See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/310616920

Performance Based Design, Value Engineering, and Peer Review

Presentation · November 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33686.75846

CITATIONS READS

0 318

1 author:

Naveed Anwar
Asian Institute of Technology
124 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural Assessment and Recommendation for Risk Mitigation of Baltit Fort, Pakistan View project

Seismic Performance Evaluation of High-rise Buildings with RC Flag Wall Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Naveed Anwar on 22 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design of Tall Buildings: Trends and Advancements for
Structural Performance
November 7-11, 2016
Bangkok-Thailand

Performance Based Design, Value

Naveed Anwar, PhD
Engineering and Peer Review
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Is this acceptable?
(For the people who purchased apartment and lived here)

2
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 (Provide minimum requirems for
Who are the stakeholders

Building Officials
Building Codes

(enforce the building codes and responsible for public safety)

public safet)

Designers Developers Owners Residents

(Rely on designers and
(Satisfying building codes and
regulations and developer) contractors to make
(Ultimate Stakeholder and Public
Pays/owns and uses) (Uses the space)
profit)

Contractors
(Carry out the construction based instructions of Designers
and developers and work for a profit)

3
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Developers Buyers/Residents

Make buildings as primary

Own/use the building for living
business
or making living
Care about reputation, brand
Care about livability, safety,
and continued business
comfort
Main focus on profit
Focus on value for money

Willing to spend more to

Willing to pay more for
increase profit and
higher value
reputation
4
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 How can we increase the value so
the buyers are willing to pay more
And the developer gets higher profit

Public gets a better building

Everyone wins!

5
Dr. Naveed Anwar
What “Value” are we considering
• Structural Safety is of prime concern and has a high value

• Other value may be in location, brand, finishes, design quality etc.

• Additional value may be “Green” and sustainability

6
Dr. Naveed Anwar
• A safer and high performance building is more environmentally
sustainable

• People pay more for higher sustainability so should pay more for
higher and performance

7
Dr. Naveed Anwar
• Compare Value Engineering and PBD
• What the developers want
• Increase profit
• Reputation/ branding
• Reducing cost is one way > Value Engineering
• PBD - increasing safety, value, selling price and branding is another
• Give example of cost /Sq m and cost of review, PBD etc
• How PBD Works

8
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Performance • Explicit confirmation of higher or
Based Design expected performance level

Value Engineering • Get the best “value” for resources

• Provide an independent view and

Peer Review confirmation

9
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Ensuring Explicit Safety
Performance
(Specially for extreme events)

Dr. Naveed Anwar

 How does CTBUH look at Tall Buildings

Relatively Tall.
Both for public and the professions who design
and construct

Proportion
Slenderness, in plan and in elevations

Systems and Technologies

Uses something “different” than ordinary
buildings

11
Dr. Naveed Anwar 11
How modern codes intent to ensure “Safety”
• Define appropriate/estimated hazard or load levels
• Prescribe limits on structural systems, members, materials
• Define procedures for analysis and design
• Provide rules for detailing
• Provide specifications for construction and monitoring

• Hope that all of this will lead to safe structures …

12
Dr. Naveed Anwar
The Modern Codes – With “intent” to make buildings safe for public

Extremely Detailed
prescriptions and
equations using
(ACI 318 – 11)
seemingly arbitrary,
rounded limits with
implicit meaning

(IS 456-2000)

Dr. Naveed Anwar

13
The General Code Families

ACI, PCI, CRSI,

ASCE, AISI, British, CP and China, USSR,
UBC, IBC Euro-codes
BS Japan
AASHTO

Dr. Naveed Anwar

14
Are All Buildings Codes Correct ?
• If they differ, can all of them be correct ?

• Did we inform the structures to follow which code when earthquake or hurricane
strikes ?

• Codes change every 3 or years, should we upgrade our structures every 3 or 5

years to conform ?

