Evaluation Of Contemporary Design Of Reinforced Concrete . - NEHRP
NISTIR 7766Evaluation of Contemporary Design ofReinforced Concrete Lateral ResistingSystems Using Current PerformanceObjective Assessment CriteriaTravis Welt
NISTIR 7766Evaluation of Contemporary Design ofReinforced Concrete Lateral ResistingSystems using Current PerformanceObjective Assessment CriteriaTravis WeltOffice of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction ProgramAugust, 2010U.S. Department of CommerceGary Locke, SecretaryNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyPatrick D. Gallagher, Director
ABSTRACTSeismic design and assessment methods for structures vary in approach. This pilot investigationthoroughly examines the correlation between ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads on Buildings andOther Structures, design methods and ASCE/SEI 41-06, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,assessment methods. The project focuses on reinforced concrete buildings composed of ‘SpecialReinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames’ and ‘Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls’. Aprimary goal of this pilot project is to identify typical inconsistencies or modeling issues for a singlebuilding, to provide a guide for the larger and more comprehensive parent investigation. A full seismicdesign of an archetype structure, using ASCE/SEI 7-10 is completed using both the Equivalent LateralForce method (for drift) and the Modal Response Spectrum Analysis method (for strength).Assessment methods in ASCE/SEI 41-06 include linear and nonlinear procedures. Linear proceduresmodel components as perfectly elastic, while approximating nonlinear stress-strain behavior throughthe use of global stiffness reduction factors. Typically, these methods provide conservative but simpleapproximations of component behavior. Nonlinear methods incorporate the use of stress-strainrelationships beyond the elastic limit, capturing more accurately the nonlinear behavior of a material.Although not exact, this approximation typically provides a more accurate representation of overallsystem behavior.Using these linear and nonlinear methods prescribed in ASCE/SEI 41-06, the archetype structure wasfound to exhibit a large number of component failures, both in flexure and shear. Linear methods, staticand dynamic, yielded the highest percentage of failures, indicating notable inconsistencies betweendesign and assessment methods. Additionally, analysis using nonlinear dynamic analysis, based onASCE/SEI 41-06 parameters, results in a 50% collapse rate, with respect to time history records, at thecollapse prevention seismic hazard level. In a practical design situation, these results would require thestructure to be either redesigned or retrofitted, and reevaluated. The findings of this pilot investigationindicate the need for further, larger scale evaluation of design and assessment methods for variousstructure layouts and types.iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYModern seismic design is strictly governed by building code requirements, such as those found inASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Similarly, modern seismicassessment of existing buildings (and seismic rehabilitation) is governed by requirements found inASCE/SEI 41-06, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. However, few studies have examined theagreement between code requirements for design and assessment. The following report is a pilotinvestigation into the correlation between design and assessment methods for reinforced concretelateral systems. The report focuses on ‘Special Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames’ and‘Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls’. The parent project aims to relate design and assessment for abroad spectrum of building layouts and heights, for both reinforced concrete and structural steel lateralresisting systems.The first phase of the project involves familiarization with all pertinent design and assessment codes andmethods, as well as a review of related research. During this process, design and assessmentspreadsheets are developed to maintain efficiency throughout the project.The second phase of the project includes a full seismic design of an archetype structure using ASCE/SEI7-10 provisions. The structure is composed of ‘Special Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames’ inone orthogonal direction, with ‘Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls’ in the other. The building isanalyzed for drift using the Equivalent Lateral Force method, and analyzed for strength using the ModalResponse Spectrum Analysis method, both as prescribed in ASCE/SEI 7-10. As the lateral systems in useare primarily reserved for regions with higher seismicity, Seismic Category D is assigned to the structure.Additionally, the pilot project focuses on the upper-bound, or DMAX, seismic hazard; the parent projectwill encompass both DMAX and DMIN seismic hazards. Wind analysis is also performed to ensure thatseismic actions govern the behavior of the structure.Lastly, the archetype structure is assessed under ASCE/SEI 41-06 provisions. Within ASCE/SEI 41-06,various earthquake hazards, based on