Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
advantages of discussing the broader. 
implications of decisions that were made 
in the Guidelines (financial, political, 
based on reliability, etc.). The team will 
have the commentary reviewed for 
accuracy by a panel of experts set up by 
the Steering Committee. This panel will 
include members of the SPP, NPP and 
RMP teams. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $500,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Task 5.2.3 -Develop 
administrative guidelines for 
building officials 
Description: 
The team will establish administrative 
provisions for the use of PBSD by 
building officials. It will detail the process 
by which buildings, including structural 
and nonstructural components, are 
reviewed, plan checked and field 
inspected. The team will also develop 
tools for building officials to ease the 
burden of reviewing PBSD design. The 
team will consider the benefits of third 
party plan check and peer review and 
other means of streamlining the proces3s 
while maintaining quality 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Owners, Building officials, 
Government agencies 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $200,000 
Duration: 1 year 
Task 5.3 -Implement a 
verification program 
Task 5.3.1 -Run examples to 
check accuracy of provisions 
Description: 
The team will establish subgroups to 
verify the accuracy of the design and 
analysis procedures. The subgroups will 
create and test a series of parametric 
examples. The team will set up a means 
by which the results of the testing can 
be checked for accuracy and 
acceptability. The team will identify and 
make necessary changes in the 
procedures in cooperation with the 
technical product teams. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Building 
officials, 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $600,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 5.3.2 -Compare resulting 
designs and costs against 
current methodologies 
Description: 
The team will evaluate the effects of the 
resulting guidelines on each of the major 
stakeholders, looking at costs, level of 
effort and responsibility. A series of 
example applications will be developed 
and compared against current design 
techniques. The various methods that 
are developed will be calibrated against 
each other. Calibration will consider at 
least: the effort to implement, resulting 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
performance and expected construction 
costs. Information from the RMP will be 
incorporated into the calibration study. 
The team will establish subgroups to 
carry out these studies, and will develop 
a standard reporting method by which 
the results can be quantitatively 
compared. If the team decides that the 
results diverge too significantly from 
existing methodologies, revisions to the 
procedures will be made, or a schedule 
for incremental application of the 
procedures will be developed. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Financial 
interests 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $400,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 5.4 -Develop procedures 
for quality control during 
construction 
Description: 
The team will write a set of guidelines 
for maintaining quality during 
construction. Information on reliability 
and uncertainty developed in the SPP 
and NPP will be used to evaluate the 
various stages of construction. The 
team will address such issues as 
material fabrication and inspection, 
installation, testing, uniformity in 
construction practices, field changes, 
etc. The goal is to provide a clear 
statement about the need for a high 
level of construction quality, and to 
provide standard procedures to attain 
this quality. It may be desirable to 
permit different levels of quality control 
based on expected performance or on 
building usage, etc. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Contractors, Material 
Suppliers, Owners, 
Building officials 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $300,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Task 5.5 -Develop a plan for 
verifying nonstructural 
component design and 
installation 
Description: 
The team will develop a standard format 
for checking the adequacy of 
nonstructural component and system 
design, manufacture and installation. 
Much like peer review and inspection 
procedures for the structure, this system 
will be designed to track nonstructural 
elements through a similar process. 
The team will establish a system for 
identifying and training qualified 
inspectors and reviewers. The team will 
use the information developed in the 
NPP to make easier reevaluation of 
existing components and determine 
expected performance. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Contractors, Material 
suppliers, Building 
officials 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $300,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Action Plan for Performance 
Task 5.6 -Publish guidelines 
and create an adoption process 
Description: 
The team will set up milestone 
deliverables at 25%, 50%, 75% and 
100% and will describe the content to be 
included in each. It will establish and 
implement a final review and adoption 
process. A peer review procedure will 
be established at each milestone. A 
technical writing team will be created 
and a consensus reached on the style 
and voice of the guidelines. The 
Guidelines will be written and reviewed. 
A small team of reviewers will focus on 
the presentation of the information, both 
graphically and textually. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Material 
suppliers, Financial 
interests, Owners, 
Building officials, 
Government agencies 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $600,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Based Seismic Design 
Task 5.7 _ Develop a means for 
' future revisions f 
Description: 
After the guidelines are completed, the 
team will assess the project and identify 
future goals, research efforts, etc. that 
will build upon the work completed. The 
team will write a framework for the next 
generation of PBSD related projects. 
The goal of the task is to provide a plan 
for the continuing evolution of PBSD. 
