0% found this document useful (0 votes)
277 views16 pages29 partNSCP-2015
qweqweqweqweqwe
Uploaded by
Romani Noel S. Chavez Jr.Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
277 views16 pages29 partNSCP-2015
qweqweqweqweqwe
Uploaded by
Romani Noel S. Chavez Jr.Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 16
ics
bic eae
NSCP 6101-15
APPENDIX 1-A
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES ON
STRUCTURAL DESIGN PEER REVIEW
OF STRUCTURES 2015
Association of Structural Engineers of the Phi
Suite 713, Future Point Plaza Condominium 1
112 Panay Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines 1100
pines, Ine.
Tel. No. (+632) 410-0483
(+632) 411-8606
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://ww.aseponline.org
Netionel Structural Code of the Philippines Volume I, 7th Edltion, 2015 ‘About this Guidelines
Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 2015
Published by Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc.
Copyright® 2015
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Ine. (ASEP)
Suite 713 Future Point Plaza Condominium 1,
112 Panay Avenue, Quezon City,
1100 Philippines
Telephone Nos, 2 #63 (2) 410-0483
Facsimile _ +63 (2) 411-8606
E-mail Address : [email protected]
Website f http://www.aseponline.org
About ASEP
‘The Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. (ASEP) is the recognized organization of Structural
Engineers of the Philippines. Established in 1961, ASEP has been in existence for more than 50 solid years.
Print History
2000
2015
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. (ASEP) stones
as
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS.
INTRODUCTION.
BACKGROUND.
OBJECTIVES OF THE DESIGN PEER REVIEW..
APPLICATION OF ASEP PEER REVIEW GUIDELINES
EXPECTED RESULTS OF DESIGN REVIEW:
STRUCTURES TO BE REVIEWED.
REVIEWER'S QUALIFICATION.
SCOPE OF REVIEW.
ITEMS TO BE REVIEWED.
METHODOLOGY AND DETAILS OF REVIEW
Desig Basis Review.
Foundation Review
Pre-Tender Design Review. see
MINIMUM REPORT REQUIREMENTS vo
Content
Terms of Review Procedure and Methodology to be Used.
Language to be Used.
Markup and Comments
Examples of Reviewer's Comments/Wordings
REFERENCES we
AIS
Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design
Peer Review of Structures 2015 1A6
Abbreviations
A&D ‘Analysis and Design
ACL American Conerete Institute
AISC ‘America Institute of Stel Construction
ASCE ‘American Society of Civil E
ASEP. Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Ine
BIM Building Information Model
cE Civil Engineer
cTBUH Counei on Tall Buildings an Urban Habitat
pews Department of Public Works and Highways
EOR Engineer-ofRecord
IAL Intemational Alliance for Interoperability
IBC International Building Code
eC Industry Fountlation Classes
NSCP ‘National Structural Code of the Philippines,
PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical & Astronomical Services Administration
puivoucs Philippine institute of Volcanology and Seismology
PR Peer Reviewer
PRC Professional Regulations Commission
SE Structural Engineer
SEC Security and Exchange Commissions
usc Uniform Building Code
‘Association of Structural Engineers of the Phitippines, Inc. (ASEP) IAT
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,
Fuxthermore, 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 thatthe intent of our design is carefully followed
and cartied 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 to establish ground
rules for all our practicing civil engineers, sirictural engineers and consultants to follow strictly the Code provisions and
standards parameters,
{is essential to good engincering practice to conduct independent peer review to achieve a concept of structural system and
design tolerant to the erudeness 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, improvemenVadvancement and
dissemination of structural engineering knowledge in the country.
Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design
Peer Review of Structures 2015 IAS
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 publie 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 organizations.
