ASEP-PeerReviewGuide

Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc.

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 2011

Committee on Design Peer Review (2009-2011)


About this Guidelines Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 2011 Published by Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. Published April 2011 Copyright… Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. Suite 713 Future Point Plaza Condominium 112 Panay Avenue, Quezon City, 1100 Philippines Telephone Nos. : Facsimile : E-mail Address : Website :

+63 (2) 410-0483 +63 (2) 411-8606 [email protected] http://www.aseponline.org

About ASEP…

Print History 2000 2011


ii


Contents ABOUT THIS GUIDELINES ................................................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................... V ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................................... VI 1.

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1

2.

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................2

3.

OBJECTIVES OF THE DESIGN PEER REVIEW ...................................................................................3

4.

ETHICS OF PEER REVIEW .............................................................................................................5

5.

STRUCTURES TO BE REVIEWED....................................................................................................6

6.

REVIEWER’S QUALIFICATION.......................................................................................................8

7.

MINIMUM REPORT REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................................................9

8.

DESIGN REVIEW CONFLICT RESOLUTION.................................................................................... 13

9.

SEQUENCE OF REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 14

10.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF REVIEW ............................................................................... 15

11.

INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED TO THE DESIGN REVIEWER ................................................ 18

12.

ITEMS TO BE REVIEWED ........................................................................................................ 20

13.

CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................... 23

14.

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 24

15.

PARTICIPANTS LIST................................................................................................................ 25


iii


List of Tables

TABLE 1: ITEMS TO BE REVIEWED CHECKLIST ..........................................................................................................................20 TABLE 2: SAMPLE OF CERTIFICATION ....................................................................................................................................23


iv


Acknowledgements

Sincere thanks to Adam C. Abinales, Ronaldo S. Ison and Anthony Vladimir C. Pimentel and to the rest of ASEP members who provided their input and guidance in the completion of this guide. The names and affiliations of all who assisted are included in the Participants List at the end of this guide.

ASEP Design Peer Review Committee 2009 – 2011

Cover image/layout by: Bill San Jose


v


Abbreviations A&D

-

Analysis and Design

ACI

-

American Concrete Institute

AISC

-

American Institute of Steel Construction

ASCE

-

American Society of Civil Engineers

ASEP

-


BIM

-

Building Information Model

CE

-

Civil Engineer

CTBUH

-

Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat

DOST

-

Department of Science and Technology

DPWH

-

Department of Public Works and Highways

EOR

-

Engineer-On-Record

IAI

-

International Alliance for Interoperability

IBC

-

International Building Code

IFC

-

Industry Foundation Classes

NSCP

-

National Structural Code of the Philippines

PAG-ASA

-

Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical & Astronomical Services Administration

PHIVOLCS -

Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology

PICE

-

Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc.

PRC

-

Professional Regulations Commission

SAP

-

Structural Analysis Program

SE

-

Structural Engineer

SEC

-

Security and Exchange Commissions

UBC

-

Uniform Building Code


vi


1. Introduction Design review is incorporated in most building codes to provide the means for professional discussion and evaluation of structural design of projects. Thus, these reviews are the eye openers for the resolution of problems encountered before a critical phase of the construction project. Design review truly enhances the ideas for public safety overall and quality assurance. Furthermore, it disseminates innovation through sharing of information. Earthquake for instance is a phenomenon that man has been trying to study for centuries but up to present time is still unpredictable. We, as structural engineers, are faced with the greatest challenge of formulating procedures on how to lessen if not eliminate destruction and casualties due to this. We want to make sure that the intent of our design is carefully followed and carried out in the most professional manner. The burden of setting up and observing rules on how to achieve what has been planned rest upon our shoulders. Design review can be a valuable tool faced with this challenge. This document establishes the guidelines for peer review. Since protecting lives and properties are the paramount goals of the Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP), the only way perhaps to realise these goals is establish ground rules for all our practicing civil engineers, structural engineers and consultants to follow strictly the Code provisions and standards parameters. It is essential to good engineering practice to conduct independent peer review to achieve a concept of structural system and design tolerant to the crudeness in seismological predictions. The independent review of structures shall be deemed as the means to promote life safety, achieve excellence in structural design and front of quality, improvement/advancement and dissemination of structural engineering knowledge in the country.


