Performance Based Design – Concept and Prospect

Raquib Ahsan, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology

Abstract

In recent years there has been a growing trend among the engineers around the world to shift towards ‘Performance Based
Design’ (PBD). Many codes and standards are formulated following performance based approaches. This paper presents the
basic concepts of PBD and refers to different areas where PBD is followed. Merits and demerits of PBD are highlighted. The
processes involved with ‘Performance Based Seismic Design’ (PBSD), in particular, are briefly described in the paper. Future
trends in PBD involving more holistic approaches in building design are discussed. Finally prospect of PBD in the context of the
building sector in Bangladesh is addressed here.

Introduction

Performance Based Design (PBD) has been the latest trend of design methodology that has been
introduced in many design codes and standards around the world. Although all conventional design
methodologies are implicitly performance based to varying extents, in PBD the performance goals,
criteria and evaluation methods are explicitly stated.

In philosophy, PBD is so general that it can be applied in any field - be it building, bridge, mechanical
component or an ICT product. The basic philosophy is that the desired performance i.e., performance
goals of a product is stated from the end users’ perspective, usually in a non-technical language. The
performance goals are appropriately translated into technical criteria. Design is carried out to meet
these criteria. The designed product is evaluated to check if the desired performance is achieved.
Now, the desired performance has two sides – demand and response. The demand is the forces,
loads or hazards that may act upon the product in its life time and response is the behaviour of the
product when subjected to such demand. In PBD both the demands and consequent responses are
chosen beforehand as performance objectives.

As generality of PBD is gradually being realized and appreciated by designers of various fields, in the
fields of seismic retrofitting of structures and fire protection of buildings the concepts of PBD have
fully been embraced. ASCE 41-06 [1] presents a fully performance based approach to seismic
retrofitting of existing structures. Among others NFPA 5000 [2] provides a performance based
approach of design for fire protection. Architectural design of buildings is gradually shifting towards
performance based. An example of such an initiative is the report on High Performance Based Design
for the Building Enclosure [3] drafted by Institute of Building Sciences in partnership with U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. Asian Concrete Model Code (ACMC, 2001) [4] is another example
of design code adopting performance based approach. Along with design, construction technologies
are becoming performance based giving rise to the concept of Performance Based Engineering (PBE).
PBE, in concept, encompasses the entire life-cycle of an infrastructure from design, construction,
maintenance, monitoring, management, operation to demolition or recycling.

Key Driver for Performance Based Design

All design methods are to some extent inherently performance based. The first ever known code of
building promulgated by Hammurabi (1795 to 1750 BC) states, “a house should not collapse and kill
anybody” – which is essentially performance based. Later, however, our codes of practice have
become prescriptive in nature. Developers of codes decide what should be the minimum demand on
our structures without explicitly stating response level. The codes prescribe specific ways of designing
without any evaluation in terms of response. Such prescriptive approach of designing restricts
innovation. It becomes time-consuming for alternative design methodology or newer materials to be
recognised in such codes. With unprecedented advances in material science newer materials are
being introduced so frequently that such prescriptive codes seem to be inadequate to keep pace with
current innovations. Paradigm shift in computing techniques toward cloud computing is making
evaluation tools more available and more reliable. Such rapid pace of innovation is driving codes
toward performance based where choices of different performance levels, relating both demand and
response, are provided for the designer to match with the owner’s preference. With any material,
following any method, implementing through any technique designers may achieve the desired
performance level. However, the response has to be verified with reliable evaluation tools.

The generality of performance based approach has certain price to pay. The first hurdle is that the
engineers accustomed with prescriptive codes find it difficult to use performance based approach. For
small and regular projects prescriptive codes are much easier to implement. It could be mentioned
here that performance based approach do not preclude use of prescriptive codes. Another major
hurdle of performance based approach is to develop appropriate evaluation tool. Performance based
approach is applicable only when corresponding evaluation tool is available. For example, for analysis
of structures subjected to extreme seismic event the inelastic response of structure needs to be
evaluated. Performance based design of structures subjected to extreme seismic event is possible
because appropriate tool for nonlinear dynamic analysis has become available.

Performance Based Seismic Design

Seismic design of structures is an area where the performance based approach has most extensively
been applied and thus deserves a special attention. Particularly for seismic retrofitting of existing
structures, it was realized that it is not the strength but the post-yield ductile behaviour of structure
that is more important to minimize loss in the event of a severe earthquake. Thus some performance
criteria need to be fulfilled which are not covered in conventional codes.