15
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Concerns

• Public
 Will the building be safe?
• Owner
 Will the building collapse/ will it be damaged ?
 Can I use the building after a given earthquake? (blast,
hurricane..)
 How much will repair cost?
 How long will it take to repair?
 Can I make building that will not be damaged and will not
collapse
• Public Officials
 Who is responsible if loss of life occurs

Dr. Naveed Anwar Who should have all the answers? 16

 Structural Engineer’s Dilemma

• Can not answer most of the these questions explicitly

• Answers are always qualified
• There is no warranty for the structure

• There are too many unknowns

• Public understanding and engineers understanding of safety is
different

• Has to hide behind the design codes

17
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Prescriptive Codes – A Shelter
• Public:
• Is my structure safe ?

• Structural Engineer:
• Not sure, but I did follow the “Code”

As long as engineers follow the code, they

can be sheltered by its provisions

18
Dr. Naveed Anwar
Shortcomings of Code Based Design for Tall Buildings

• Traditional codes govern design of general, normal buildings

 Over 95% buildings are covered, which are less than about 50 m
• Not specifically developed for tall buildings > 50 m tall
• Prescriptive in nature, no explicit check on outcome
• Permit a limited number of structural systems
• Do not include framing systems appropriate for high-rise
• Based on elastic methods of analysis
• Enforce uniform detailing rules on all members
• Enforce unreasonable demand distribution rules
• Do not take advantage of recent computing tools
19
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Motivation for PBD

• Lack of explicit performance in design codes is primary motivation

for performance based design

• Performance based methods require the designer to assess how a

building is likely perform under earthquake shaking and other
extreme events and their correct application will help to identify
unsafe designs.

• At the same time this approach enables arbitrary restrictions to be

lifted and provides scope for the development of safer and more
cost-effective structural solutions

20
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Performance Based Design (PBD)
• An approach in which structural design criteria are expressed
in terms of achieving a set of performance objectives or
levels.

• Ensures structures reaches specified demands level in both

service and strength design levels.

• Why it was needed?

• Traditional codes not suitable/adequate

• Explicit verification not specified or required in most codes

• Public does not care about the code, or theories or procedures, they
care about “safety” and ‘performance”

21
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Performance based design
can be applied to any type
of loads, but is typically
suitable and targeted for
earthquake loads

22
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Explicit Performance Objective in PBD
Performance based design investigates at least two
performance objectives explicitly

Service-level Codes arbitrary Collapse-level

“Design Level” Assessment
Assessment

Negligible damage with Collapse prevention under

frequent hazards extreme hazards

(Earthquake having a return (the largest earthquake with a

period of about 50) return period of 2500 years)

23
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Performance Level Definitions

Owner Engineer

Will the building be safe?

amount of yielding, buckling,
cracking, permanent deformation,
Can I use the building acceleration, that structure,
after the hazard? members and materials
experiences
How much will repair cost
in case of damage?

How long will it take to Need a third party to ensure public safety
repair? and realistic Performance
Guidelines
Dr. Naveed Anwar Peer Review 24
 Typical Review Objectives

Enhance Structural Improve Cost Objectives to be

Performance Effectiveness achieved through
• Improved • Achieve efficient use • Better structural
serviceability, safety of materials, system selection and
and reliability resources and time its proportions

• Explicit check on • Direct reduction cost • Use of advanced

various performance through reduction of design
indicators structural material methodologies and
quantities tools

25
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Typical Review Objectives
Enhancement of Performance
• Dynamic response parameters
• Lateral load response
• Vertical load response
• Demand and capacity ratios
• Response irregularity,
discontinuity
• Explicit Performance Evaluation
at Service, DBE and MCE
Dr. Naveed Anwar
Cost Effectiveness
• Capacity utilization ratio
• Reinforcement ratios
• Reinforcement volume ratios
• Concrete strength and quantity
• Rebar quantity
• Constructability, time and
accommodation of other
constraints
26
 Performance Objectives

Level of Earthquake Seismic Performance Objective

Frequent/Service (SLE): 50% probability of Serviceability: Structure to remain

exceedance in 30 years (43-year return essentially elastic with minor damage to
period) structural and non-structural elements

Design Basis Earthquake (DBE): 10% Code Level: Moderate structural

probability of exceedance in 50 years damage; extensive repairs may be
(475-year return period) required