1


2. Background To accomplish the objectives of ASEP, the Board of Directors for 1999-2000 has continued the program of the ASEP Board of Directors for 1998-1999 by creating several committees as shown below. These objectives, as stated in its by-laws, shall be the protection of the public welfare and the welfare of its constituents through the:   

Maintenance of highly ethical and professional standards in the practice of engineering Advancement of structural engineering knowledge; Promotion of good public and private clientele relationships, development of fellowships among CE and SE and encouragement of professional relations with other allied technical and scientific organisations.

These objectives are focused on these three major areas:   

Codes and Standards Fellowships and Linkages Technical Advancement

One of the committees created for the Codes and Standards is the Committee on Design Peer Review. The National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 1992 Edition touches on independent design review under the section “A Design and Construction Review”, which defines the structures required for the review considering seismic zones and occupancy categories. However, the scope, procedures and documentation of the review process are not mentioned. Thus, this paper will include guidelines on the implementation of the design peer review. The same committee was revived by the President of the Board of Directors for 2009-2010, Adam C. Abinales from point of view of engineering practitioners, to improve and expand the guidelines to incorporate additional parameters and ethical rules and enhance the practice of peer review. The committee's activities have to continue under the administration of President Anthony Vladimir Pimentel of the Board of Directors for 2010-2011 for the same noble purpose. The Committee on Design Peer Review (2009-2011) is composed of the following: Chairman Ernesto F. Cruz Members Alden C. Ong Marie Christine G. Danao Edmondo D. San Jose

Advisers Ronaldo S. Ison Adam C. Abinales Anthony Vladimir C. Pimentel


2


3. Objectives of the Design Peer Review The current trend in the local construction industry is the development of many high-rise buildings. On account of this, it is the objective of this peer review to improve sections1.3.2 of NSCP 1992, to insure the aim for life safety, to observe economy in design and to protect the investment of clients.

The Peer Review is aimed to carry out positive results in the following areas:      

To comply with the minimum requirements of NSCP and other acceptable established codes and standards. To maintain the quality of projects. To improve and maintain the high standards in the practice of structural engineering. To promote exchange of information and innovative ideas between the designers and reviewers. To inform the Owner-Client on the benefits of this exercise and any possible cost implications resulting from the review. To inform the Owner-Client of the importance of a timely and properly sequenced conduct of peer review from the early stage of design and the consequences otherwise.



To define implementing matrix of all structures subject to practical independent review.



To promote professional ethics in the conduct of independent or peer review.



To verify that there are no major errors in structural design calculation, drawings and specification.



To review the design load criteria that may affect the economical aspect of the proposed structural design.

Expected Results of Design Reviews 

As professionals, independent design reviewers and EOR shall not engage into unfair practices. Both shall observe in the light of fairness and professionalism that the practice of independent review shall not by any means be a channel to conduct criticism nor a means to discredit the reviewer or the EOR and disenfranchise them of the contract service they are awarded.



The design review will bring in positive results to the Owners-Clients in terms of assurance in better engineering of the proposed structures thru improvement in design, economy and safety as well as improvement in construction implementation and program by elimination of work delays due to unwanted and costly repairs.


3




There will be good understanding of the structures and relationships between the Owner-Clients and the structural engineering community resulting to better programs of future developments and projects.



There will be good relationships between designers and reviewers by improving the design through constructive reporting.


4


4. Ethics of Peer Review Before peer reviewing another EOR’s work, it is important to inform the EOR concerned. This provides the opportunity for the review to include all relevant information, some of which the reviewer may not be aware of but may be known to the EOR. The reviewer should investigate the matters concerned thoroughly, and refrain from criticising the work of other professionals without due cause. Peer reviewers must abide the PICE/ASEP Code of Ethics. They must avoid taking the role of the designer or succumbing to professional jealousy. The peer reviewer must report against only the criteria and restrictions that were put in place for the designer/author of the work. Peer reviewers must respect the intellectual property made available in the course of the review, which often passes from one firm to another during the review process. The peer reviewer must avoid using hindsight to make a point against the designer, and comment on the design relative to the state of knowledge at the time of the design.