During the 1970s and 1980s, engineers in the Western U.S. began to adopt performance-based
design approaches for seismic design, both for new buildings and existing structures. Initially, these
efforts were driven by the observation that during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, several
hospitals and emergency response facilities did not perform well, creating the demand that important
buildings be designed, not only to protect life safety, but also to enable continued post-earthquake
occupancy and function. This prompted engineers to adopt judgmentally enhanced versions of the
code requirements for the design of important structures. Later, in the 1980s, following a series of
California earthquakes that seemed to occur on an almost annual basis, building owners began to
request that engineers evaluate their existing buildings and upgrade them to achieve various
performance criteria ranging from protection of life safety, to post-earthquake functionality, to limiting
probable repair costs to specified percentages of building replacement cost.

In 1992 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sponsored the development of national
consensus guidelines for the seismic retrofit of buildings, the ATC-33 project [5]. This was the first
attempt to standardize the performance-based approach. That project standardized the qualitative
descriptions of performance previously used into a series of quantifiable performance levels that could
be predicted through the use of specific design parameters (element force and displacement
demands). This approach was then quickly adopted by SEAOC's (Structural Engineers Association of
California) Vision 2000 project [6] and extended to include the design of new buildings. Initially
published as the ATC 40 [7], FEMA 273 [8] and 274 [9] reports, the resulting effort underlies the
present ASCE 31 [10] Seismic Evaluation and ASCE 41 Seismic Rehabilitation standards. Both
implement performance-based approaches to evaluation and design, and together, form the core
technology underlying present-generation performance-based design procedures, both for seismic
engineering and also force-protection design.

The standards define a series of standard performance levels for structural and non-structural
components, illustrated in Figure 1. These range from Operational, a performance state in which after
a design event, the building and its contents are undamaged, to Collapse Prevention, a state of
extreme damage to structural and non-structural systems, just short of collapse.

Operational Immediate Occupancy Life-Safety Collapse-Prevention

Fig. 1: The ASCE 41 performance levels: Operational, Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety and Collapse Prevention [1]

Figure 2 illustrates the basic ASCE 41 design process. The process begins with a group of
stakeholders including the building owner, building official and engineer jointly selecting one or more
project-specific performance objectives as the design basis (Figure 3). Each performance objective is
a statement of the acceptable building performance given that the structure experiences a particular
intensity of earthquake motion. Many building officials have accepted a pair of standardized
performance objectives, designated by ASCE 41 as the Basic Safety Objective, as being equivalent to
the performance intended by the International Building Code for Occupancy Category I and II
structures.

Fig. 2: Performance-based design process [1]

Fig. 3: Vision 2000 performance objectives [6]

Performance verification consists of the use of analysis to demonstrate that the building is capable of
meeting the desired performance objectives. ASCE 41 includes four analysis types: (1) a linear static
procedure, that is comparable to the equivalent lateral force method contained in the building code,
(2) a linear dynamic procedure, that uses response spectrum analysis, (3) a nonlinear static (push-
over) procedure, and (4) a nonlinear dynamic (response history) procedure. In the nonlinear
procedures, analysis is used to predict peak inelastic deformations on ductile elements and peak
forces on non-ductile elements. These are compared against acceptable values of deformation and
strength that depend on the element type (e.g. brace, moment connection) and the material
properties and detailing. For linear procedures, elastic demand-to-capacity ratios are computed as the
ratio of strength demand to element capacity. These are taken as surrogates for ductility demand and
compared against acceptable values, similar to, but more conservative than, those contained in the
standard for use with nonlinear procedures.

The non-linear static (push-over) procedure is most commonly employed for retrofitting projects. The
procedure involves determining the capacity and demand spectra. To construct the capacity
spectrum, the force-displacement curve of a point on the structure is determined using nonlinear
static (pushover) analysis. The forces and displacements are converted to spectral accelerations and
spectral displacements using an equivalent SDOF system. The demands of the earthquake are
defined by highly damped elastic spectra. At the performance point the seismic capacity is assumed
equal to the demand, which provides an estimate of acceleration (strength) and displacement
(demand) (Figure 4). The probability of occurrence of the earthquake may be related to the risk of
occurrence of the associated damage state (Figure 5).