The team will establish a procedure for 
updating the guidelines 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, 
Government agencies 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $150,000 
Duration: 1 year 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Challenges 
> Analysis and modeling be a challenge. Design 
professionals will need to begin to 
Developing general methods for think in terms of probability, 
design and performance prediction uncertainty and risk. Quantifying 
will be a challenge when considering these terms in relation to traditional 
varying performance objectives. structural engineering concepts will 
The procedures must be relatively be difficult but important. 
easy to implement yet still provide 
higher reliability than current design > Administration 
methodologies and be reasonably 
economical. As with any adoption process, 
acceptance from the stakeholders 
Procedures for nonstructural design will be one of the most difficult 
and analysis will have to be greatly challenges. It will require political 
expanded from current standards. and diplomatic skill to bring each of 
This will require a major effort on the parties into enthusiastic 
part of the product team. agreement. The teams should 
consider using professional 
Because modeling will play a more facilitators and negotiators to build a 
significant role in PBSD design than strong consensus about the PBSD 
it currently does, standards for Guidelines and their use. 
computer aided design will be 
necessary. These standards need > Example applications 
to insure consistency while allowing 
creative flexibility. It will be a challenge to develop 
realistic, understandable examples 
> Reliability of the application of the guidelines 
that will achieve sellable conclusions 
The incorporation of reliability and encourage the use of PBSD. 
methods into design procedures will 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
The Stakeholders' Guide will serve stakeholders see as concerns and 
to educate the non-engineering benefits. It will need to specify and 
audience about the benefits of PBSD. It quantify these benefits and provide a 
will be their reference and planning tool mechanism for making incremental 
much as the PBSD Guidelines serve a changes to current practice. 
similar purpose for the engineering 
community. The Guide needs to be > Guidance for implementing PBSD. 
written in a non-technical style, and 
emphasize graphic presentation. The owner and financial 
financial information should be professionals need to be guided 
presented in a way that will be useful to through the process of implementing 
owners and financial professionals. It PBSD. Much more than in current 
needs to communicate the concept and practice these stakeholders will form 
application of PBSD to these primary an integral part of the design team. 
stakeholders. It will include the following They must assist in making 
components: decisions about the direction of a 
project and be involved throughout 
> Background on codes and its implementation. 
performance based design. 
> Example applications of PBSD 
The Guide should give background 
on the history of code development The guide will contain example 
and the reasons for moving toward applications of the guidelines, 
performance based design. It should covering structural and nonstructural 
describe in general terms the design, and financial planning 
principles of PBSD and its benefits issues. The examples will contain 
over current methods. The goal is to /technical information for the design 
show stakeholders that this move is professionals as well as 
necessary and that performance nontechnical information for building 
based design standards are in their owners and financial interests. 
financial and business interests. 
Financial and other benefits of using 
PBSD. 
Tables, charts, equations, examples 
and text, should convey the 
advantages and appropriate uses of 
PBSD in terms of financial and other 
models. Adoption will require that 
the document include the issues that 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 6.1 -Define content and 
format of Stakeholders' Guide 
Description: 
The team will convene a series of 
workshops with stakeholder 
representatives to create the format and 
content of the Stakeholders. Guide. The 
team will determine the level of 
complexity of the information and 
equations presented. The goal is to 
layout the format for the guide so that it 
is usable to a non-technical audience. A 
strong effort will be made to involve 
owners and financial representatives, as 
these will be the primary users of the 
information. Another goal is to be able to 
quantify the level of effort that will be 
required of these groups in the planning, 
design and construction processes, in 
terms of cost and time. A consensus 
about the style of presentation will also 
be reached. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Financial 
interests, Owners, 
Contractors, Material 
suppliers, Building 
officials, Government 
agencies, Legal 
professionals 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $150,000 
Duration: 1 year 
Task 6.2 Present and explain 
financial modeling techniques 
Description: 
The team will present and explain the 
financial modeling tools developed in 
the Guidelines and the Risk 
Management Products. In the same 
manner as the Guidelines these tools 
should be presented with different levels 
of complexity, so that the user can 
employ the most appropriate to a 
specific situation. The technical and 
financial research will have been done 
as part of the RMP. In this task the goal 
is to provide descriptions of and 
practical ways to employ these tools. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Financial 
interests, Owners 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $300,000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Task 6.3 -Describe the design 
and construction process 
,. 