5


5. Structures to be reviewed Structures to be reviewed shall consist of all proposed new structures and addition to structures which shall be deemed crucial to life safety and/or health of the public and peace if such structures or buildings would incur damage or failure or both. The structures to be reviewed shall be as follows: 1. Fast-tracked Projects1. 2. All structures more than 20-storey or 75-meter high from the exterior ground level. 3. All buildings 10 to 20 storeys high but with floor area equal or more than 900 square meters on a certain floor or level. 4. All buildings with 10 to 20 storeys with floor area per level equal to or less than 900 square meters but involving irregularities in plan, mass and stiffness. 5. All regular structures with additions from three storeys with an aggregate floor area of 900 square meters or more per floor or level. 6. All structures with floor level of two to less than 10 storeys with floor area equal to or more than 5000 square meters per level regardless of existence of movement joints. 7. All buildings and structures with three or more storeys linked by interconnecting bridges for access from one structure to the others with total floor area of the linked structures equal or more than 2500 square meters per level. 8. Essential facilities such as hospitals fire & police stations, emergency vehicle and equipment shelters and garages, structures and equipment in communication centres, aviation control towers, private and public school buildings, water supported structures and designated evacuation centres. 9. Hazardous Facilities and the like structures housing, supporting or containing sufficient quantities of toxic or explosive substances dangerous to the safety of the general public if released due to damage or excessive deformation.

1

Fast-tracked projects are projects that undergo more than the usual pace of procedures in design by employing experience and benchmarks from previous design of existing structures.


6


10. Any structure whether single storey or multilevel with a floor area per level less than 2500 square meters which includes parts that will be the place for public assembly or congregation of audiences, spectators or patrons with number equal or more than 250 persons per level whether in part or in full floor area per level such as theatres, restaurants, gyms, stadiums, arenas, sport centres, resort convention centres or leisure centres. 11. Special Occupancy structures like schools, jails, and detention facilities, and mental hospitals, rehabilitation institutions, and other institutional buildings catering to incapacitated patients. 12. Resorts structures housing. 13. Government infrastructures with essential and vital importance in securing national defence, safety and public welfare. 14. Billboards, communication antennas and transmission towers proposed to be situated in areas where its collapse will likely affect adjacent or nearby residential, commercial or other industrial areas and properties or its collapse or displacement whether sliding or overturning may trigger subsequent damage or collapse of structures within its vicinities. 15. All buildings and structures with 10 to 20 storeys with dual or multiple structural system. 16. Building or structure that has changed its character of occupancy. 17. Buildings, towers and other vertical structures with irregularity in configuration (vertical and horizontal irregularity) under occupancy Category I, II, and III (as per section 103.1 NSCP VI edition) within the seismic zone 4. 18. Structures designed under alternative system (as per section 101.4 NSCP VI Edition) that intends to use other structural materials, design approach and construction methodology not prescribed by the latest existing structural Code (NSCP VI Edition, 2010) or by other recognized international codes and standards. 19. Buildings, towers and other structures with undefined structural system not listed in Table 20811 of NSCP VI Edition.


7


6. Reviewer’s Qualification The independent reviewer shall be nominated by the Owner/Client. The independent or peer reviewer shall not be the design EOR or engineer appointed by Builder/Contractor except for Turnkey or Design and Build contract where the review is requested by the Contractor for their own interest. The independent or peer reviewer shall have the following qualifications: 1. Civil engineers registered with the Professional Regulation Commission of the Philippines with more than 20 years of experience in civil engineering but not less than 15 years of experience in structural engineering. 2. Civil engineers with minimum of 15 years of continuous and adequate experience from established engineering institutions and/or SEC registered engineering consulting firms in the Philippines which were nominated or commissioned by the Owner/Client to conduct the review. 3. Civil engineers recognised as structural engineer specialist by the PICE through ASEP. 4. Registered CE and SE of engineering consulting companies or corporations duly registered abroad in their countries of professional practice for structural engineering and consultancy with minimum experience of 15 years in his profession. 5. Government Civil Engineers with 15 years continuous and adequate experience as Building Officials or structural design engineers of the DPWH. 6. The reviewers must be at least 36 years old including the qualification above. 7. Registered Civil Engineers with advanced studies in Civil Engineering specialized in structural discipline. 8. Structural Engineers with comparable qualification and experience as the EOR responsible for the design (as per section 104.5 NSCP VI Edition). 9. The reviewer or reviewers shall be knowledgeable in new design software, tools, and other acceptable computer programs. 10. The reviewers must have competitive knowledge or experience in actual structural construction.


8


7. Minimum Report Requirements Prior to the issuance of the final peer review report, the peer reviewer is encouraged to exchange review comments with the EOR in the presence of the Owner and/or his representative in order to resolve as many issues as possible.

Content The following items shall be included in the final peer review report: 1. List of the documents on which the review was based. 2. Building Code on which the peer review was based. 3. Methodology and assumptions of the review. 4. List of software/analysis tools used with descriptive statements about software, tools, and other computer programs used in the review. 5. Items to be subsequently reviewed by others (e.g. contractor-designed items). 6. Exclusions/limitations (e.g. peer review was limited to primary structural support systems). 7. Outstanding items/unresolved issues. 8. Results, findings, conclusions and recommendations of the review.

