Lessons Learned from the Peer Review Process sunumlar... · Lessons Learned from the Peer Review...

30 PROTA Symposium:

New Generation of Seismic Codes and New Technologies in Earthquake Engineering

Lessons Learned from the

Peer Review Process

Farzad Naeim Farzad Naeim, Inc.

Jack Moehle UC Berkeley

30 PROTA Symposium: New Generation of Seismic Codes and New Technologies in Earthquake Engineering

The Seismic Peer Review Panel (SPRP)

February 2015 2

• Purpose – To provide independent, objective, technical

review of any aspects that relate to seismic performance

• Conduct – EOR proposes criteria and designs to satisfy it

– The SSRP reviews EOR submittals for • Consistency with performance objectives

• Consistency with standards of practice

– A good review provides input that promotes resolution of comments in a collegial environment

– This is not the place to force your way of doing things


February 2015 3

Peer review

• The burden to demonstrate conformance

of the structural design resides with the

EOR.

• The responsibility for the structural design

remains solely with the EOR.

• The responsibility for plan review resides

with the Building Official.


February 2015 4

Peer review limitations

SPRP membership

Consultation

• Selected as individuals, not

companies • No conflicts, quid-pro-quos

Project Sponsor and EOR

Building

Official

SPRP

• SE – Tall building expertise

• Geo/Seismic Hazard

• Academic – Specific expertise

Selection,

Reporting


February 2015 5

SPRP contracting models


Building

Official

SPRP

Selection,

Contract,

Reporting


February 2015 6

SPRP contracting models


Building

Official

SPRP

Selection,

Reporting

Contract


February 2015 7

Operational aspects – kick-off meeting

Project Sponsor

Building Official SPRP

EOR

Points

of

contact


February 2015 8

Operational aspects – detailed work

Project Sponsor

Building Official SPRP

EOR

Points

of

contact


February 2015 9

• SE

– Chair meetings, manage team, single point of contact for SPRP

– In-office support team reviews computer models and monitors comment log

– Prepares letters for approval by SPRP

• Geo/Seismic Hazard expert

– Seismic hazard representation

– Foundation modeling

• Academic

– Building-specific aspects


February 2015 10

SPRP (typical) distribution of work

• Review Design Criteria – design approach – seismic hazard

– modeling approaches

– acceptance criteria

– whatever else arises…

• Review early design concepts and details

• Review final design – computer input and output – analysis results in relation to design criteria

– details as expressed in drawings

• Participate in SPRP meetings

• Complete written reports/letters


February 2015 11

SPRP scope of services

• Peer review should facilitate the project development, not impede it

• Peer review should start early

• Stages

– Kick-off meeting

– Basis of Design (design criteria)

– Geo report / seismic hazard representation

– Excavation / Shoring /Foundation approval

– Partial or complete structural review

– Final approval letter

Timeline and deliverables


February 2015 12

Example of an Unrealistic

Schedule

Englekirk:

Englekirk:

AMEC:

AMEC:

SPRP

Englekirk:

General Contractor:


February 2015 13

1. Basis of Design document to be submitted to

SPRP:

By

To be submitted between September 15, 2014 and

September 30, 2014

2. Approval of Basis of Design document: By SPRP:

From September 16, 2014 to October 14, 2014

3. Submittal of response spectra to the SPRP: By

To be submitted between September 26, 2014 and

October 7, 2014

4. Approval of response spectra: By SPRP

From September 29, 2014 to October 8, 2014

5. Submittal of time histories to the SPRP: By

To be submitted between October 27, 2014 and

November 6, 2014

6. Approval of time histories: By

From October 30, 2014 to November 13, 2014

7. Submittal of Service Level Earthquake (SLE)

design calculations and drawings to the SPRP:

By

To be submitted between December 22, 2014 and

January 9, 2015

8. Approval of SLE design*: By SPRP:

From January 12, 2015 to February 9, 2015

9. Submittal of shoring and underpinning design: By

To be submitted between April 13, 2015 and

April 27, 2015

10. Approval of shoring and underpinning design: By SPRP:

From April 28, 2015 to June 8, 2015

11. Collapse Prevention Level Design and

submittal for the foundation permit drawings to

the City and the SPRP:

By

To be submitted between October 1, 2015 and

October 15, 2015

12. Review process and approvals to pull

foundation permit:

By SPRP:

From October 2, 2015 to December 1, 2015

• Basis of Design – Should be detailed and explain

• approach to design

• details of modeling and acceptance criteria

• Computer models – Help SPRP help you

• Member proportioning and details – For a foundation permit you should have an

essentially completed design

– In some cases you can get a conditional excavation permit without a complete design

• Performance verification

• Structural drawings


February 2015 14

Design Documentation

30 PROTA Symposium: New Generation of Seismic Codes and New Technologies in Earthquake Engineering iv

Example BOD Table of Contents

3 Design process ............................................................................................................ 7

3.1.1

3.1.2

3.1.3

3.1.4

3.1.5

3.1.6

3.1.7

3.1.8

Flexural design in walls.............................................................................. 9

Shear design in walls .................................................................................. 9

Special Structural Wall Reinforcement ....................................................... 9

Coupling beams .......................................................................................... 9

Punching shear in floor slabs ................................................................... 10

Structural Diaphragms ............................................................................. 10

Foundation ................................................................................................ 10 Non-core walls .......................................................................................... 10

4 Serviceability evaluation........................................................................................... 11

4.1 General .............................................................................................................. 11

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.4.1

4.4.2

4.5

4.5.1

4.5.2

4.5.3

Seismic Input .................................................................................................... 11

Load Combinations........................................................................................... 11 Mathematical model.......................................................................................... 11

Performance Check................................................................................... 11

Design Confirmation................................................................................. 12

Documentation.................................................................................................. 12

Design Quantities...................................................................................... 12

Service Level Analysis Model ................................................................... 12

Service Level Analysis Output .................................................................. 12

5 Collapse Prevention evaluation................................................................................. 13

5.1 General .............................................................................................................. 13

5.2 Seismic Input 13

5.3 Load Combinations 13

5.4 Mathematical model 13

2.3 Building Risk Category................................... ............. ....................................... 5

2.4 Materials of Construction .............................. .............

.