‘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 oceupancy
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 the point
of view of engineering practitioners, o improve and expand the guidelines to incorporate additional parameters and ethical
rules as well as enhance the practice of peer review. The committee's activities have continued under the administration ofthe
following ASEP Presidents:
Anthony Vladimir Pimentel (2010-2011)
Vinci Nicholas R. Villasenor (2011-2012)
Miriam L. ‘Tamayo (2013)
Carlos M. Villaraza (2015)
‘The Committee on Design Peer Review is composed of the following:
Chairman
Emesto F, Cruz
Co-Chairman
Gabriel Ursus L. Euscbio
Members
‘Alden C. Ong
Marie Christine G. Danao
Edmondo D. San Jose
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. (ASEP) IAD
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, itis the
‘objective of this peer review to improve section {04.5 of NSCP 2010, to ensure the aim for life safety, to observe economy in
design and to protect the investment of clients.
The Peer Review aims to carry out positive results in the following areas:
+ To comply structural engineering design, drawings and specification with the minimum requirements of NSCP and other
acceptable established codes and standards;
‘+ Tomaintain 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 define implementing matrix of all sructures subject to practical independent reviews and
© Topromote professional ethics in the conduct of independent or peer review.
Application of ASEP Peer Review Guidelines
These ASEP guidelines are intended specifically for the mandatory conduct of a Design Review as per the National Structural
Code of the Philippines (NSCP Volume 1, 2010 Edition),
As stipulated in NSCP Section 104.5, Design Review is required for the following:
1. Structures with irregular configuration in Occupaney Categories 1 (Essential Facil
(Special Occupancy Structures) in Zone 4;
5), Il (Hazardous Facilities) or 1M
2. Structures under Alternative Systems in Section 101.4; and,
3. Undefined Structural Systems (those not listed in Table 208-1).
For structures covered by the mandatory Design Review, all related works shall be deemed as included in the Engineer-of-
Record’s scope of works, unless explicitly excluded in his work agreement
For structures not included above but which are to be subjected to a Design Review as an additional requirement by the Owner,
the coverage, extent, and procedures shall be as mutually agreed upon by the Owner/Peer Reviewer, and the Engineer-of-
Record (EOR) and may not be as recommended in these Guidelines. Additionally, since works connected or related to such
Design Review are not covered by the base structural services of the EOR, these shall be subject to a seperate scope and
‘compensation for the BOR,
Recommended Guidelines on Structurel Design
Peer Review of Structures 2015 1A-10
Expected Results of Design Review:
© As professionals, independent design reviewers and EOR shall not engage in unfair practices. Both shall
“observe faimess and professionalism in the practice of independent review. This shall not by any means be a
channel to conduct criticism nor be a means to discredit the reviewer or the EOR, and disenfranchise them of
the contract service they are awarded.
There will be good understanding of the structures and relationships between the Owner-Client and the
structural engineering community resulting to enhanced programs of future developments and projects.
© There will be good relationships between designers and reviewers by improving the design through constructive
reporting.
© The review will be conducted smoothly in the light of fairness and professionalism, without unfair practice and
criticism to neither discredit nor disenfianchise any of the reviewer or EOR.
‘s The review will bring assurance to the Owner-Client of compliance to codes and standards, assurance of better
engineering of the proposed structure, the improvement in design and safety as well as improvement in
construction implementation and program, elimination of unsafe design and possible work delays from
‘unwanted and costly repairs, among others.
Structures to be Reviewed
‘Siructures to be reviewed shall consist ofall 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. All structures more than 75-meter high (whichever is higher) from the exterior ground level
Buildings, towers and other vertical structures with irregularity in configuration (vertical and horizontal irregularity) under
‘occupaney Category I, 11, and III (as per section 103.1 NSCP V1 edition) within the seismic zone 4.
Structures designed under alternative system (as per section 101.4 NSCP V1 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.
4, Buildings, towers and other structures with undefined structural system not listed in Table 208-11 of NSCP VI Baition.
5, Rssential facilities such as hospitals fire & police stations, emergency vehicle and equipment shelters and garages,
structures and equipment in communication center, aviation control towers, private and public school buildings, water
supported structures and designated evacuation center, also buildings and structures for national defense.
6. Hazardous Facilities and the like structures housing, supporting or containing surficient quantities of toxic or explosive
substances dangerous to the safety of the genoral public if released due to damage or excessive deformation.
