Performance based seismic design

TLDR

Performance‑based seismic design has shifted focus to limit‑state criteria, with the capacity spectrum, N2, and displacement‑based methods now mature for assessing existing and new structures. The paper aims to compare these three methods while examining performance‑state factors such as residual displacement and soil‑structure interaction. The comparison demonstrates that performance‑based methods yield straightforward, consistent design solutions unattainable with force‑based designs employing force‑reduction factors.

Abstract

One of the major developments in seismic design over the past 10 years has been increased emphasis on limit states design, now generally termed Performance Based Engineering. Three techniques - the capacity spectrum approach, the N2 method and direct displacement-based design have now matured to the stage where seismic assessment of existing structures, or design of new structures can be carried out to ensure that particular deformation-based criteria are met.
 The paper will outline and compare the three methods, and discuss them in the context of traditional force-based seismic design and earlier design approaches which contained some elements of performance based design. Factors defining different performance states will be discussed, including the need, not yet achieved, to include residual displacement as a key performance limit. Some emphasis will be placed on soil-related problems, and the incorporation of soil/structure interaction into performance-based design. It will be shown that this is relatively straightforward and results in consistent design solutions not readily available with force-based designs using force-reduction factors.