The final peer review report shall be addressed to the Owner/Owner’s representative and the EOR. Upon completion of the review, the peer reviewer shall issue a certificate stating that the peer review has been successfully completed and accepted by the EOR. This certification shall be submitted to the Building Official in compliance with one of the requirements for the issuance of the building permit. All review reports must be signed and sealed by the independent reviewer's authorised signatories who shall be qualified as reviewers.


9


Terms of Review Procedure and Methodology to be used The comparison shall be agreed and done as much as possible for the right standards at the start of the review in the presence of the Owner-Client or his duly designated representatives. The review analysis and design criteria must be compatible with the requirement of the Owner-Client as defined in his design brief including any applicable item in the terms of reference which form part of their agreement with the designer. Preferably, the peer reviewer shall use the same design criteria and standards specified by the designers or EOR. Deviations from the designer’s standards and procedures must be done only with the permission of the designers. Software to be used in the review should preferably match the same software used by the designers including the same editions or versions, unless the designers agree to allow the said version. The difference of versions should be agreed upon but a difference of one level may be considered acceptable unless the more recent versions employ a different analysis procedures or features that are almost entirely different to the designer’s software procedures or features.

Language to be used The manner of reporting shall always be factual. Values and status to be presented must be taken purely from the design review documents submitted and the results of the independent review's analysis and assessments per applicable codes and standards. The terms and phrases to be included in reporting any issue arising from the design review must be written carefully and reflect professionalism. The reviewer must not include offensive nor malicious words or phrases. Thus the reporting must be factual, enlightening and must not be humiliating for the designers-reviewers. The report findings for assessment of each part of the report should avoid terms like inadequate, erroneous, in error, misses. Reporting should preferably be neutral for example statement for bars needing additional quantity may be stated “underestimated” and bars in element with quantities that maybe reduced may be stated that “bars are over estimated by as much as 25%”. The reviewer shall make comments that are clear, legible, and complete so that designers will easily understand it. Clear comments will alleviate confusion and reduce time spent in back-check. The reviewer should not specify any size of members, materials, details, or methods of construction in the comments, nor should calculations be provided to the EOR.


10


Mark-up and Comments The EOR is bound to rectify any issue that may be raised by the reviewer. Comments should be complete, clear and legible to be easily understood so that the EOR can make a proper interpretation and correction. Although the EOR may ask for suggestions about how to address an issue it is inappropriate for the reviewer to perform design or make design decisions for the EOR. If possible, the reviewer should word general comments which apply to numerous drawings so that the comments do not need to be repeated on each drawing. When the reviewer makes the same specific comments at many different details the comments should be identified by either creating a standard, numbered list of comments with the comment numbers referenced at each detail, or marking the comments on each detail. The reviewer may use 'paste-on' comments where applicable to save time and to maintain uniformity of comments. The reviewer should avoid correcting spelling or grammar unless the meaning is not clear. The reviewer shall make comments as follows: 

Use yellow pen to mark items found to be in compliance.



Use red pen to mark corrections to be made, errors, or omissions found on drawings and in specifications.



Place a tag on specification pages that receive comments.



Place a red check mark on lower right hand corner of drawing sheets that have red marks.



Place a yellow mark in the lower right hand corner of each sheet to indicate completed review of that sheet.

Examples of reviewer comment wording Use specific comments such as: “Show complete details in accordance with your calculation pages 17 to 24.” Do not use vague comments such as: “Clarify welding.” Avoid personalized wording such as: “Your calcs for this connection is in error”


11


Provide code references for comments whenever possible: “Provide additional lath support at horizontal soffits per. . .” If the properties of an element were improperly used in calculations and the element is overstressed, the PRE should write a comment on the sheet where the overstressed element is shown such as: “W18 x 36 overstressed. Recheck Section Modulus used in calculation. See AISC page…. and your calc, sheet F-19” The reviewer can make independent calculations when portions of the design professional’s calculations are difficult to follow or interpret: “Shear wall is overstressed along Gridline-A, wall shears are 13 kN/m by independent calculation” If the reviewer does extensive independent calculations, then he or she must number the calculations in sequence and mark the calculation page number on the comment to facilitate the back-check: “Composite beam overstressed, recheck design loads. See page 28” Note that the reviewer's calculations are never provided to the EOR. The EOR (and/or his or her consultant) is responsible for providing complete and correct calculations.