Description: 
As with the Guidelines, the team will 
develop a road map to move from the 
concept stage to completion of 
construction, identifying major steps 
along the way. Retrofit and new design 
will be considered. The responsibilities 
and qualifications of each of the 
stakeholders (including owners and 
design professionals) throughout the 
design and construction process will be 
identified and described. The team will 
review these responsibilities and 
evaluate their effects on the groups. The 
team will prepare the information using 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
language, figures, equation styles, 
procedures for implementation, etc., 
consistent with the Guidelines. The 
team will consult with legal professionals 
to evaluate possible changes in liability. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Owners, Financial 
interests, Building 
officials, Government 
agencies, Legal 
professionals 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $250,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Description: 
The team will develop a series of 
examples for the financial and 
engineering application of PBSD, which 
will serve as teaching and reference 
tools. The team will set up a verification 
means and check the examples for 
accuracy and acceptability. The 
examples will include photographs and 
other graphic aids to increase 
understanding of the process. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Researchers, Financial 
interests, Owners 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $400,000 
Duration: 2 years 
Task 6.5 -Develop a plan to 
maintain or monitor the 
designed-performance 
objective 
Description: 
The team will identify maintenance 
needs for nonstructural components, 
based on type, function, age, etc. It will 
develop a program that owners can 
follow, similar to deferred maintenance 
or tenant improvement, for maintaining 
the performance quality of existing 
equipment. A similar program will be 
developed to maintain and monitor the 
overall structural performance goals of a 
building throughout its life, accounting 
for changes in occupancy, 
advancements in the state of the art, 
structural modifications, etc. This 
information will be published as part of 
the Stakeholders' Guide. The team will 
prepare educational material to inform 
owners, contractors, and others about 
the procedures for maintaining a 
building's designed performance. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Contractors, 
Manufacturers, Owners 
Priority: Optimal 
Budget: $250,000 
Duration: 1 year 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Task 6.6 -Publish the Task 6.7 -Develop a means for 
stakeholders5: guide future revisions 
Description: Description: 
The team will set up milestone The team will set up dates for 
deliverables at 25%, 50%, 75% and considering revisions to the Guide and a 
100% and will describe the content to be procedure for doing so. 
included in each. It will establish a final 
review and adoption process. The team Personnel: Design professionals, 
will also include a nontechnical Owners, Financial 
background and history of the PBSD interests, Government 
process and of current code evolution. agencies 
The goal will be to show the non-
engineering audience the need for Priority: Optimal 
PBSD and the expected changes with Budget: $100,000 
respect to the current design and Duration: 1 year 
construction practice. A peer review 
procedure will be established at each 
milestone. A writing team will be 
created and a consensus reached on 
the style and voice of the guide. A small 
team of reviewers will focus on the 
presentation of the information, both 
graphically and textually. This group will 
have the responsibility, along with the 
steering committee of ensuring that the 
presentation compliments the 
Guidelines themselves. 
Personnel: Design professionals, 
Financial interests, 
Owners, Government 
agencies, Outside 
experts in information 
outreach 
Priority: Essential 
Budget: $400r000 
Duration: Throughout the project 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Challenges 
Cost collaboration of both teams will be 
important. This will present special 
Turning PBSD into a reality will challenges for each because of the 
require substantial investments of differences in their training and 
time and money by all stakeholders. expertise. 
Stakeholders will need to be 
convinced that spending money up > Education and Incentives 
front will be in their long-term 
financial interests. Lessons should A focus of the Guide will be to make 
be taken from other successful the concepts of risk and reliability 
efforts, or from other countries such understandable to all parties. PBSD 
as Japan. incorporates reliability-based design, 
a concept that design professionals 
Administration often only consider peripherally. 
Owners and Financial interests, 
The Stakeholders' Guide will need to however, use risk management on a 
function well with the PBSD regular basis. It will be a challenge 
Guidelines. Owners and other non-to communicate to design 
engineering stakeholders will professionals that uncertainty must 
primarily use the former while design be included in their design 
professionals will use the latter. approaches, and to convince owners 
Each, however, must lead to. that there are limits on what can be 
complimentary results that meet the known or anticipated regarding 
needs of all parties. Close building performance. 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
It is important to consider the six 
products as interrelated. It will not be 
possible to develop PBSD by isolating 
each as an independent project. This 
section describes some of the 
necessary relationships between the 
products and identifies key crossover 
lines between the various product 
teams. 
The Technical Reference 
Products 
The SPP, NPP and RMP will contain the 
bulk of the research, analysis and 
testing necessary to develop PBSD 
guidelines. Generally, these efforts will 
be developed concurrently throughout 
the project. However, there are some 
important commonalties that should be 
developed first, including: 
> Development of performance levels 
And global acceptability criteria. 
This is necessary to establish a 
common basis for analysis and the 
development of the standards. Prior 
to the start of focused research, the 
three teams should reach a 
consensus on the definitions of 
performance and acceptability. 
> Hazard quantification and prediction. 
The identification of hazard 
parameters impacts all three 
products and should be consistent 
between them. Researchers and 
design professionals developing this 
information will to some extent be 
working concurrently With the 
structural, nonstructural and risk 
teams. Before these teams make 
assumptions regarding hazard 
evaluation and characteristics, 
however, agreement on these issues 
is needed. This will require greater 
interaction between design 
professionals and scientists. 
3 Reporting methodologies. 
Each product should report 
information in a consistent manner, 
to make the eventual synthesis into 
the Guidelines and Stakeholders' 
Guide easier. Reporting formats 
should be developed at the 
beginning of the project. Milestones 
should be put in place to compare 
progress and track that basic 
assumptions are consistent between 
the groups. It will be the function of 
the steering committee to make sure 
that each team is meeting its 
schedule. However, several 
members of the technical product 
teams will likely be part of the 
Guidelines teams as well. Conflicts 
about fundamental goals and 
reporting styles may create 
problems in the development of the 
Guidelines. 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
I1 
on the content and style of the 
examples to be included in the 
Stakeholders' Guide.