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE): Collapse Prevention: Extensive structural

2% probability of exceedance in 50 years damage; repairs are required and may
(2475-year return period) not be economically feasible
27
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Site Specific Ground Motions

28
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Seismic Hazard Spectrum, SLE, DBE. MCE

Service Level

MCE Level
29
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Standard Structural Performance Levels

Restaurant Restaurant nt
ura
sta
Re

Operational Immediate Life Safety Collapse

Occupancy Prevention

0% Damage or Loss 99 %

Ref: FEMA 451 B

30
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Judging Performance Acceptability

• Acceptance criteria are indicators of whether the predicted

performance is adequate for

• Local (component based)

 Example: Drift ratio, structural component deformation

• Global (overall structure-based)

 Example: Roof drift , base shear

31
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Performance Based Design Process

Acceptance Criteria for Primary Components

32
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Performance Based Design Process

Acceptance Criteria for Secondary Components

33
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Classification of Actions

Element Action Type Classification Expected

Behavior
RC column Axial-flexure Ductile Linear
Shear Brittle Linear
RC shear wall Flexure Ductile Nonlinear
Shear Brittle Linear
RC coupling beams Shear Ductile Nonlinear
(Deep beam, ln/d<4.0)
RC coupling beams Flexure Ductile Nonlinear
(slender beam, ln/d≥4.0 Shear Brittle Linear

34
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 How to Work with PBD

Performance Based Design

Client Architect

Structural Engineer

PBD Specialist

Site Specific Consultant

PBD Peer Reviewer

35
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Value Engineering
Balancing Cost and Performance

Dr. Naveed Anwar

 Cost and Performance

Cost Effective
C P
General Belief CC P Design
Easy to do ! Can be done

High
Performance Highly Innovative
C P
Design C P Design
Can be done Hard to do!

37
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 What is the Cost of a Project?

Cost may be:

• Cost may include
– Financial Cost (loan, interest, etc) “Consumption of
– Planning and Design Cost Particular Resources, at
– Direct Construction Cost Particular Time”
– Maintenance Cost
– Incidental Cost
– Liquidated Cost (lost profit etc)
– Opportunistic Cost Sustainability may be:
– Environmental Cost <Consumption of all
– Emotional Cost resources, and their impacts
– Non-determinist Resources through throughout the life
cycle>
38
Dr. Naveed Anwar
Cost and Performance
• Enhancement of Performance
• Dynamic response parameters
• Lateral load response
• Vertical load response
• Demand and capacity ratios
• Response irregularity,
discontinuity
• Explicit Performance Evaluation at
Service, DBE and MCE
Dr. Naveed Anwar
• Cost Effectiveness
• Capacity utilization ratio
• Reinforcement ratios
• Reinforcement volume ratios
• Concrete strength and quantity
• Rebar quantity
• Constructability, time and
accommodation of other
constraints
39
39
 Optimization

• Need to define What to optimize?

And what are the parameters that
can be changes?
• Optimizing one or two items may
“un-optimize” others
• Optimizing everything is a “Holy
Grail”
– …. and “Holy Grail” doesn't exist
• Tools
– Genetic Algorithms (GA)
– Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)
– Linear and Nonlinear programing

40
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Levels of Optimization

Levels of Optimization

Micro-Micro Level Micro Level Local Global Universal

One part of a component, One Component,

One part or aspect Entire Problem, Project Entire System
“Steel” “Column”

41
Dr. Naveed Anwar
Local Vs Global Optimization
• Simple Example of a Column
Stack – What and how can
we optimize ?
• Concrete Strength
• Steel Strength
• Column Size
• Rebar Amount
• Composite Section
• Material Cost, Labor Cost,
Formwork Cost,
Management and operations
Cost, Time ??

42
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Cost and Performance

P (Increased Performance,
Same Cost)

(Base Cost and

Performance)

M
(Reduced Cost for Same
P Performance)

(Base Cost and

Performance)

43
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Demand Capacity (DC Ratio)

• Definition of D/C: It is an index that gives an overall relationship

between affects of load and ability of member to resists those
affects.