12


8. Design Review Conflict Resolution 1. During the generation of his/her independent calculation, the peer reviewer may find design issues where in some of the primary structural support systems do not conform with the Building Code, and this information is then brought to the attention of the EOR. Should the EOR disagree with the peer reviewer’s findings, the EOR shall furnish the peer reviewer with the EOR’s applicable structural calculations (including computer analysis) which substantiate the adequacy of the portion of the structural design in question. 2. After review of the EOR’s structural calculations, if the issue in question has not been resolved or reconciled, then the peer reviewer shall furnish the EOR with the peer reviewer’s applicable independent structural calculations (including computer analysis) for the EOR’s assessment. 3. The independent reviewer shall update the Owner/Client and/or his representatives on the progress of the review at regular intervals. He should make the Owner/Client and/his representatives aware of such conflicting views and of any outstanding issues which should be inclusive of the findings details, actions of the designer-reviewee and dates targeted to be done. The independent reviewer and EOR shall commit to the Owner/Client and his representatives when and how to resolve such issues in a resolution acceptable to the Client. 4. In the event that a dispute between the EOR and the peer reviewer cannot be resolved, the parties are encouraged to engage the services of a neutral structural engineering consultant to assist in the resolution of the dispute. The office of the ASEP maintains a list of structural engineering consultants who offer peer review dispute resolution services. In case of non-resolution of outstanding issues in spite of mediation in number 4, the independent reviewer shall inhibit himself from taking over the continuation of engineering design unless expressed in writing as commissioned by the Owner/Client with the consent of the previous EOR and recommendation by the mediator consultant.


13


9. Sequence of Review The EOR and the peer reviewer are encouraged to have open and on-going communication throughout the design peer review since this will accelerate the review as well as reconcile differences of opinions. They must abide by the code of ethics of ASEP. It is recommended that applicable design reviews are completed prior to bidding the structural construction contracts to avoid unnecessary delays as well as minimize impact on construction cost. It shall be recommended and explained to the Owner the importance of the involvement of the peer reviewer throughout the development of an effective and efficient work programme. It should be explained further that any review during construction phase would be highly disruptive to the project and is an unhealthy practice. Here are the defined stages of work for the review:

Preliminary Review A review at the completion of the Design Development Phase is recommended, particularly for large and complex projects. If discrepancies are detected relative to the basic design assumptions, they are more readily resolved at this early stage than they would be at the Pre-Tender or completion of the Construction Documents Stage.

Foundations Review If the project schedule dictates, the Owner may desire to obtain a Foundation Permit prior to the completion of the superstructure design documents; this will lead the peer reviewer to utilise incomplete documents for the basis of the foundation evaluation. Any special conditions or contingencies relating to a Foundation Review must be clearly identified to the Building Official; any assumptions must be confirmed during the Preliminary Design Review. The Building Official is not obligated to furnish this form of Partial Building Permit.

Pre-Tender Review The primary review for the project is conducted at a time before or near completion of the Construction Documents such that the incorporation of findings and issues raised by the reviewers would be feasible for the EOR without stopping or disrupting the original design programme.


14


10.

Scope and Methodology of Review

Scope of Review The peer reviewer must review all items agreed to be reviewed with the Client, EOR per relevant/recommended items listed in this Guide. The reviewer shall refer regularly to check for completeness of the review per applicable items listed in this Guide. The quantity of elements to be reviewed shall be in accordance with the second paragraph of the subsection Methodology of Review below.

Methodology of Review The review should agree with the Owner-Client and the EOR on the methodology of review. The review shall cover for completeness and timeliness of the design documents submitted per relevant items listed in this Guide. The reviewer should assess the review documents with regards to the agreed number of elements to be checked with the Owner-Clients or his, if at random, selected or full review of the structure and any limited procedure. Although a random or selected review may not be ideal but a selection of critical and essential items will enable the Owner to keep up with his intended program and budget while a full review maybe expensive and requires along period that may greatly affect the construction schedules. Review maybe agreed also as for each phase or entirely on the final detailed design of the structure for review. While a final detailed design review is basically economical, a phased review from the beginning maybe better in order to avoid the errors from the beginning and save also valuable time in redesign

Preliminary Review 1. Review design criteria to verify compliance with the Building Code. 2. Assess assumptions made by the EOR.

Foundation Review 1. If Preliminary Review was not performed, then perform those tasks identified under Preliminary Review. If Preliminary Review was performed, confirm that design criteria and assumptions have not changed. 2. Establish foundation loads via independent analysis. Alternatively, obtain foundation loads from EOR contingent upon subsequent verification. Obtain soil design parameters from geotechnical engineering report.