The End Use Products 
The PBSD Guidelines and the 
Stakeholders' Guide are the products 
that will ultimately be used to implement 
PBSD. They need to compliment and 
supplement each other, not duplicate: 
information, and work toward the same 
overall goal. To this end, both teams 
working together should perform several 
tasks. 
> Set goals with stakeholders. 
While each product will be 
developed for somewhat different 
audiences, many of the goals will be 
the same. Each of the goals 
identified by the stakeholders should 
be accounted for in one or both of 
the products. Stakeholders' forums 
should be held with the product 
teams early on and regularly 
throughout the project, to make sure 
that no important goal is missed. 
> Develop document outlines. 
To insure that these products do not 
miss information or undesirably 
duplicate it, the outlines for each 
should be developed in a unified 
setting. Planning sessions should 
be held to make sure that both will 
be compatible. 
> Coordinate example applications. 
Because of the tight overall project 
schedule, much of the efforts for 
these two products will be done 
concurrently. At the point when the 
Guidelines are technically complete, 
the two teams should meet to agree 
Hand over between the 
Technical and End Use 
Products 
The project schedule requires that work 
be done in a manner that moves forward 
quickly. Obviously, developing 
accurate, reliable and acceptable 
information is of utmost importance. The 
quality of the products should not be 
sacrificed to meet the schedule. 
However, since the consensus process 
typically involves compromise and 
reevaluation, valuable time may be lost 
if the end use products are begun 
before substantial progress is made on 
the technical products. To make the 
hand over more efficient the following 
tasks should be performed: 
> Convene technical acceptance 
workshops. 
Before the process of distilling the 
technical products into the end use 
products at each phase (25%, 50%, 
75% and 100%) begins, review 
should be implemented to "sign-off" 
on the former. A representative 
group of stakeholders needs to 
come to agreement that significant 
research has been completed and 
that there is enough information to 
begin developing the Guidelines. If 
substantial research is needed 
during the writing of the guidelines, 
this could snowball, causing 
reworking of all the technical 
products. This is to be avoided. 
56 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
team for accuracy. 
>Check that the technical products 
are on the right track: > Recruit and train experts to present 
educational material 
At milestones during the technical 
product development, the members The education teams will identify 
people who are gifted in presenting
of the end use product teams should and teaching, and have a strong
confirm that the right information is knowledge of the PBSD products.
being produced to facilitate 
development of the guidelines. To These people may not be members 
this end, early in the development of of the other product development 
the technical products these teams teams. If this is so, the teachers will 
need to have close interaction with
need to prepare outlines of the end the product team members to fully
use products, so that they or the understand the concepts that need 
steering committee can see that 
work is moving on the right track. to be conveyed. The team will 
develop teaching and presentation 
programs and train the teachers on 
presentation methods. The teachers 
Development of Education will eventually receive feedback from 
Program the seminars they give. The 
education team will use this 
_ information to refine the program. 
An effort should be made to bring 
the concepts of PBSD into 
Two keys to the success of the universities, so students in 
education program will be having engineering, architecture and 
valuable information published in an construction management programs
understandable and exciting way, and will be familiar with and embrace 
recruiting experts to present this PBSD concepts when they enter 
information. It may be unrealistic to their professions. 
assume that the members of the product 
development teams will be most suited 
to lead these efforts. 
Translate technical material into 
easy to understand educational and 
promotional material. 
The team responsible for developing 
the education program will meet with 
representatives from the other 
product development teams to 
identify material which would be 
useful. They will work together to 
prepare technically accurate 
information while at the same time, 
keeping the product beneficiaries in 
mind. The representatives will 
review material developed by the 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Conclusion 
Few lives have been lost in major 
American seismic events, in 
buildings designed under modern 
codes. The economic losses in recent 
earthquakes, however, have put a strain 
on communities, owners, lenders, 
insurers, governments and building 
users. It must be said, too, that none of 
these events have been of a level that 
would typically be considered 
catastrophic. Temblors with a magnitude 
similar to the 1812 New Madrid or 1906 
San Francisco earthquakes will likely 
result in losses that are several times 
larger than anything previously 
experienced if they occur in a densely 
populated area. 
There has been much 
miscommunication between design 
professionals, owners and financial 
institutions about the performance that 
buildings built to modern codes are 
expected to deliver. This has led to 
higher than appropriate expectations by 
owners. 
Owners, however, must be able to make 
reliable financial decisions about a 
building's seismic performance. Their 
long-term capital planning strategies 
require that seismic risk be translated 
into meaningful, quantifiable terms. 
Engineers need ways to design 
buildings with a predictable level of 
performance that can be adjusted to 
meet the owner's needs. 
