE Project: The proposal of a performance-based approach to earthquake protection of cultural
heritage. Adv. Mater. Res. 2010, 133, 1119–1124.
124. Olmati, P.; Petrini, F.; Gkoumas, K. Fragility analysis for the performance-based design of cladding wall
panels subjected to blast load. Eng. Struct. 2014, 78, 112–120.
125. Franchin, P.; Cavalieri, F. Seismic performance-based design of flexible earth-retaining diaphragm walls.
Eng. Struct. 2014, 78, 57–68.
126. Liew, J.R.; Tang, L.; Choo, Y. Advanced analysis for performance-based design of steel structures exposed to
fires. J. Struct. Eng. 2002, 128, 1584–1593.
127. Taggart, M.; van de Lindt, J.W. Performance-based design of residential wood-frame buildings for flood
based on manageable loss. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2009, 23, 56–64.
128. Younsi, A.; Turcry, P.; Rozière, E.; Aït-Mokhtar, A.; Loukili, A. Performance-based design and carbonation of
concrete with high fly ash content. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2011, 33, 993–1000.
129. Kodur, V. Performance-based fire resistance design of concrete-filled steel columns. J. Constr. Steel Res. 1999,
51, 21–36.
130. Kaveh, A.; Nasrollahi, A. Performance-based seismic design of steel frames utilizing charged system search
optimization. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 22, 213–221.
131. Kurata, N.; Kobori, T.; Koshika, N. Performance-based design with semi-active structural control technique.
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2002, 31, 445–458.
132. Tort, C.; Hajjar, J.F. Damage assessment of rectangular concrete-filled steel tubes for performance-based
design. Earthq. Spectra 2004, 20, 1317–1348.
133. Ruiz-García, J.; Miranda, E. Probabilistic estimation of maximum inelastic displacement demands for
performance-based design. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2007, 36, 1235–1254.
134. Lagaros, N.D.; Naziris, I.A.; Papadrakakis, M. The influence of masonry infill walls in the framework of the
performance-based design. J. Earthq. Eng. 2009, 14, 57–79.
135. Goel, S.C.; Liao, W.C.; Reza Bayat, M.; Chao, S.H. Performance-based plastic design (PBPD) method for
earthquake-resistant structures: An overview. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2010, 19, 115–137.
136. Cha, Y.J.; Agrawal, A.K.; Phillips, B.M.; Spencer, B.F. Direct performance-based design with 200kN MR
dampers using multi-objective cost effective optimization for steel MRFs. Eng. Struct. 2014, 71, 60–72.
137. Veladi, H. Performance-based seismic design of steel frames utilizing colliding bodies algorithm. Sci. World J.
2014, 2014, 240952.
138. Wiebe, L.; Christopoulos, C. Performance-based seismic design of controlled rocking steel braced frames.
I: Methodological framework and design of base rocking joint. J. Struct. Eng. 2014, 141, 04014226.
139. Beck, A.T.; Kougioumtzoglou, I.A.; dos Santos, K.R. Optimal performance-based design of non-linear
stochastic dynamical RC structures subject to stationary wind excitation. Eng. Struct. 2014, 78, 145–153.
140. Spence, S.M.; Kareem, A. Performance-based design and optimization of uncertain wind-excited dynamic
building systems. Eng. Struct. 2014, 78, 133–144.
141. Bernardini, E.; Spence, S.M.; Kwon, D.K.; Kareem, A. Performance-based design of high-rise buildings for
occupant comfort. J. Struct. Eng. 2014, 141, 04014244.
142. Do, T.Q.; van de Lindt, J.W.; Mahmoud, H. Fatigue life fragilities and performance-based design of wind
turbine tower base connections. J. Struct. Eng. 2015, 141, 04014183.
143. Huang, M.; Li, Q.; Chan, C.M.; Lou, W.; Kwok, K.C.; Li, G. Performance-based design optimization of tall
concrete framed structures subject to wind excitations. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2015, 139, 70–81.
144. Li, G.; Hu, H. Risk design optimization using many-objective evolutionary algorithm with application to
performance-based wind engineering of tall buildings. Struct. Saf. 2014, 48, 1–14.
145. Özuygur, A.R. Performance-based seismic design of an irregular tall building in Istanbul. Struct. Des. Tall
Spec. Build. 2015, 24, 703–723.
146. Kim, S.E.; Choi, S.H.; Ma, S.S. Performance based design of steel arch bridges using practical inelastic
nonlinear analysis. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2003, 59, 91–108.
147. Mackie, K.; Stojadinović, B. Performance-based seismic bridge design for damage and loss limit states.
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2007, 36, 1953–1971.
148. Shamsabadi, A.; Rollins, K.M.; Kapuskar, M. Nonlinear soil–abutment–bridge structure interaction for
seismic performance-based design. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2007, 133, 707–720.
149. Roy, N.; Paultre, P.; Proulx, J. Performance-based seismic retrofit of a bridge bent: Design and experimental
validation. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2010, 37, 367–379.
150. Mackie, K.R.; Lu, J.; Elgamal, A. Performance-based earthquake assessment of bridge systems including
ground-foundation interaction. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 42, 184–196.
151. Billah, A.M.; Alam, M.S. Performance-based prioritisation for seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete
bridge bent. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2014, 10, 929–949.
152. Sharma, H.; Gardoni, P.; Hurlebaus, S. Probabilistic demand model and performance-based fragility
estimates for RC column subject to vehicle collision. Eng. Struct. 2014, 74, 86–95.
153. Sheikh, M.N.; Legeron, F. Performance based seismic assessment of bridges designed according to Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 41, 777–787.
154. Zhu, W.; Setunge, S.; Gamage, N.; Gravina, R.; Venkatesan, S. Evaluating time-dependent reliability
and probability of failure of reinforced-concrete bridge components and predicting residual capacity after
subsequent rehabilitation. J. Perform. Construct. Facil. 2017, 31, 04017005.
155. Guo, T.; Liu, T.; Li, A. Deflection reliability analysis of PSC box-girder bridge under high-speed railway
loads. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2012, 15, 2001–2011.
156. Diamantidis, D. Probabilistic Assessment of Existing Structures—-A Publication for the Joint Committee on