....................................... 5

2.4.1 Concrete .................................................. .............

.

...................................... 5

2.4.2 Reinforcing steel

.......................................

........... ....................................... 5

2.5 Stiffness properties.......................................... .................................................... 5

1

2

2.2

2.2.1

2.2.2

2.2.3

Code Exceptions ................................................................................................. 4

Structural height ......................................................................................... 4

Columns ...................................................................................................... 5

Foundation .................................................................................................. 5

v

5.4.8

5.4.9

5.4.10

Backstay Effects ....................................................................................... 17

P-D effects ................................................................................................. 18

Damping: .................................................................................................. 18 5.5 Performance Check........................................................................................... 18

5.6 Presentation of Design and Response Data ...................................................... 20 5.6.1

5.6.2

5.6.3

Design Quantities...................................................................................... 20 Nonlinear Time-history Analysis Input ..................................................... 20

Nonlinear Time-history Analysis Output .................................................. 20

6 Specific Provisions.................................................................................................... 22

6.1 Documentation of Concrete Proportions .......................................................... 22

7 Seismic Instrumentation............................................................................................ 23

Appendices..................................................................................................................... ... 24

A. PEER review information ........................................................................................ 24

B. Site Plan................................................................................................................... . 26

C. 3D views................................................................................................................... 28

D. Building Section....................................................................................................... 31

February 2015 15

Int Table of Contents

roduction 1

5.4.1 Computer model ........................................................................................ 13

1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................ 1 5.4.2 Concrete core walls .................................................................................. 13

1.2 Project Description.............................................................................................. 1 5.4.3 Basement walls.......................................................................................... 15

1.3 Design Approach ................................................................................................ 2 5.4.4 Coupling beams: ....................................................................................... 15 Ge neral 3 5.4.5 Diaphragms............................................................................................... 16

5.4.6 Modeling of Gravity System and Fl oor Slab Out-of-Plane Behavior 17

2.1 Codes and reference documents.......................................................................... 3 5.4.7 Accidental Torsion: (per LATBSDC 2014) 17

Example BOD Modeling Details


February 2015 16

Example BOD Modeling Details


February 2015 17

Example of Summarizing Results


February 2015 18


February 2015 19

The Comment Log # Page Date Comment Response Resolution

2 2-3 x/y/z The values of Z1.0

and Z2.5 listed on

these two pages

are not consistent.

The consultant

should clarify

which set of

values were used

in the analysis.

This has been corrected

in the attached revised

report (date)

Resolved

(date)

• Differences of opinion can arise

– level of complexity required for analysis

– interpretation of results

• Disputes are rare

– Building Official is final arbiter

– Advisory panels can be consulted


February 2015 20

Dispute resolution

• “The peer review process takes too long,

is too expensive, and too uncertain.”

– Example 1: The dual system that was not

– Example 2: The dual system that became one

– Example 3: Armed struggle over stress limits

– Example 4: SPRP’s suspended animation

– Example 5: Conditioning payment on

Approval


February 2015 21

Examples

• Example 6 – Spectrum-matched versus

scaled motions

Ground motion selection and scaling


February 2015 22

• Example 7 – Conditional mean spectra

– Example 7a

– Example 7b

Ground motion selection and scaling

Figure courtesy of Prof. Jack Baker


February 2015 23

• Example 8a – What do you mean the

effective damping is 2.5% of critical?

• Example 8b – Rayleigh damping scaled

for T1 through T3.

• Example 8c – Modal damping

Nonlinear dynamic analysis


February 2015 24

• Example 9 – Strain capacity of unconfined concrete is

0.003. Therefore, no confinement should be required if e c

< 0.003.

Demand versus capacity

0.25 0.50 0.75

Distance along web from flange / lw

Flange in tension

Co

ncre

te s

train

0.015

0.005

-0.015 0.00

Flange

0.010

0.000 -0.005 -0.010

1.00

Stem

Drift Ratio

0.75%

1.00%

1.50%

Meas. Calc. Lateral

loading

Thomsen and Wallace (2004).


February 2015 25

• Example 10 – The loop-de-loop hoop.

Structural detailing

Loop-de-loop hoop


February 2015 26

Daisy chain of loop-de-loop

hoops as reinforcement for

wall shear, confinement,

and reinforcement support

• Example 11 - Diagonally reinforced coupling beams –

The entire shear is carried by the diagonals, therefore

the concrete outside the diagonals is not required.

Structural detailing


February 2015 27

• Example 12 – Wall-slab interfaces?

Construction details

10 ksi

4 ksi

10 ksi

10 ksi

4 ksi

10 ksi

10 ksi

4 ksi

10 ksi

10 ks

4 ksi

10 ks

(a) Probable

code violation

(b) Puddle wall

concrete into slab

(c) Hold back

slab concrete,

cast wall through

the slab

(d) Slip form the

wall

Cold joint


February 2015 28

• Example 13 – Unit shear strength of members without

shear reinforcement is known to decrease with

thickness. Should a foundation mat have shear

reinforcement?

Foundation mats


February 2015 29

Thank you!


February 2015 30

Lessons Learned from the Peer Review Process sunumlar... · Lessons Learned from the Peer Review...

Documents

Transcript of Lessons Learned from the Peer Review Process sunumlar... · Lessons Learned from the Peer Review...