15


3. Perform independent analysis of representative foundation elements including spread footings, pile caps, foundation walls, grade beams, piles, among others. Review of a minimum of 25% of foundation elements is recommended, depending on the relative nature or complexity of the project. Depending on the results of the independent analysis, the peer reviewer may find it necessary to increase the percentage of elements reviewed to determine compliance with the Building Code. 4. Review specification sections pertaining to foundation system including earthwork, piles, concrete work, among others. 5. Review performance criteria for contractor-designed components such as slope protection systems, mini piles, tie-down anchors, among others.

Pre-Tender Design Review 1. If Preliminary Review and Foundation Review were not performed, then perform those tasks identified under Preliminary Review. If Foundation Review was not performed but Preliminary Review was performed, confirm that design criteria and assumptions identified in Preliminary Review have not changed. 2. Review load paths for gravity and lateral loads to confirm that loads are distributed through the height of the structure to the foundation in a rational fashion. 3. Perform independent analysis of the gravity force and lateral force-resisting systems. Perform independent analysis of representative components of the Primary Structural Support System including slabs, beams, columns, braces, diaphragms, among others. Review of a minimum of 25% of framing components is recommended, depending on the relative nature of complexity of the project. Depending on the results of the independent analysis, the peer reviewer may find it necessary to increase the percentage of elements reviewed to determine compliance with the Building Code. 4. Check building drift and separation under seismic loading conditions. 5. Check frame element deflections under the applicable gravity loading conditions. 6. If Foundation Review was not performed, then perform independent analysis of representative foundation elements including spread footings, pile caps, foundation walls, grade beams, piles, among others. Review of a minimum of 25% of foundation elements is recommended, depending on the relative nature or complexity of the project. Depending on the results of the independent analysis, the peer reviewer may find it necessary to increase the percentage of elements reviewed to determine compliance with the Building Code. If Foundation Review was performed and was based on loads furnished by the EOR, confirm that loads on which Foundation Review was based coincide with those established in the independent analysis.


16


7. Review structural framing connections which are part of the primary system including shear connections, braced frame connections, moment-resisting connections, among others. When connections are not detailed on the design drawings, verify adequacy of the cited connection design loads/procedures. 8. Perform general review of design to evaluate presence of any conditions which might precipitate conditions of instability or structural overstress. Examples would include unbraced beams or columns; composite beams where openings compromise the composite action; excessive unshored deck spans; conditions which induce out-of-plane loads into framing components, among others. 9. Review specification sections pertaining to Primary Structural Support System. 10. Review performance criteria for contractor-designed components such as precast concrete elements, shear connections, braced frame connections, moment-resisting connections, coldformed metal framing components (primary framing components, not cladding), pre-engineered metal building systems, among others.


17


11.

Information to be Furnished to the Design Reviewer

The review documents should be checked for completeness and timeliness of the design documents submitted per relevant items recommended in this guide. The reviewer should assess the review documents received and report immediately to the Owner-Client and or his duly appointed representative for the following: If any of the design documents submitted are not sufficient for him to proceed with the review such that an entire document is missing for example the design criteria document is not included and the drawings do not reflect the design parameters/information completely, or 

 

The documents given and received may enable him to start and work immediately but the peer reviewer have to stop soon for some items of works as some documents are given as partial only. The documents given and submitted are irrelevant to the project The documents received are of poor quality such as illegible, faintly printed, blurred, torn, and or unacceptably dirty or laced with hazardous materials.

The peer reviewer shall also report if the items received were not delivered in good condition that may not enable him to proceed at all such as wet due to improper, incomplete or inadequate protection from packaging materials.


18


The following items are recommended to be furnished by the Owner/Client: (As applicable)            

     

Printed copies and DWF/DWFx files of complete set of architectural and structural drawings General building narrative (number of stories, gross building area, estimated construction cost, unique features, among others.) Geotechnical engineering report Wind Tunnel Test report (if any) Site-specific spectra and ground-motion time histories (if any) Major equipment or special loadings Existing building drawings/data if impacted by or impacting the threshold structure Special phasing (e.g. will a Foundation Permit be sought in advance of the full Building Permit?) Scope of work Design schedule Site inspection program (if any) Analysis models including User’s Guide of software used by EOR (e.g. ETABS, STAAD, SAP, SAFE and among others.). It is recommended to include also interoperable files such as .$ET, .ANL, .S2K and .F2K to facilitate conversion of data. 3D model/BIM2 file or *.ifc3 file (if any) Design basis Design criteria Structural systems design narrative (including wind and seismic design parameters) Structural elements design calculations Structural specifications

2

Building Information Model (BIM) is a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a structure. As such it serves as a shared knowledge resource for information about a structure forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life cycle from inception onward. 3

Industry Foundation Classes (.ifc) – A file format developed by the IAI. IFC provides an interoperability solution between IFCcompatible software applications in the construction and facilities management industry. The format has established, international standards to import and export building objects and their properties.