Performance based seismic design 
represents a bold new strategy for 
reducing earthquake losses. It focuses 
on the economic goals of building 
stakeholders and integrates financial 
modeling with the latest engineering 
research. This Action Plan lays out a 
rational, cost-effective and achievable 
program for establishing and 
implementing PBSD in a manner that 
will benefit each of the groups with a 
stake in the built environment. 
The organization of this project around 
six "products" insures that the critical 
areas of research and implementation 
are addressed. It breaks the overall 
effort into manageable units and 
produces valuable, self-contained 
material at regular intervals. It brings 
together a diversity of opinions, interests 
and expertise to produce robust and 
widely acceptable guidelines. The 
products themselves will rely upon 
various media to most effectively 
disseminate information. 
The tasks within each product are 
designed to address the major 
challenges that will arise, and provide 
clear guidance for the development 
teams. Establishing a steering 
committee and education program 
insures that administration and 
promotion of the project are top 
priorities. 
The budget and schedule are both 
ambitious. However, flexibility is built 
into each product by recommending 
essential and optimal funding levels. 
Tasks are devoted to finding sources of 
major funding for long term research, 
testing and education efforts, with the 
intention of spreading these costs 
throughout the stakeholder community. 
The process of building design and 
construction must undergo a significant 
change if it is to meaningfully reduce the 
potential for disastrous earthquake 
losses. This Action Plan represents a 
major step towards fulfilling the potential 
of PBSD and reaping its benefits. 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
References 
ISSUE PAPERS 
Alesch, Daniel J., Education, Initiatives, and Incentives for Adoption of Performance 
Based Seismic Design Standards, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 1998. 
Ang, A. H-S, Risk and Reliability, University of California, Irvine, 1998. 
Court, A. B., SE, Seismic Performance and Cost/Benefit Issues, Curry Price Court, 
1998. 
Delerlein, Gregory CZ., PhD, PE, Structural Acceptance Criteria for Performance Based 
Seismic Design (PBSD), Cornell University. 1998 
Jones, Gerald H., Enforcing and Administering Performance Based Seismic Guidelines, 
1998. 
Naeim, Farzad, PhD, SE, Design Ground Motions and Performance Based Design, John 
A. Martin and Associates, Inc., 1998. 
Reitherman, Robert and Gillengerten, John, Nonstructural Issues that Must Be Resolved 
If Performance Based Seismic Design Is to Be Achieved, 1998. 
OTHER KEY REFERENCES 
Applied Technology Council. Methodology for Seismic evaluation and Upgrade of 
Concrete Structures. Report No. ATC-40, California Seismic Safety Commission. 
Report No. SSC96-01 Sacramento, California. 
FEMA 2731274, NEHRP Guidelines and commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of 
Buildings, 1997. 
FEMA 283, Performance Based Seismic Design of Buildings, 19194. 
Hamburger, Ronald, An Overview of Performance Based Design, 1997. 
Hamburger, R.C. and Holmes, W.T., Vision Statement EERI/FEMA Performance Based 
Seismic Engineering Project, 1997 
Hanson, Robert D., Performance Based Standards and Steel Frame Buildings, 
University of Michigan, 1998. 
59 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
International Workshop on Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Bled, Slovenia, 1997. 
Kunreuther, Howard, Role of Mitigation in Managing Catastrophic Risks, Wharton Risk 
Management and Decision Processes Center, 1997. 
Mahoney, Michael and Hanson, Robert, An Action Plan for Performance Based Design 
SEAOC, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural 
Engineers Association of California, 1996. 
SEAOC, Vision 2000, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, 
California, 1996. 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Performance based Design 