Fig. 4: Evaluation of performance point [7]

Fig . 5: Typical performance curve for the structure [1]

In recent years, the ASCE 41 procedures have become an accepted method not only for seismic
retrofit of existing buildings, but also for the seismic design of new buildings, including very tall
structures. Recently, the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) developed
performance-based seismic design criteria [11] for tall buildings that significantly extend and improve
the ASCE 41 procedures, but employ the same basic technologies and principles. The PEER
methodology requires the use of response spectrum analysis and near-elastic performance for
service-level earthquake shaking, having a 43-year return period, and nonlinear response history
analysis for Maximum Considered earthquake shaking, with a performance goal of substantial margin
against collapse.

Two projects, the Mineta San Jose Airport Terminal B and Concourse and the Providence Everett
Medical Center (PEMC) Acute Care Tower, used ASCE 41-based performance levels in their design.
The STMF was analyzed to confirm that it was capable of providing Life Safety Performance for the
Design Earthquake shaking. A non-linear static procedure was implemented in confirming the as-
designed system was capable of delivering life-safe performance. The BRBF was analyzed to confirm
that it was capable of providing Immediate Occupancy Performance for Design Earthquake shaking. A
non-linear response history procedure was implemented to reevaluate key member sizes, such as
columns and foundation caissons, and to confirm the final system was capable of delivering
immediate occupancy performance. The resulting analysis indicated that the prescriptive “essential
facility” BRBF code design could be reduced by approximately 200 tons and still meet the intended
immediate occupancy performance goal.

Future Trends of Performance Based Design

In the latest Performance Based Seismic Design documentations like ASCE 41 and TIB 2010, the
performance levels are defined in terms of some standardized damage states viz. operational,
immediate occupancy, life-safety and collapse prevention. However, by these states it is not possible
to answer questions like what would be the casualty, monetary loss or occupancy interruption time.
In that sense, presently available documents on performance based seismic design are not truly
performance based.

In 2001, the Applied Technology Council (ATC) initiated the ATC-58 Project [12] under contract to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Under this project, ATC is developing next-
generation performance-based seismic design criteria for new and existing buildings that will be
published as FEMA P-58. Unlike present-generation performance-based design criteria, which
characterize structural and non-structural performance in terms of standardized damage states, the
P-58 criteria characterize structural performance in terms of the consequences of earthquake damage
including: casualties; repair and reconstruction costs, expressed both in monetary and energy/carbon
expenditures; and occupancy interruption time. The performance of non-structural building
components including architectural, electrical and mechanical components and systems is integrally
considered with that of the structure. Following a methodology originally developed by the Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, the P-58 procedures revolve around a building performance
model that includes fragility and consequence functions for each of the damageable components and
systems of significance.

P-58 methodology expresses performance probabilistically in the form of performance curves.

Illustrated in Figure 6, performance curves indicate the probability that a performance measure, such
as repair cost, will exceed different amounts. The P-58 methodology will permit performance
assessments for a single, user-defined shaking intensity, defined by a response spectrum; a user-
defined earth-quake scenario, characterized by a magnitude and distance from the site; or on a time-
basis, considering all earthquakes that may occur, the probability of their occurrence, and the
probable intensity of shaking given that they occur. The P-58 methodology will be provided with
companion software that can perform the necessary probabilistic calculations, will produce the
performance curves and also will indicate the sources of loss.
 Fig. 6: Example performance curve, indicating the probability of incurring repair costs of varying amounts [12]

ASCE 41 and FEMA P-58 both basically deal with seismic design of buildings. BIPS 10 [3] of National
Institute of Building Sciences is a performance based document which covers architectural, structural,
electro-mechanical aspects of building design in a holistic approach. BIPS 10 presents an Owner’s
Performance Requirements (OPR) Model (Figure 7). The main elements of the model are attributes,
demands or threats, systems, performance, metrics and outcomes. Attributes are properties that
define a building in terms of the performance the building is to deliver. Demands are conditions
placed or exerted on a building by its location or exposure to a man-made or natural hazard or
condition. Systems are major parts of a building described in terms of their function. Performance
levels are defined as levels at which performance in response to a given level of demand is measured,
from Baseline to High Performance. Metrics are the measurements of performance of an attribute at a
given demand as defined by a standard or best practice. Outcomes are the resulting levels of
performance expressed in the metric(s) identified for any given combination of demand exerted and
performance targeted for the building. These are grouped into three categories by type in the OPR
model – Risk, Resilience and Operational.