Structural Safety (JCSS); Volume 32; RILEM Publications: Paris, France, 2001; p. 161.
157. Wang, W.; Morgenthal, G. Reliability analyses of RC bridge piers subjected to barge impact using efficient
models. Eng. Struct. 2018, 166, 485–495.
158. Hedegaard, B.D.; French, C.E.; Shield, C.K. Time-dependent monitoring and modeling of I-35W St. Anthony
Falls Bridge. II: Finite-element modeling. J. Bridge Eng. 2017, 22, 04017026.
159. Saeed, T.U.; Moomen, M.; Ahmed, A.; Murillo-Hoyos, J.; Volovski, M.; Labi, S. Performance evaluation and
life prediction of highway concrete bridge superstructure across design types. J. Perform. Construct. Facil.
2017, 31, 04017052.
160. Jiang, H.; Li, S.; Jiang, R. Residual service life prediction for bridges based on critical life curves. J. Perform.
Construct. Facil. 2017, 31, 04017053.
161. Lee, W.K.; Billington, S.L. Performance-based earthquake engineering assessment of a self-centering,
post-tensioned concrete bridge system. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2011, 40, 887–902.
162. Huang, C.; El Hami, A.; Radi, B. Overview of Structural Reliability Analysis Methods—Part I: Local Reliability
Methods; ISTE OpenScience: London, UK, 2016.
163. Huang, C.; El Hami, A.; Radi, B. Overview of Structural Reliability Analysis Methods—Part II: Sampling Methods;
ISTE OpenScience: London, UK, 2016.
164. Huang, C.; El Hami, A.; Radi, B. Overview of Structural Reliability Analysis Methods—Part III: Global Reliability
Methods; ISTE OpenScience: London, UK, 2016.
165. Benjamin, J.R.; Cornell, C.A. Probability, Statistics, and Decision for Civil Engineers; Courier Corporation:
Chelmsford, MA, USA, 2014.
166. Lamperti Tornaghi, M.; Loli, A.; Negro, P. Balanced evaluation of structural and environmental performances
in building design. Buildings 2018, 8, 52.
167. Cosenza, E.; Del Vecchio, C.; Di Ludovico, M.; Dolce, M.; Moroni, C.; Prota, A.; Renzi, E. The Italian guidelines
for seismic risk classification of constructions: Technical principles and validation. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018,
16, 5905–5935.
168. Fernández-Ordóñez, D.; Doniak, I.; Frank, D.; de la Fuente, A.; Gasperi, A.; Hájek, P.; Lopez-Vidal, A.;
Lorenz, E.; Maas, S.; Nieminen, J.; et al. Sustainability of Precast Structures; Fédération internationale du béton
and Precast/Prestressed Institude:Lausanne, Switzerland, 2018.
169. Powell, G. Static pushover methods—Explanation, comparison and implementation. In Proceedings of
the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA, USA, 18–22 April 2006;
Volume 1608.
170. Easa, S.M. Framework and guidelines for graduate attribute assessment in engineering education. Can. J.
Civ. Eng. 2013, 40, 547–556.
171. International Engineering Alliance. Washington Accord—Signatories. Available online:
http://www.ieagreements.org/accords/washington/signatories/ (accessed on 31 March 2019).
172. McKenzie, S.; Philpott, D. Performance-Based Contracting: Step by Step Process to Achieve Checklists–Toolkit–Best
Practices; Government Training, Inc.: St. Marys, GA, USA, 2010.
173. Selviaridis, K.; Wynstra, F. Performance-based contracting: A literature review and future research directions.
Int. J. Prod. Res. 2015, 53, 3505–3540.
174. Gransberg, D.; Riemer, C. Performance-Based Construction Contractor Prequalification; Volume NCHRP
Synthesis 390, National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Transportation Research Board:
175. Task Committee on Performance-Based Design. Advocating for Performance-Based Design; Structural
Engineering Institute, American Society of Civil Engineering: Reston, VA, USA, 2018.
176. Mandal, J.K.; Mukhopadhyay, S.; Dutta, P. Multi-Objective Optimization: Evolutionary to Hybrid Framework;
Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
177. Boustras, G.; Boukas, N. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference in Safety and Crisis Management in the
Construction, Tourism and SME Sectors; Number 747; BrownWalker Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012.
178. Kasimzade, A.; Şafak, E.; Ventura, C.; Naeim, F.; Mukai, Y. Seismic Isolation, Structural Health
Monitoring, and Performance based Seismic Design in Earthquake Engineering: Recent Developments; Number 364;
Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018.
179. Bryan, A.; Smith, E.; Mitchell, K. Performance-Based Fire and Gas Systems Engineering Handbook; Number 186;
International Society of Automation: Pittsburg, PA, USA, 2016.
180. Stanford Engineering. Performance-Based Engineering. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, California. Available online: https://cee.stanford.edu/programs/structural-
engineering-geomechanics/research-areas/performance-based-engineering/ (accessed on 28 March 2019).
181. Eckart, K.; McPhee, Z.; Bolisetti, T. Performance and implementation of low impact development—A review.
Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 607, 413–432.
182. Sola, A.; Corchero, C.; Salom, J.; Sanmarti, M. Simulation tools to build urban-scale energy models: A review.
Energies 2018, 11, 3269.
183. Reinhart, C.F.; Davila, C.C. Urban building energy modeling—A review of a nascent field. Build. Environ.
2016, 97, 196–202.
184. VTrans Integral Abutment Committee. Integral Abutment Bridges Guidelines; VTrans Structures Section:
Montpelier, VT, USA, 2009.
185. Blocken, B. 50 years of computational wind engineering: Past, present and future. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
2014, 129, 69–102.
186. Abolhasannejad, V.; Huang, X.; Namazi, N. Developing an optical image-based method for bridge
deformation measurement considering camera motion. Sensors 2018, 18, 2754.
187. National Building Code. ABCB, Canberra, Australia. Available online: https://www.abcb.gov.au
(accessed on 26 March 2019).
c 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Infrastructures: Performance-Based Analysis in Civil Engineering: Overview of Applications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Infrastructures: Performance-Based Analysis in Civil Engineering: Overview of Applications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Infrastructures: Performance-Based Analysis in Civil Engineering: Overview of Applications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

