Documentation of System Development and Results

The results of system development efforts must be thoroughly documented at each step of the process for: (1) review and approval by the peer review panel; (2) review and approval by an authority having jurisdiction over its eventual use; and (3) use in design and construction.

Documentation of the development of seismic performance factors for a proposed system should include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following:

 Description of the intended system applications and expected performance

 Limitations on system use

 Typical horizontal and vertical geometric configurations

 Clear and complete design requirements and specifications for the system, providing enough information to quantify strength limit states, proportion and detail components, analyze predicted response, and confirm satisfactory behavior

 Summary of test data and other supporting evidence from an

experimental investigation program validating material properties and component behavior, calibrating nonlinear analysis models, and establishing performance acceptance criteria

 Description of index archetype configurations and extent of archetype design space

 Identification of performance groups, applicable Seismic Design Categories, and gravity load intensities

 Idealized model configurations, nonlinear modeling parameters, documentation of analysis software, and information used in model calibration

 Criteria for non-simulated collapse modes

 Summary of nonlinear model results, demand parameters, and response quantities

 Quality ratings for design requirements, test data, and nonlinear models

 Summary of performance evaluation results, derived quantities, and acceptance criteria

 Proposed seismic performance factors (R, O, and C_d) 8.3 Peer Review Panel

Implementation of this Methodology involves much uncertainty, judgment and potential for variation. Deciding on an appropriate level of detail to adequately characterize performance of a proposed system should be performed at each step in the process in collaboration with an independent peer review panel.

It is recommended that a peer review panel consisting of knowledgeable experts be retained for this purpose. The peer review panel should be

knowledge to render an informed opinion on the developmental process, and should include expertise in each of the following areas:

 Material, component, and assembly testing

 Engineering design and construction

 Nonlinear collapse simulation

Members of the peer review panel must be qualified to critically evaluate the development of the proposed system including testing, design, and analysis.

If a unique computer code is developed by the development team, the peer review panel should be capable of performing independent analyses of the proposed system using other analysis platforms.

8.3.1 Peer Review Panel Selection

It is envisioned that the cost of the peer review panel will be borne by the system sponsor. As such, it is expected that members of the peer review panel could be selected by the system sponsor. An alternative arrangement could be made in which the system sponsor submits funding to the authority having jurisdiction, which then uses the funding to implement an

independent peer review process. Such an arrangement would be similar to the outside plan check process currently used in some building departments.

It is intended that the peer review panel be an independent set of reviewers who will advise and guide the development team at each step in the process.

It is recommended that other stakeholders, including authorities with jurisdiction over the eventual use of the system in design and construction, be consulted in the selection of peer review panel members, and in the deliberation on their findings.

8.3.2 Peer Review Roles and Responsibilities

The peer review panel is responsible for reviewing and commenting on the approach taken by the development team including the extent of the

experimental program, testing procedures, design requirements, development of structural system archetypes, analytical approaches, extent of the nonlinear analysis investigation, and the final selection of the proposed seismic

performance factors.

The peer review panel is responsible for reporting their opinion on the work performed by the developmental team, their findings, recommendations, and conclusions. All documentation from the peer review panel should be made available for review by the authority having jurisdiction over approval of the proposed system.

If there are any areas where concurrence between the peer review panel and the development team was not reached, or where the peer review panel was not satisfied with the approach or extent of the work performed, this information should be made available as part of the peer review

documentation, and reflected in the total uncertainty used in calculating the system acceptance criteria, and in determining the final values of proposed seismic performance factors.

8.4 Submittal

It is expected that a system sponsor will wish to submit a proposed system to an authority for approval and use. For national building codes and standards, one such authority is the National Institute of Building Science’s Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) Provisions Update Committee (PUC), which has jurisdiction over the FEMA’s National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (NEHRP Recommended Provisions).

BSSC’s PUC, along with its technical subcommittees, is a nationally recognized leader in reviewing and endorsing new seismic force-resisting systems for ultimate inclusion in national building codes and standards.

In some cases, a proposed system could be submitted to the ASCE/SEI 7 standard development committee, but this committee would normally only accept systems similar to systems that are already listed in the standard.

Systems can also be submitted directly to model building codes through the code change process.

Another approach is to promote a new system through a relevant material standard organization, such as the American Concrete Institute (ACI), American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), or the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA).

Approval through one of these organizations, however, will still require adoption by national building codes or standards before use.

If a proposed system is intended for a single project application, then

documentation should be submitted, along with drawings and calculations for the single application, to the authority having jurisdiction over the site where the system is being proposed for use.

Chapter 9