19


12.

Items to be Reviewed

The reviewer may include as appropriate/applicable any or all of the following: Table 1: Items to be Reviewed Checklist

Item Design Basis/ Criteria

Design Methods, Standards and Specifications

Analysis models Foundation loads

Piles

Raft

Specific Design Checks to be Carried Out Minimum loadings set out in the code. Prevailing site conditions and assumptions in design analysis. Materials used in the design and specifications. Reference to any assumed loadings, construction methods, A&D Description of the operational language and/or algorithms, capability and source of the software used, including the proof of good comparison with results of known and accepted method of analysis. Seismic design parameters and base shear. Number of mass participation for dynamic analysis. Wind loadings design parameters and comfort criteria. Appropriateness to the client’s technical brief and functional requirements. Conformance to the governing codes used in the analysis and design. Provisions for quality control and test of materials. Provisions for quality assurance program. Site inspection program (if required by contract) Input and output data including geometry, loadings, assignments and parameters used in ETABS/STAAD/SAP/SAFE. Appropriate values of dead, live, wind and seismic loads used. Column loads have been appropriately computed. Effects of wind and notional loads on the building or structure have been checked. Piles have been designed for skin friction and end bearing capacities. Piles have been designed for lateral loads and bending moment. Pile joints have been designed for. Piles have been designed for uplift. Socketing has been designed for piles with short penetration depths. Piles have been designed for negative skin friction. Appropriate allowable bearing capacity of soil has been assumed in design. Appropriate modulus of sub-grade reaction of the soil has been assumed in design. Appropriate model used for structural analysis of the raft The raft has been designed to resist punching shear from columns. The building or structure has been designed to cater for probable differential and total settlement.


20


Lateral Load Resisting Framing Systems as assumed in the Design Basis/ Criteria

Slender Columns

Columns supporting transfer beams Columns supporting long span beams Columns supporting cantilever beams Columns in a two column frame system

Cantilever beams

Long span beams

Transfer beams

Flat slabs/plates

The presence in the structural framing of any plan and/or vertical irregularities mentioned in NSCP or governing codes. Limitations of lateral load resisting framing systems by NSCP, or by the owner-client preferred code and standards, and or from any prevailing local ordinance and regulations in the vicinity of the proposed structure. Details of seismic-resistant concrete structure were checked. Effective height has been computed according to code Bending moment about minor axis has been designed for Additional bending moment due to slenderness has been designed for. Biaxial bending moment has been designed for. Designed for bending moment due to frame action. Designed for bending moment due to frame action. Designed for bending moment due to frame action. Designed for horizontal load and moment acting on columns due to arched or pitched roof. Designed for bending moment at the column base. Designed for bending moment due to frame action. Cantilever support has been designed to resist bending moment and shear. Designed for lateral stability of beam. Designed to meet allowable span depth ratio. Torsional rigidity of beam has been checked. Designed for lateral restraint of beams. Designed for support and member connections. Designed to meet allowable span depth ratio. Designed for torsional capacity Designed for shear capacity Designed for all relevant upper floor loads on the beam Designed for lateral restraint of beam Appropriate model used for analysis Span/depth ratio of slab has been checked. Adequacy of top and bottom reinforcement throughout slab panel has been checked. Designed to resist punching shear from columns. Openings in slabs, especially near columns, have been designed for. Torsional rigidity at slab edges has been checked. Effects of construction loads have been checked.