Workshop Participant List
July 27-28 
San Diego, 
Daniel Abrams 
Professor 
University of Illinois 
1245 Newmark Civil 
Engineering Lab 
MC 250 
205 N. Mathews Avenue 
Urbana, IL61801-2397 
Tel. 2171333-0565 
Fax 217/333-3821 
E-mail d-abrams@uiuc.edu 
Randall Allen 
Director of Design and 
Construction 
State of Missouri 
Office of Administration 
301 West High Street 
P. O. Box 809 
Jefferson City, MO 65102 
Tel. 573f751-4174 
Fax 573/526-3665 
E-mail 
allenr@mail.oa.state.mo.us 
Christopher Arnold 
President 
Building Systems 
Development 
P. 0. Box 51950 
Palo Alto, CA 94303 
Phone 650/462-1812 
Fax 650/462-1817 
E-mail chrisarno@aol.com 
1998 
California 
S. Ahmad 
American Concrete Institute 
38800 Country Club Drive 
Farmington Hills, Ml 48331 
Tel. 2481848-3700 
Fax 2481848-3700 
E-mail SAhmad~aci-int.org 
Donald Anderson 
Senior Geotechnical 
Engineer 
CH21M Hill 
777 -108th Avenue NE 
Bellevue, WA 98004-5118 
Tel. 425/453-5000 
Fax 4251462-5957 
E-mail 
dandersooch2m.com 
Deborah Beck 
Real Estate Board of New 
York 
12 East 41st Street 
New York, NY 10017 
Tel: 212/532-3100 
Fax 212/779-8774 
Dan Alesch 
Professor 
University of Wisconsin 
Rose Hall, Suite 324 
2420 Nicolet Dr. 
Green Bay, WI 54311-7001 
Tel. 920/465-2355 
Fax 920/465-2791 
E-mail: aleschd@uwcfb.edu 
Alfredo Ang 
Professor 
University of California 
Dept. of Civil & 
Environmental Engineering 
4157 Engineering Gateway 
Irvine, CA 92697-2175 
Tel. 714/824-8528 
Fax 714/824-5051 
E-mail: ahanq@uci.edu 
Vitelmo Bertero 
Professor Emeritus 
1106 Colusa Avenue 
Berkeley, CA 94707 
Tel. 510/231-9586 
Fax 5101527-8178 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Michael Bocchicchio Lawrence Brugger Jacques Cattan 
Assistant Vice President ICC Building Performance American Institute of 
Facilities Administration Committee Steel Construction 
University of California 3131 Donnie Ann Road 1 East Wacker Drive, Suite 
Office of the President Rossmoor, CA 90720 3100 
1111 Franklin Street, 6th Tel: 213/977-6446 Chicago, IL 60601-2001 
Floor Fax 213/977-6468 Tel. 312/670-5430 
Oakland, CA 94607-5200 Fax 312/670-5403 
Tel. 510/987-0777 
Fax 510/987-0752. 
E-mail: 
mike.bocchicchio@ucop.edu 
C. Allin Cornell Craig Comartin Anthony Court 
Professor President, Comartin-Reis Vice President 
Stanford University 7683 Andrea Avenue Curry Price Court Structural 
Terman Engineering Center 
Stanford, CA 94305-4020 
Stockton, CA 95207-1705 
Tel: 209/472-1221 
& Civil Engineers 
444 Camino del Rio South 
Tel. 650/854-8053 Fax: 209/472-7294 #201 
Fax 650/854-8075 E-mail: San Diego, CA 92108 
E-mail: comartin@cornartin-reis.com Tel. 619/291-2800 
cornell@ce.stanford.edu Fax 619/291-0613 
E-mail: cpcenq@aol.com 
Chuck Davis Greg Deierlein Bruce Ellingwood 
Esherick Homsey Dodge Professor Johns Hopkins University 
and Davis Stanford University Dept. of Civil Engineering . 
2789 25th Street Dept. of Civil & 3400 N. Charles Street 
San Francisco, CA 94110-Environmental Engineering Baltimore, MD 21218 
3597 Terman Engineering Center Tel: 410/516-8443 
Tel. 415/285-9193 -M 4020 Fax 410/516-7473 
Fax 415/285-3866 Stanford, CA 94305-4020 
Tel. 650/723-0453 
Fax 6500/723-7514 
E-mail: 
ggd@cive.stanford.edu 
Jeffrey Gee, AIA S. K. Ghosh John Gillengerten 
Director of Design & Project Portland Cement John A. Martin & Associates 
Management 
University of California 
2000 Carleton Street 
Association 
1811 Cree Lane 
Mt. Prospect, IL 60077 
1212 S. Flower Street 
Los Angeles, CA 90015 
Tel. 213/483-6490 
Berkeley, CA 94720-1380 Tel: 847/297-5640 Fax 213/483-3084 
Phone 510/643-9363 Fax 847/297-9144 E-mail: JGjama@aol.com 
Fax 510/642-7271 E-mail skghosh@aol.com 
E-mail 
gee@dofm.berkeley.edu 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Michael Hagerty 
Chief Engineer 
City of Portland 
Bureau of Buildings 
1120 SW 5th, Room 930 
Portland, OR 97204 
Tel. 5031823-7538 
Fax 5031823-7692 
E-mail 
haciertvm@oi.portland.or.us 
Gary Hart 
University of California at 
Los Angeles 
Civil & Environmental 
Engineering Dept. 
5731 Boelter Hall 
Los Angeles, CA 90095Tel: 
310/825-1377 
Fax: 3101206-2000 
E-mail qhart@ucla.edu 
William Holmes 
Vice President 
Rutherford & Chekene 
Consulting Engineers 
303 Second Street, Suite 
800 North 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
Tel: 415/495-4222 
Fax 415/546-7536 
E-mail: 
wholmes@ruthchek.com 
Ronald Hamburger 
Senior Vice President 
EQE International, Inc. 