• This is a normalized factor that means D/C ratio value of 1 indicates

that the capacity (strength, deformation etc) member is just
enough to fulfill the load demand.

• Two types of D/C ratio

 Members with brittle behavior D/C is checked by Strength (Elastic)
 Members with ductile behavior D/C is checked by deformation (Inelastic)

• Total D/C ratio of the member is combined of these two.

44
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Cost Effectiveness > Utilization Ratio

• Utilization Ratio
• Compare, What is Columns
Demand/ Capacity
Needed against Not Cost No. %
What is Required Effective D/C<0.5 178 16%
0.5<D/C<0.7 534 49%

Ideal 0.7<D/C<1 346 31%

• One measure 1<D/C<1.5 30 3%
• The Demand/ 1.5<D/C<2.5 12 1%
Not Safe
Capacity Ratio (D/C) D/C>2.5 0 0%
Total 1100 100.00%

45
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Focus should be

“Maximum Value for Resources”

Cost effective, not Low Cost

46
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Peer Review
To ensure Basic Design the Performance Evaluation
and Value Enginering are done right

Dr. Naveed Anwar

 The Responsibility

Client/Owner General Building Codes

Architect Structural Design Codes

Structural Designer Law Makers

Geotech Consultants Building Officials

Peer Reviewer Legal and Justice System

Builder/Contractor

Public/ Users/ Occupants

48
Dr. Naveed Anwar
Peer Review
• What exactly is design peer review?
• It is a process whereby a design project (or aspect of) is reviewed and
evaluated by a person, or team, not directly involved with the project, but
appropriately qualified to provide input that will either reinforce a design
solution, or provide a route to an improved alternative.
• Why is it so important?
• Very few can claim to be all-encompassing experts. The invaluable input from
broad base and independent experience at each stage of a design project will
often result in technical improvements, lower costs, avoidance of sourcing
issues, and improved performance.

49
Dr. Naveed Anwar
When is Peer Review needed New York Building Code, adopted by many cities

• Structural Peer Review is required for:

• Buildings included in Structural Occupancy Category Important
IV as defined in the Building Code.
• Buildings with aspect ratios of seven or greater. Slender
• Buildings greater than 500 feet (160 m) in height or
more than 1,000,000 square feet (100,000 Sqm) in Tall or large
gross floor area.
• Buildings taller than seven stories where any
element supports in aggregate more than 15 Critical
percent of the building area.
• Buildings designed using nonlinear time history
analysis, pushover analysis or progressive loading Use NLA
techniques.
50
Dr. Naveed Anwar
Responsibility
• Structural Engineer of Record (SER).
• The structural engineer of record shall retain Retains
sole responsibility for the structural design. The Responsibility
activities and reports of the Reviewing Engineer
shall not relieve the structural engineer of
record of this responsibility.
• Reviewing Engineer.
• The Reviewing Engineer’s report states his or her
opinion regarding the design by the engineer of Evaluates, and
record. gives opinion that
• The standard of care to which the Reviewing may or may not
Engineer shall be consistent with Structural Peer be accepted by
Review services performed by professional Client or SER
engineers licensed/approved

51
Dr. Naveed Anwar
Typical Scope of Work for Review
• Check structural engineering concepts
• Potential behavioral or value improvement suggestions
• Constructability review
• Presentation of peer review findings and peer review report writing
• Review and confirmation of the owner’s seismic performance objectives
• Meeting(s) with the design team to review the project assumptions and the project approach
• Review structural design criteria and analysis/design methodology
• Review available geotechnical and site seismicity reports
• Review all available relevant documents as the design progresses, including drawings, and
specifications
• Review of analysis results. This may require implementation of one or more parallel verification
models for comparison purposes
• Technical review of the design and details of the proposed structural system
• Preparation of peer review report and comment list
• Meeting(s) with the design team to review and reconcile the peer review comment
52
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 High performance,
Higher safety
higher value,
Design Codes and Guidelines
cost effective
Sustainable

Basic Design
Peer
Review
Value
PBD
Engineering

Client
Public Officials

53
Dr. Naveed Anwar
 54
Dr. Naveed Anwar
View publication stats