Re-Fuse Peer Review Reports 12-30-2016

MICHAEL D. ENGELHARDT, P.E., PH.D.
11607 Buttonwood Drive

Austin, Texas 78759
512-497-7309
[email protected]
October 27, 2016
Patrick McManus, PhD, PE, SE

Novel Structures, LLC
4020 Laramie Street
Cheyenne, WY 82001
307-757-5701
RE: Peer review report on FEMA P695 study on the “Re-Fuse Braced Frame System”
Dear Patrick:
This letter documents my final findings as part of the peer review panel for the FEMA P695 study
conducted on the Re-Fuse Braced Frame System. I have been involved in the peer review of this system
since 2013, through a series of conference calls, emails, and in-person meetings, and through review of a
series of draft reports on the experimental program untaken on this system as well as on the FEMA P695
evaluation. My findings reported herein are based on our previous meetings and communications, as well
as on the following documents:
1. McManus, P. S., Puckett, J. A., Peterson, J.E., “Replaceable Fuse Seismic Braced Frame
Connections.” Latest revision dated September 25, 2016.
2. “Re-Fuse Braced Frame System – Structural Design Guide.” Latest revision dated September 25,
2016.
3. Re-Fuse Braced Frame System Specifications. Latest revision dated July 27, 2016.
Document No. 1 above provides a comprehensive summary of the testing program on the Re-Fuse system
and on the FEMA P695 evaluation. As a member of the peer review panel, I concur with the conclusions
and recommendations provided in this report, and concur with the various aspects of the FEMA P695
evaluation process presented in this report. I agree with the chosen Quality Ratings for Design
Requirements, Test Data, and Index Archetype Models. I consider your testing, analysis and evaluation to
be in conformance with the requirements of FEMA P695. I also concur that a response modification
coefficient, R, overstrength factor, o, and deflection amplification factor, Cd, of 8, 2.5, and 5 respectively
were demonstrated to be appropriate for the Re-Fuse system based on the FEMA P695 evaluation.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Engelhardt, P.E., Ph.D.

100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 900
Irvine, California 92618
Consulting / Training / Management Phone: 949.272.5655
Fax: 213.927.0581
www.fnaeim.com

October 31, 2016

4020 Laramie Street
Cheyenne, WY 82001
Subject: Peer Review Report on FEMA P695 Study of the Re-Fuse Braced Frame System
Dear Dr. McManus:
I am pleased to submit this letter as my final peer review report on the above-mentioned subject matter. I
have been participating in the peer review of the Re-Fuse Braced Frame System over the past couple of
years, via a number of conference calls and email correspondences as well as review of a number of draft
reports on the experimental program untaken on this system on its satisfaction of the FEMA P695
evaluation requirements. More specifically, my conclusions stated in this report are based on my
extensive review of the following documents:
1. “Re-Fuse Braced Frame System Specifications,” dated July 27, 2016.
2. “Replaceable Fuse Seismic Braced Frame Connections,” dated September 25, 2016.
3. “Re-Fuse Braced Frame System – Structural Design Guide,” dated September 25, 2016.
The above-mentioned documents provide a comprehensive explanation of the testing program on the Re-
Fuse system and on the FEMA P695 evaluation requirements for this system. As a member of the peer
review panel, I agree with the conclusions and recommendations provided in the above-mentioned
documents, and concur with the the FEMA P695 evaluation process presented in these documents. In
addition, I agree with the chosen Quality Ratings for Design Requirements, Test Data, and Index
Archetype Models. In my opinion, your analyses, testing, and evaluations are in conformance with the
requirements of FEMA P695. Furthermore, in my opinion, a response modification coefficient, R = 8, an
overstrength factor, Ω0 = 2.5, and a deflection amplification factor, Cd = 5.0, have been demonstrated to
be appropriate for the Re-Fuse system based on the FEMA P695 evaluation as documented in your
submittals.
Sincerely yours,
FARZAD NAEIM, INC.
Farzad Naeim, Ph.D., S. E., Esq.

President
R a f a e l S a b e l l i, S t r u c t u r a l E n g i n e e r, 5 7 0 9 K e i t h A v e n u e, O a k l a n d , C a l i f o r n i a, 9 4 6 1 8 – 1 5 4 3
December 30, 2016

4020 Laramie Street
Cheyenne, WY 82001
RE: Peer review report on FEMA P695 study on the “Re-Fuse Braced Frame System”
Dear Patrick:
As you know, I have worked as part of a peer-review committee with Dr. Michael Engelhardt and
Dr. Farzad Naeim reviewing developing work on the P-695 study referred to above. I am pleased
to report that I have concluded my review of the final documents submitted to the committee:
1. “Re-Fuse Braced Frame System Specifications,” dated July 27, 2016.
2. “Replaceable Fuse Seismic Braced Frame Connections,” dated September 25, 2016.
3. “Re-Fuse Braced Frame System – Structural Design Guide,” dated September 25, 2016.
My report is based solely on these documents. Draft documents, meeting notes, and other
materials presented to facilitate the committee’s understanding of the system are outside the
scope of this report.
The documents listed above provide a thorough explanation of the performance of the proposed
system, the behavior of the key elements, the design methods necessary to achieve the
performance, and the substantiating analytical work demonstrating the adequacy of the system as
proposed. Together, these documents represent design provisions for a proposed steel seismic-
load-resisting system and analytical justification of the adequacy of these provisions to meet the
seismic performance goals of the US building codes defined in ASCE 7 (“Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures”), 2010 edition. The analytical justification follows the
procedure defined in the FEMA P-695 document, and conforms to the requirements for new
systems in the 2016 edition of ASCE 7.
I concur with both the conclusions of the report, and the “quality ratings” of design requirements,
test data, and archetype models necessary for the FEMA P-695 evaluation.
In brief, it is my opinion that the FEMA P-695 evaluation adequately demonstrates that a
response-modification coefficient R of 8, an overstrength factor Ωo of 2.5, and a deflection-
amplification factor, Cd of 5.0 are appropriate for the “Re-Fuse Braced Frame system.”
Sincerely,
Rafael Sabelli, S.E.

Re-Fuse Peer Review Reports 12-30-2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re-Fuse Peer Review Reports 12-30-2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re-Fuse Peer Review Reports 12-30-2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MICHAEL D. ENGELHARDT, P.E., PH.D.

11607 Buttonwood Drive

October 27, 2016

Patrick McManus, PhD, PE, SE

Michael D. Engelhardt, P.E., Ph.D.

Patrick McManus, PhD, PE, SE

Dear Dr. McManus:

1. “Re-Fuse Braced Frame System Specifications,” dated July 27, 2016.

FARZAD NAEIM, INC.

Farzad Naeim, Ph.D., S. E., Esq.

December 30, 2016

Rafael Sabelli, S.E.

You might also like