1111 Broadway, 1 0 ,1h Floor 
Pakland, CA 94607 
Tel. 510/817-31 00 
E-mail: roh@ eoe.com 
Perry Haviland, FAIA 
Building Standards Seismic 
Safety Advisory Committee 
Haviland Associates 
Architects 
27 Embarcadero Cove 
Oakland, CA 94606 
Phone 510/532-6996 
Fax 5101532-6998 
John Hooper 
Skilling Ward Magnusson 
Barkshire Inc. 
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 
3200 
Seattle, WA 98101-2699 
Tel. 206/292-1200 
Fax 206/292-1201 
E-mail: Jdh@skillino.com 
Robert 0. Hanson 
Senior Earthquake Engineer 
University of Michigan/ 
FEMA CA-1008-DR 
74 North Pasadena Avenue 
Parsons Bldg. West Annex 
Room 308 
Pasadena, CA 91103 
Tel. 626/431-3079 
Fax 626/431-3859 
E-mail: 
robert.hanson@femagov 
Frederick Herman 
City of Palo Alto 
250 Hamilton 
P. 0.Box 10250 
Palo Alto, CA 94303 
Tel. 41 51329-2550 
Fax 415/3229-2240, 
E-mail: 
fredherman@citv.oalo
alto.oa.us 
Laurence Kornfield 
Chief Building Inspector 
City and County of San 
Francisco 
Dept. of Building Inspection 
1660 Mission Street, 3rd 
Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941032414 
Tel. 415/558-6244 
Fax 415/558-6474 
63 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Wilfred Iwan 
Professor/Director 
Earthquake Engineering 
Research Laboratory 
California Institute of 
Technology 
223 Thomas Laboratory 
Pasadena, CA 91125 
Tel. 626/395-4144 
Fax 626/568-2719 
E-mail: 
wdiwan Scco.caltech.edu 
Helmut Krawinkler 
Professor 
Stanford University 
Dept. of Civil Engineering 
Terman Engineering Center 
Stanford, CA 94305-4020 
Tel. 650/723-4129 
Fax 650/723-7514 
E-mail: 
krawinkler@ce.stanford.edu. 
Michael Mahoney 
Senior Geophysicist 
FEMA 
National Earthquake 
Program Office 
500 'C" Street SW, Room 
Washington, D.C. 20472 
Tel. 202/646-2794 
Fax 202/646-3990 
E-mail: 
Mike.Mahonev~fema.gov 
Jack Moehle 
Professor & Director 
Pacific Earthquake 
Engineering Research 
Center 
1301 S. 46th Street 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
Tel. 510/231-9554 
Fax 510/231-9471 
E-mail: 
moehle~eerc.berkelev.edu 
James Jirsa 
Professor 
University of Texas 
Ferguson Structural 
Engineering Lab 
10100 Burnet Road, PRC 
Bldg. 177 
Austin, TX 78758-4497 
Tel: 512/471-4582 
Fax: 512/471-1944 
E-mail: 
iirsa uts.cc.utexas.edu 
George Lee 
Director 
MCEER 
SUNY at Buffalo 
100 Red Jacket Quadrangle 
Box 610025 
Buffalo, NY 14261-0025 
Tel. 716/645-3391 
Fax 716/645-3399 
E-mail 
aclee@acsu.buffalo.edu 
Hank Martin 
American Iron and Steel 
Institute 
11899 Edgewood Road, 
Suite G 
Auburn, CA 95603 
Tel. 530/ 887-8335 
Fax 530/887-0713 
Hmartin(steel.org 
Vilas Mujumdar 
Chief. 
Division of the State 
Architect 
Office of Regulation 
Services 
1300 I Street, Suite 800 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Tel. 916/445-1304 
Fax 916/327-3371 
E-mail 
vmuiumda@d s.ca.gov 
Gerald Jones 
1100 West 122nd Street 
Kansas City, MO 64145 
Tel. 816/942-3167 
Fax 816/941-8743 
E-mail: 
qhiones@prodipv.net 
H. S. Lew 
National Institute of 
Standards and Technology 
Building and Fire Research 
Lab 
Building 226, Room B168 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 
Tel: 301/975-6060 
Fax: 301/869-6275 
E-mail: hsl@nist.gov 
Andrew Merovich 
President 
A. T. Merovich & 
Associates, Inc. 
1163 Francisco Blvd., 2nd 
Floor 
San Rafael, CA 94901 
Tel. 415/457-0932 
Fax 415/457-1718 
E-mail: 
atmerovich@aol.com 
Paul Murray 
Structural Engineer 
Stanley D. Lindsey & Assoc. 
Ltd. 
