Structural peer review of an ETABS model
A structural peer review is carried out by an engineer who is independent of the design team. sazeh is not a peer review and does not replace one. What it can do is the first pass: the mechanical items that a reviewer would otherwise open ETABS to check, so that the reviewer's time goes to judgement.
What is a structural peer review?
A structural peer review is an independent examination of a structural design by an engineer who was not part of the design team. The reviewer checks the design basis, the analysis model, the main calculations and the drawings against the governing codes, and issues comments that the design team must answer. Reviews are common for tall or irregular buildings, for unusual structural systems, and wherever an authority or a client requires one.
What is the scope of work of a peer review?
A scope of work usually names these items, and the reviewer states which of them were and were not examined:
- The design criteria: the codes and editions, the loads, the materials and the performance expected.
- The structural concept and the load path from the roof to the foundation.
- The analysis model: geometry, supports, diaphragm assumptions, stiffness, mass source and load combinations.
- The code compliance of the members and joints: flexure, shear, axial force, drift, ductility detailing.
- The foundations and the geotechnical basis.
- The drawings and the details, and how the design team answers the comments.
sazeh helps with items 3 and 4, as the table below shows. It does not touch the others.
What does a peer review report contain?
A report normally has a summary and a conclusion, the list of documents that were reviewed, a table of comments (number, location, comment, severity, the design team's response and the status), a statement of what was not reviewed, and the name and signature of the reviewer. A sheet from sazeh can be attached to the comments as evidence of the first pass, but it is not the report.
Items of a first pass that sazeh covers
| Reviewer's question | Where it appears on the sheet |
|---|---|
| Is the mass source right, and is the live-load share in the seismic weight? | A row that compares the mass source with the code table |
| What is the seismic weight, and what base shear does it give? | Weight of every storey and the equivalent static load |
| Is the design base acceleration the intended one? | Its source, printed beside the number. You choose it, so confirm it against the site |
| Is there a torsional, soft-storey or weak-storey irregularity? | Irregularity rows, with the storey and the direction |
| Is drift within the limit at the governing combination? | A drift row naming the joint and the combination |
| Are columns stronger than beams at every joint? | The ratio of every joint |
| Does any member fail flexure, shear, torsion or interaction? | Rows with clause numbers, counted in members |
| Were all members actually designed? | A design-coverage section; a member not designed is never counted as passing |
| What reactions go to the foundation designer? | Support reactions of every joint, with the governing combinations |
| Which assumptions change the answer? | A section of assumptions, written in engineering language |
What stays with the independent engineer
- Whether the structural concept and the load path are sound.
- Whether the model represents the building: boundary conditions, diaphragm assumptions, the stiffness of elements that are not in the model.
- Foundations, connections, slab design and punching, which sazeh does not cover.
- Any clause that appears as "deferred". It means that the tool cannot give a verdict and says why; it is neither a pass nor a failure.
- The decision and the signature.
A caution about the numbers
The analysis engine of sazeh is not ETABS, and no formal comparison with a reference program has been made yet. A first-pass sheet should be read as a review aid. Where a number matters, check it against the ETABS result. The limitations page lists what is not yet verified.
Using the sheet in a review
- Open the first page: it states whether the building complies and counts the clauses that are not met.
- Read the design-coverage section before anything else; a sheet in which few members were designed says little.
- Go through the assumptions section, since each item there changes the answer.
- Use the 3D view to find the members behind each failed clause.
- Compare the governing numbers with ETABS.
Related pages
Upload your ETABS .e2k model and get the calculation sheet.
Start the calculation