Project Title/ID Number Evaluation and Assessment of PBEE Methodology—3292002
Start/End Dates 10/1/02—9/30/03
Project Leader Jon Heintz (Degenkolb/Industrial Collaborator)
Team Members Robert Pekelnicky (Industrial Collaborator), Rose Katz (Industrial Collaborator)
Project goals and objectives

This project is a continuation of Year 5 work. The objective is to provide an engineering practitioner’s assessment of the PEER PBEE methodology through a detailed comparison with current state-of-practice techniques. Year 5 focused on providing an independent evaluation of the expected performance of the building. Year 6 will focus on designing seismic rehabilitation for the Van Nuys testbed building, and comparing results with designs developed using the PEER PBEE methodology.

Role of this project in supporting PEER’s vision

This project will provide direct involvement of engineering practitioners in the evaluation and improvement of PEER PBEE methodology, which will help identify stakeholder needs and ensure that the PEER methodology addresses these needs.

Methodology employed

The scope of work for this project will include the development of a seismic rehabilitation design for the Van Nuys Testbed building using the FEMA 356 methodology. This work will be coordinated with, and compared to results prepared by other members of the testbed team conducting parallel analyses using the PEER PBEE methodology.

Brief description of past year’s accomplishments and more detail on expected Year 6 accomplishments

The work will utilize the linear dynamic and nonlinear static pushover analyses developed during Year 5.
Concepts for seismic strengthening will be discussed with the testbed manager and other PEER researchers early in Year 6. Design will proceed on a single, agreed upon scheme, for a single performance level. At this time the plan is to design for the Life Safety Performance Level at the 10%/50 Earthquake Hazard Level. The design will address structural issues only, and will not address the performance of nonstructural systems and equipment.

The design will be developed to a level consistent with the schematic design phase of a typical office design project. Because of funding limitations, the project budget will not fund the preparation of a full set of construction documents. However, the goal will be to develop the design and prepare report figures in sufficient detail to communicate the seismic strengthening to other PEER researchers who will be performing parallel analyses using the PEER methodology. We will prepare typical plans, sections and details communicating the nature and scope of the seismic strengthening work in 8-_ x 11 CAD format. These figures will be suitable for PEER parallel analytical work, cost estimating, and inclusion in the PEER final report, but will not be to the level of detail necessary for construction.

The assessment of the PEER methodology will focus on the following questions:

  • What new products does PEER promise that practitioners will be able to offer clients?
  • To what extent does the PEER methodology allow the client to save money?
  • What new skills are required in order to perform a PEER analysis?
  • What proof of the PEER methodology’s effectiveness would most strongly influence practitioners to learn and apply it?
Other similar work being conducted within and outside PEER and how this project differs

Other efforts outside of PEER have been addressing the development and refinement of performance-based design methodologies for engineering practice (FEMA 356, ATC-55). This work is in direct support of PEER’s comprehensive methodology that addresses all aspects of the performance-based problem in total. This project provides a direct mechanism for coordination between some of these other efforts, as well gaining the input and perspective of practicing professionals to assist in its development.

Plans for Year 7 if this project is expected to be continued

Describe any instances where you are aware that your results have been used in industry

Expected milestones
  1. Publication of seismic evaluation and deficiencies report (May 2003)
  2. Seismic rehabilitation design (May 2003)
  3. Publication of the design, including strengthening details, and engineering assessment of PEER methodology (Sept. 2003)
  1. Written documentation of the evaluation in a chapter contribution to the PEER report on the Van Nuys Testbed
  2. Written documentation of the design, including strengthening details in 8-_ x 11 report figure format, and engineering assessment of PEER methodology in a chapter contribution to the PEER report on the Van Nuys Testbed