infrastructures

Abstract: Traditional design approaches in civil engineering mainly focus on codes/guidelines

Keywords: performance-based analysis; design; civil engineering; structural; transportation;

Infrastructures 2019, 4, 28; doi:10.3390/infrastructures4020028 www.mdpi.com/journal/infrastructures

Criteria Satisfy No Revise Objectives/Criteria

Figure 1. Typical performance-based analysis (PBA) process.

2. Transportation Engineering Applications

2.1. Highway Transportation

reliability-based quantitative measure of probability of non-compliance and used it to develop a safety

2.2. Pavement Design and Management

Gmb VMA VFAest

2.3. Air Transportation

3. Environmental Engineering Applications

3.1. Water-Structures Design and Operation

Qmax Vmin Vmax

(a) Cross section geometry (b) Reliability analysis

3.2. Landfill Design

3.3. Building Architectural Design for Evacuation

3.4. Urban Energy Design

4. Structural Engineering Applications

Figure 4. Example of performance-based seismic design (PBSD) performance/safety levels based on

4.1. Building Earthquake-Based Design (Traditional Structures)

used displacement-based analysis as a criterion to evaluate PBSD of traditional structures, where a

4.2. Building Earthquake-Based Design (Special Structures)

4.3. Building Wind-Based Design

4.4. Bridge Design and Management

5. Discussion and Lessons Learned

5.1. Wide Array of Analytical Tools

Table 2. Main analytical tools used in performance-based analysis (PBA).

Volume of Absorbed Asphalt (Vba)

Figure 5. Comparison of uncertainty-based mathematical model and MC simulation [47].

5.2. Broad Functional and Process-Related Areas

Map curriculum Collect

Figure 6. Typical process of graduate-attribute assessment (faculty-level activities are shaded

5.3. Advantages, Challenges, and Opportunities

5.4. Potential Applications of PBA

Table 3. Potential applications of PBA.

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ATC Applied Technology Council

Appendix A. List of Tables with PBA Applications

Table A1. Characteristics of highway transportation applications.

System Analysis Performance Analytical Specification/ Country/

Table A2. Characteristics of pavement design/management.

Table A3. Characteristics of air transportation applications.

Table A4. Characteristics of water-structures design and operation applications.

Table A5. Characteristics of landfill design applications.

Table A6. Characteristics of building architectural design for evacuation applications.

Table A7. Characteristics of urban energy design applications.

Table A7. Cont.

Table A8. Characteristics of building earthquake-based design applications (traditional structures).

Table A8. Cont.

Table A9. Characteristics of building earthquake-based design applications (special structures).

Table A9. Cont.

Table A10. Characteristics of building wind-based design applications.

Table A11. Characteristics of bridge design and management applications.

You might also like