Performance-based seismic design (PBSD) has been recognized as a framework for designing new buildings in the United States in recent years. Various guidelines and standards have been developed to codify and document the implementation of PBSD, including “ Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings” (ASCE 41-17), the Tall Buildings Initiative’s Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings (TBI Guidelines), and the Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council’s An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region (LATBSDC Procedure). The main goal of these documents is to regularize the implementation of PBSD for practicing engineers. These documents were developed independently with experts from varying backgrounds and organizations and consequently have differences in several degrees from basic intent to the details of the implementation. As the main objective of PBSD is to ensure a specified building performance, these documents would be expected to provide similar recommendations for achieving a given performance objective for new buildings. This article provides a detailed comparison among each document’s implementation of PBSD for reinforced concrete buildings, with the goal of highlighting the differences among these documents and identifying provisions in which the designed building may achieve varied performance depending on the chosen standard/guideline. This comparison can help committees developing these documents to be aware of their differences, investigate the sources of their divergence, and bring these documents closer to common ground in future cycles.
A shear wall element for nonlinear seismic analysis of super-tall buildings using OpenSees