1801 West End Avenue, 
Suite 400 
Nashville, TN 37203-2509 
Tel. 615/320-1735 
Fax 615/320-0387 
E-mail: pmurraysdl
nash.com 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Farzad Naeim 
Director 
Research/Development 
John A. Martin & Associates 
1212 S. Flower Street 
Los Angeles, CA 90015 
Tel. 213/483-6490 
Fax 2131483-3084 
E-mail: 
farzad iohnmartin.com 
Chris Poland 
President 
Degenkolb Engineers 
225 Bush Street #1 000 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Tel: 4151392-6952 
Fax: 4151981-3157 
E-mail: 
cooland@deqenkolb.com 
Evan Reis 
Vice President, Comartin-
Reis 
356 King Street 
Redwood City, CA 94062 
Tel. 650/725-7016 
Fax 650/723-7444 
E-mail: 
reis@comartin-reis.corn 
Dan Rogers 
Stanford University 
University Facilities Projects 
655 Serra Street, 2nd Floor 
Stanford, CA 94305-6114 
Tel. 650/723-3928 
Fax 650/725-9475 
Hidemi Nakashima 
Visiting Scholar 
PEER Center 
1301 South 46th Street 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
Tel. 5101231-9597 
Fax 51O1231-9471 
E-mail 
hidemi@poo.bekkoame.or.iP 
Maurice Power 
Principal Engineer 
Geomatrix Consultants 
100 Pine Street, Suite 1000 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
Tel. 4151434-9400 
Fax 4151434-1365 
Robert Reitherman 
Executive Director 
CUREe 
1301 S. 46th St. 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
Tel. 510/231-9557 
Fax 510/231-5664 
E-mail: 
reitherm@nisee.ce.berkeley.edu 
Ronald Sack 
Director 
National Science 
Foundation 
Division of Civil and 
Mechanical Systems 
4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 
545 
Arlington, VA 22230 
Tel. 703/306-1360 
Fax 703/306-0291 
E-mail: rsack~nsf.gov 
Maryann Phipps 
Principal 
Degenkolb Engineers 
225 Bush Street, Suite 1000 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Tel: 4151392-6952 
Fax 4151981-3157 
E-mail: 
mphipps@decenkolb.com 
Andrei Reinhorn 
Professor 
SUNY at Buffalo 
Civil Engineering 
Department 
231 Ketter Hall 
Buffalo, NY 14260 
Tel. 7161645-3491 x 2419 
Fax 716/645-3733 
E-mail: 
reinhorn@eng.buffalo.edu 
Mike Riley 
National Institute of 
Standards & Technology 
Earthquake Equipment 
Group 
Route 270 & Quince 
Orchard Rd. 
Building 226, Room B158 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 
Tel. 301/975-6065 
Fax 301/869-6275 
Phillip Samblanet 
Structural Engineer 
National Concrete Masonry 
Association 
2302 Horse Pen Road 
Herndon, VA 20171-3499 
Tel. 703/713-1900 
Fax 703/713-1910 
E-mail 
PSamblanet@ NCMA.orq 
65 
Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design 
Sheila Selkregg 
Planning Director 
Municipality of Anchorage 
Community Planning and 
Development 
632 West 6th Avenue, 
Room 210 
Anchorage, AK 99501 
Tel. 907-343-4303 
Fax 907-343-4220 
Stephen Toth 
Chief Engineering Officer 
Teachers Insurance & 
Annuity Ass'n/College 
Retiremt. Equities Fund 
730 Third Avenue 
New York, NY 10017-3206 
Tel. 212/916-4445 
Fax 212/916-6207 
E-mail stoth@tiaa-cref.org 
Fred Turner 
Staff Structural Engineer 
California Seismic Safety 
Commission 
1900 K Street #100 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Tel: 916/322-4917 
Fax: 916/322-9476 
E-mail: fredt5@aol.com 
Paul Somerville 
Senior Associate 
Woodward-Clyde Federal 
Services 
566 El Dorado Street 
Pasadena, CA 91101 
Tel. 626/449-7650 
Fax 626/449-3536 
E-mail pgsomerO@wcc.corr 
Bill Tryon 
Wells Fargo Bank 
540 Oak Street 
Petaluma, CA 94952 
Tel. 707/773-2868 
Fax 707/773-2879 
E-mail: 
trvoncw@wellsfarno.com 
David Tyree 
Regional Manager 
American Forest & Paper 
Association 
1080 Mesa Road 
Colorado Springs, CO 
80904 
Tel. 719/633-7471 
Fax 719/633-7439 
E-mail: dptvree@aol.com 
John Theiss 
208 St. Georges Drive 
P. 0. Box 102 
St. Albans, MO 63073 
Tel. 314/458-2453 
Fax 314/994-0722 (EQE) 
E-mail: ct29@aol.com 
Susan Tubbesing 
Executive Director 
EERI 
499 -14th Street, Suite 320 
Oakland, CA 94612-1934 
Tel. 510/451-0905 
Fax 510/451-5411 
E-mail: eeri@eeri.orq 
Nabih Youssef 
President 
Nabih Youssef & Associates 
800 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 
510 
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
Tel: 213/362-0707 
Fax 213/688-3018 
E-mail: nvoussef@qnn.com