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, inc. (ASEP) all
Reviewer’s Qualification
‘The independent PR shall be nominated by the Owner-Clicnt, The independent PR shall not be the design EOR or engineer
‘appointed by Builder/Contractor, In the case of Turkey or Design and Build projects whose design is initiated by the
Contractor or Developer, the Contractor at his own expense shall appoint an independent recognized structural engineer to
conduct the services of design peer review.
“The independent PR shall have the following qualifications:
1. Civil engineer registered with the Professional Regulation Commission of the Philippines with more than 20 years of
related structural engineering experience similar tothe structure to be reviewed.
He must be 2 REGULAR ASEP Member in good standing,
3. Structural Engineers with comparable qualification and experience as the BOR responsible for the design (as per latest
NSCP).
4, Knowledgeable in current design software, tools, and other acceptable current computer programs.
5, Have competitive knowledge or experience in actual structural construction,
Scope of Review
The PR must review all items agreed to be reviewed with the Owner-Client and EOR per relevant/tecommended items listed
in this Guide, The PR shall refer regularly to check for completeness of the review per applicable items listed in these guidelines
‘The quantity of elements to be reviewed shall be in accordance with the second paragraph of the subsection Methodology of
Review below.
Information to be Furnished to Peer Reviewer
The review documents should be checked for completeness and timeliness of the design documents submitted per relevant
items recommended in this guide. The PR should assess the review documents received and report immediately to the Owner-
Client and/or his duly appointed representative for the following:
¢ fay ofthe 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 PR have to stop soon for some
items of works as some documents are given as partial only; or
‘The documents given and submitted are irrelevant 1 the project; or
‘The documents received are of poor quality such as illegible, faintly printed, blurred, torn, and or unacceptably ditty or
laced with hazardous materials.
Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design
Peer Review of Structures 2015 IA-12
‘s The PR shall also report if the items received were not delivered in good condition that may not enable him to proceed at
all; e.g the documents are wet due to improper handling, incomplete or inadequate protection from packaging materials,
among others.
‘The following items are to be furnished by the Owner-Client as applicable:
5 Printed copies or PDF/DWFx format of complete set of architectural and structural drawings;
1D General building narrative (number of stories, gross building area, estimated construction cost, unique features, among
thers);
1 Geotechnical engineering report;
1d Tunnel Test report (if any);
Site-specific spectra and ground-motion time histories (if any);
Major equipment or special loadings;
1 Existing building drawings/data if impacted by or impacting the threshold structure;
© Analysis models including User's Guide of software used by EOR (e.g, STAD, ETABS, SAP, SAFE and midasGen).
Itis recommended to include also interoperable files such as SET, ANL, S2K and F2K to facilitate conversion of
datas
(2 3D model/BIM! file or * fe? file (if any):
(Design basis;
5) Design criterias
(1 Structural systems design narrative (including wind and seismic design parameters);
1D Structural elements design calculations; and
Structural specifications
tems to be Reviewed
‘The PR may inelude as appropriate/applicable any or all ofthe following:
Tabl
Checklist of Items to be Reviewed
Trem ‘Specific Design Cheeks to be Carried Out
Design Minimum loadings as set out inthe code,
BosisiCriteria [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 andior algorithms, capability and souree 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 atalysis
Building information Model (BIM) isa digital representation of physical and functional characteristics ofa structure. As such it serves as
a shared knowledge resource for information about a structure forming a reliable basis for decisions during is lie eyele from inception
onward,
2 industry Foundation Classes (fe) A file format developed by the IAL IFC provides an interoperability solution between IFC-compatible
software applications inthe construction and facilities management industry. The format has established, itemational standards co import
and export building objects and their properties.
‘Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. (ASEP) 1A-13
‘Specific Design Cheeks to be Carried Out
Net ——~1Wind oadings design parameters and como rieria,
Design "Appropriateness to the Client's technical brief and functional requirements
Methods, Conformance to the governing codes used in the analysis and design
Standards and
Specifications
Analysis Input and output data including geometry, materiat constants, properties, loadings, assignments and
models parameters used in software used,
Foundation | Appropriate values of dead, live, wind and seismic loads used
Hoads ‘Column Toads have been appropriately computed and compared results of anaiysis model
'Effeets of wind and notional loads on the building or structure have been checked.