21


Engineering drawings

Structural calculations

Structural deformation and displacement checks Stability/factors of safety check Earth retaining structures

Clarity and consistency with the design intent of the architect and consultants, design bases and calculations, site surveys and investigations. Complete sections and details. Consistency with and conformance to the specifications. Constructability4 and if all construction methods and stages are reflected in the analysis and design. Provision of coordination with other disciplines. Consistency of the revisions and/or amendments to the design basis and criteria and their compliance with the design intent and client requirement. Consistency of design loading with the criteria and the equipment supplier/vendors data, finishes, plus the possible construction method requirements, effects of foreseen temporary works and activities during construction, among others. Usage of correct wind/seismic load parameters for analysis and design with regards to the structures lateral load resisting framing system, seismic zone, material type and structural framing plan or vertical irregularity. Seismic load analysis if requiring P-delta effects and/or dynamic method as to height limitations and irregularities. Load combinations and special load combinations as required and prescribed by the code. Structural geometric model for completeness of the structures vertical load carrying elements and for consistency with the basis and criteria. Member and element checks such as minimum reinforcements and details, strength requirements, slenderness effects, joints forces checks and connection requirements. Drift limitation of the structures (service and ultimate state). Size of movement joints or expansion joints. Girder and secondary beam deflections. Deformation compatibility on non-lateral load resisting elements. Overall and local structural stability against overturning and sliding. Compliance with factors of safety for miscellaneous requirements by clients. Structure has been designed to resist overturning, sliding and bearing capacity failure. Structure has been designed to resist slip circle failure. Structure has been designed for water pressure acting on it. Adequate surcharge load has been taken into account in design. Embedment into ground for stability has been designed for in cantilevered structures.

4

Constructability is a project management technique for reviewing construction processes from start to finish during the preconstruction phrase.


22


13.

Certification

Upon completion of the review, the reviewer shall issue a certificate stating that a design peer review has been completed. This certification shall be submitted to the Office of the Building Official in compliance to one of the requirements for the issuance of building permit. Table 2: Sample of Certification

Project Name: Owner/Client:

Location: EOR: CERTIFICATION

I, _______________________________, being a registered civil engineer, hereby certify that I have in accordance with the local Building Office Regulations carried out an evaluation, analysis and review of the plans of the building works attached, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, the plans do not show any inadequacy in the key structural elements of the building to be erected or affected by the building works carried out in accordance with those plans. In arriving at my conclusion, I confirm that I have reviewed and evaluated the design in accordance with the ASEP Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Building codes adopted in the design; Design loading (including wind load, construction load or dynamic load, if applicable) checked; Standards and specifications of structural materials checked; Structural design concept ascertained and the key structural elements identified; Key structural elements including foundation system has been checked; Stability of the structural frame determined; Structural/Seismic detailing has been checked; Others (please specify) _________________________________________________________

I append my review report (comprising _____ pages) as well as the analysis and design calculations. Name & Signature of Peer Reviewer:

Name & Address of Company:

PICE/ASEP Specialist No.: PRC Registration/License No.: Validity: PTR No./Date/Place of Issue:

Contact Details Telephone/Mobile Number: E-mail: Website:


23


14.

References

Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc., Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures. ASEP Committee on Design Peer Review 1999-2000 Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc., National Structural Code of the Philippines 1992, Volume 1, Fourth Edition Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc., National Structural Code of the Philippines 2001, Volume 1, Fifth Edition Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc., National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010, Volume 1, Sixth Edition American Council of Engineering Companies of Connecticut – Structural Engineers Coalition. Recommended Guidelines for Performing an Independent Structural Engineering Review in the State of Connecticut. Document SEC/CT301-08. American Concrete Institute, ACI 318 (2008). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary. American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7 (2005), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05). American Society of Civil Engineers, Ethics: Guidelines for Professional Conduct for Civil Engineers. January 2008 Autodesk, Inc., Revit Structure 2011 User’s Guide. Computer and Structures, Inc., Analysis Reference Manual CTBUH 8th World Congress 2008, The Role of Peer Reviewer in the Foundation Design of the World’s Tallest Buildings, Baker, Kiefer, Nicoson and Fahoum. D. Matthew Stuart, Project Specific Peer Review Guidelines – A Professor Odyssey, Structure Magazine August 2010. International Code Council, Uniform Building Code 1997. IPENZ Practice Note 02, Peer Review – Reviewing the work of another Engineer. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. 2010/05, Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, Version 1.0, November 2010.


24


15.

Participants List

ASEP Committee on Design Review 2009-2010 Chairman Ernesto F. Cruz Advisers Ronaldo S. Ison Adam C. Abinales Anthony Vladimir C. Pimentel Members Alden C. Ong Marie Christine G. Danao Edmondo D. San Jose

ASEP Board of Directors Director1 Director2 Director3 . . .

Others Secretary1 Engineer1 ACO Consulting Office Engineer1 Meinhardt Philippines, Inc.


25

ASEP-PeerReviewGuide

Recommend Documents