Fig. 7: Owner’s Performance Requirements Model (BIPS 10)

Prospect of Performance Based Design in Bangladesh

Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC 1993) [13] proposes two alternate methods of design viz.
Working Stress Design method and Strength Design method. Presently the building code is being
updated. The updated version is expected to contain the Strength Design method in the main body
and the Working Stress Design method will be relegated to appendix as a less preferred alternative.
The code developers have been quite apprehensive about transforming the design approach to a fully
limit state based in compliance with Euro-Code which is required for achieving consistency between
material standards and design methods. The reason for such apprehension is the perception that
engineers in the country are not prepared for accepting such transformation. Moreover, even the
current version of BNBC is not enforced due to lack of proper administrative mechanism. In such a
situation, it may seem quite impractical to introduce performance based approach in design of
buildings in Bangladesh.

However, lack of enforcement of building code has resulted in quite a vulnerable building stock in the
major cities of the country. According to a recent study conducted by Comprehensive Disaster
Management Program (CDMP I), around 250,000 buildings in the three major cities of Bangladesh —
Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet — are extremely vulnerable to earthquakes [14]. Some 142,000 among
180,000 buildings in Chittagong; 24,000 out of 52,000 in Sylhet; and 78,000 out of 326,000 buildings
in Dhaka were detected as risky. In order to overcome this situation, the country is left with little
choice but to undertake a gradually extensive program of retrofitting both in private and public
sectors. For retrofitting projects, performance based approach has become an industry standard
around the world.

Because of an accelerated rate of urbanization in the country new building stock is also growing in an
unprecedented rate (Figure 8). The increase in urban population is associated with a rising trend in
GDP of the country (Figure 9). A growing urban population with reasonable solvency in metropolitan
cities with already high population density will require cities growing upward. Tall buildings are thus
eventuality in Bangladesh. It is not difficult to envisage a large number of tall buildings exceeding 50
stories will sprout up in the skyline of major cities in Bangladesh just 5 to 10 years down the line.
Owners and developers of such tall buildings will naturally be much concerned about the performance
of these buildings. Bank and insurance companies will also be keen in securing their investment on
these buildings. It is only natural that these stakeholders instead of blindly depending on the
engineers for their building assets to be designed with some vague performance prospects, will assert
their own performance requirements and thus will oblige engineers and architects to follow
performance based approach in the design of buildings; specifically when such codes exist in the
world.

Thus we see a dichotomy of reality in Bangladesh – in one hand the engineering community is not yet
trained to embrace Performance Based Design while on the other hand PBD is warranted in
retrofitting projects and design of tall buildings. Instead of adopting only prescriptive code or
performance based code, the best way forward for Bangladesh then would be to generally adopt
prescriptive code while introducing performance based approach for more advanced and complicated
works. For that purpose a pool of engineers should be gradually trained to take the responsibility of
giving freedom of choice to owners regarding performance goals of their structures.
 160

140

120

100
Population in

80
Total National Pop
Million

60
Total Urban Pop

40
Urban pop as % of total pop

20

1951 1961 1974 1981 1991 2001 2008

Census Year
Fig. 8: Trend of urbanization in Bangladesh

Fig. 9: Economic growth of Bangladesh

References

[1] ASCE 41 (2007). Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41/06 plus Supplement 1) ,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.

[2] NFPA 5000 (2003). Building construction and safety code , National Fire Protection Association,
Quincy, Mass.

[3] BIPS 10 (2011). High performance based design for the building enclosure: A resilience
application project report, Buildings and Infrastructure Protection Series, National Institute of Building
Sciences.

[4] ACMC (2001). Asian Concrete Model Code, International Committee on Concrete Model Code.
[5] ATC-34 (1995). A Critical Review of Current Approaches to Earthquake-Resistant Design , Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, California.

[6] SEAOC (1995), Vision 2000 Progress Report,Proceedings of 1995 Convention, Structural Engineers
Association of California, San Francisco, California.

[7] ATC-40 (1996). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings , Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, California.

[8] FEMA 273 (1996), NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation buildings , Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington (DC).

[9] FEMA 274 (1997), NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington (DC).

[10] ASCE 31 (2003), Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings , American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA.

[11] TBI (2010), Tall Buildings Initiative: Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall
Buildings, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California.

[12] ATC 58 (2006), Next Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines: Program Plan
for New and Existing Buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.

[13] BNBC (1993), Bangladesh National Building Code , Housing and Building Research Institute,
Dhaka.

[14] CDMP-I (2010), Report on Risk Assessment of Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet City Corporation
Area, Comprehensive Disaster Management Program, Dhaka.