Seismic performance criteria based on response history analysis

Alternative metrics for practical application in NZ




This paper provides a comparison of four different seismic performance metrics which relate to the determination of design seismic demands from seismic response history analyses. The considered metrics include those implemented in New Zealand and international codes of practice, as well as emerging metrics which are well established in related research and state-of-the-art practice, but have yet to find their way into conventional guidelines. The metrics are directly compared and contrasted based on a central example. It is illustrated that the use of the “maximum demand” metric in the NZ loadings standard, and the “mean demand” in international codes of practice are notably conservative and unconservative, respectively. Either of the two emerging metrics provide a significant improvement, and given that they require the same information from an analyst’s perspective, are recommended as replacements.


NZS 1170.5. Structural design actions, Part 5: Earthquake actions - New Zealand. Standards New Zealand: Wellington, New Zealand, 2004, 82pp.

CEN. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismisc actions and rules for buildings: Brussels, 2003. pp.

ASCE/SEI 7-05. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006. 388pp.

FEMA-368. NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, 2000 Edition, Part 1: Provisions: Washington D.C., 2001. pp.

Bradley, B.A. (2011) "Design Seismic Demands from Seismic Response Analyses: A Probability-Based Approach". Earthquake Spectra; 27(1): 213-224. DOI:

Baker, J.W. and Cornell, C.A. (2006) "Spectral shape, record selection and epsilon". Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; 35(9): 1077-1095. DOI:

Bradley, B.A. (2010) "A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground motion selection". Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; 39(12): 1321-1342. DOI:

Bradley, B.A. (2012) "A ground motion selection algorithm based on the generalized conditional intensity measure approach". Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering; 40(0): 48-61. DOI:

Hancock, J., Bommer, J.J. and Stafford, P.J. (2008) "Numbers of scaled and matched accelerograms required for inelastic dynamic analyses". Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; 37(14): 1585-1702. DOI:

Bradley, B.A. (2013a) "A comparison of intensity-based demand distributions and the seismic demand hazard for seismic performance assessment". Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics; 42(15): 2235-2253. DOI:

Bradley, B.A. (2013b) "Practice-oriented estimation of the seismic demand hazard using ground motions at few intensity levels". Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics; 42(14): 2167-2185. DOI:

Cornell, C.A., Jalayer, F., Hamburger, R.O. and Foutch, D.A. (2002) "Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines". Journal of Structural Engineering; 128(4): 526–533. DOI:




How to Cite

Bradley, B. A. (2014). Seismic performance criteria based on response history analysis: Alternative metrics for practical application in NZ. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 47(3), 224–228.



Technical Notes