Piles Pile capacities have been designed for compressive axial load by applicable skin fiction and end bearing
capacities.
Review i eye ole et dT he nal model are ppropiatppTcale
Piles were checked if required/applicable for combined buckling.
Piles have been designed for lateral loads and bending moment.
Pile joints have been designed for anchorage and embedment lengih of reinforcements, for concrete pile
Piles have been designed for uplift.
Socketing has been designed for piles with shor penelration depths
Piles have been designed for negative skin fiction
Tpolated Pads?
Combined creck for punching shar and bending moments.
‘Tied Footings
Raft “Appropriate allowable bearing capacity of soil has been assumed in design.
‘Appropriate modulus of sub-grade reaction ofthe soil has been assumed in design
‘Appropriate model used for structural analysis ofthe raf
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 seitlement.
Taieral Load | The presence in the siuctural framing of any plan and/or vertical inegularities mentioned in NSCP or
Resisting _|_ governing codes.
Framing Limitations of lateral load resisting framing systems by NSCP, oF by the Owner-Client preferred code and
Systems as | standards and or from any prevailing local ordinance and regulations inthe vicinity ofthe proposed structure.
assumed in the | Details of seismic-resistant concrete structure were checked.
Design Basis!
Criteria
Slender Effetive height has been computed according to code,
Columns ‘Bending moment about minor axis has been designed for.
‘Additional bending moment due to slendemess has been designed for
Biaxial bending moment has been designed for.
Requirement for ductility such as strong,-column weak beam is provided or complies with the code,
Columns
supporting _| Designed for bending moment due to frame action including effects of special load combination per code.
‘transfer beams,
Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design
Peer Review of Structures 2015 1A
Tem
‘Specific Design Cheeks to be Carried Out
Columns
supporting long
span beams
Designed for bending moment due to frame action,
Columns
supporting,
cantilever
beams
Designed for bending moment due to frame action.
Columns in &
two column
frame system
‘Designed for horizontal load and moment acting on columns due to arched or pitched roof.
‘Designed for bending moment and shear at the column base including connections.
Designed for bending moment due to frame action.
Cantilever
beams,
Cantilever Support has been designed to resist Bending moment and shear including minimum uplifi Toads
from wind and seismic loads.
Designed for lateral stability of beam.
Designed to meet allowable span depth ratio; else deflection against allowable limit per code including long-
term effects
Long span
beams
“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; else deflection against allowable Timit per code including long
term effects.
Transfer beams
‘Designed for torsional capaci.
Designed for shear capacity.
Designed forall relevant upper floor Toads on the beam including effects of special load combinations per
code.
Designed for lateral restraint of beam,
Flat slabsyplates
‘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 fo resist punching shear from columns.
(Openings in slabs, especially near columns, have been designed for.
“Torsional rigidity at slab edges has been cheoked.
Effects of construction loads have been checked
Engineering
drawings
Clarity and consistency with the design intent of the architect and consultants, design bases and calculations,
site surveys and investigations.
‘Complete sections and details.
‘Consisteney with and conformance (o the specifications,
Consistency of the revisions and/or amendments to the design basis and criteria and their complienee with
the design intent and Client requirement.
Structural
calculations
Consistency of design loading with the criteria and the equipment supplier/vendors data, finishes, plus the
possible construction method requirements, effects of foreseen teriporary works and activites during
construetion, among others.
Usage of correct wind/seismie Toad parameters For analysis and design with regards to the structures lateral
Joad resisting framing system, seismic zone, material type and structural framing plan or vertical irregularity. |
Seismic load analysis if requiring P-della effects and/or dynamic method as to height Timitations and
imegularities.
Load combinatfons 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 etiteria,
‘Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. (ASEP) I-15
Tem ‘Specific Design Checks to be Carried Out
slenderness effects, joints forces checks and connection requirements,
‘Member and element checks such as minimum reinforcements and details, strength requirements,
Siructural Drift imitation of the siructures (Service and ultimate sate)
deformation | Size of movement joins oF expansion joi
and Gider and secondary beam deflections.