probability of exceedance, are used to assess the structure forvarying levels of damage. These hazards, called performance objectives, include Immediate Occupancy,Life Safety, and Collapse Prevention. Immediate Occupancy relates to minor and repairable structuraldamage, which does not prevent immediate re-occupancy of the building. Life Safety involves repairablestructural damage to the building, with the possibility for typically non-life-threatening injuries. Lastly,Collapse Prevention refers to major structural damage, and typically imminent collapse. Often times,structural damage at the collapse prevention level cannot be practically repaired.ASCE/SEI 41-06 provides four different methods for assessment of existing buildings. These methodsinclude the linear static procedure, the linear dynamic procedure, the nonlinear static procedure, andthe nonlinear dynamic procedure. Linear methods are based on elastic theory of materials. In general,stiffness reduction factors are used to approximate nonlinearities in a system. These procedures aretypically more conservative, but also provide a simple and functional model of the system. Nonlineariv
methods are based on the full stress-strain relationships of specific materials. Nonlinear modelingincludes stress-strain relationships beyond the elastic limit, and therefore can capture strain-hardeningand strain-softening effects. Static methods employ the use of pseudo-lateral forces, similar to theEquivalent Lateral Force method in ASCE/SEI 7-10, as well as pushover analysis for the nonlinear staticprocedure. These methods are typically a conservative approximation of the behavior of the structureduring a seismic event. Conversely, dynamic methods use response spectrum analysis and time historyanalysis, both of which more accurately represent the seismic demands on a structure through inertialforces. As this investigation aims to correlate design and assessment as a whole, all four methods areevaluated.The results of this investigation indicate inconsistencies between seismic design and assessment.Specifically, the use of linear procedures results in flexural and shear failures in both the moment framesand the shear walls. These failures are likely due to the variance in modeling and analysis betweendesign and assessment. For example, stiffness reduction factors are much lower using ASCE/SEI 41-06.This leads to larger deformations, and as a result, larger demands. Additionally, the actions on thestructure are much higher using ASCE/SEI 41-06. ASCE/SEI 41-06 adjusts component capacities toaccount for ductility, where ASCE/SEI 7-10 reduces actions based on ductility of the system. Althoughthis poses difficulties for comparison, the results of this investigation do indicate differences in the endresult.Nonlinear methods yielded fewer failures, although under these procedures the archetype structuredoes not satisfy all ASCE/SEI 41-06 requirements. Additionally, nonlinear dynamic analysis yielded a 50%collapse rate (in terms of time history records) at the collapse prevention performance objective. As aresult, in a practical situation, the archetype structure would require redesign.It is important to pursue further evaluation of design and assessment methods. This pilot investigationwas successful in locating notable discrepancies between the two methods, which should be examinedon a large scale, as is intended in the parent project. Specifically, the linear procedures appear to beoverly conservative, yielding high rates of component failures. Nonlinear procedures, however, are alsoworthy of further review for comparison, as a number of catastrophic failures occurred as a result ofthese methods.v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis project was financially supported through an ongoing parent project, Assessment of FirstGeneration Performance-Based Seismic Design Methods for New Concrete Buildings, at the NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Building and Fire Research Laboratory. Throughout theinvestigation, immediate guidance and support was provided by Dr. Jeff Dragovich and Dr. Jack Hayes,both members of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) at NIST. Additionally,academic advising and oversight was provided by Dr. Larry Fahnestock of the Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering Department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I would like to thank each ofthem for their advice and suggestions throughout this duration of this project. This project was onlymade possible through their invaluable contributions.vi
TABLE OF CONTENTSList of Figures 2List of Tables 31.Introduction 42.Archetype Structure Analysis and Design 42.1.Seismic Hazard Definition and Design Criteria 42.2.Structural Layout and Configuration 62.3.Analysis Methodology 72.4.Archetype Structure Design Modeling 122.5.Lateral System Design 3.Structural Component Modeling 12Mass Modeling 13Special Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame Design 15Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Design 20Archetype Structure Assessment 243.1.Performance Objectives and Seismic Hazard Definitions 243.2.Linear Procedures 263.3.Nonlinear Procedures 353.1.1.3.1.2.3.2.1.3.2.2.3.3.1.3.3.2.4.Equivalent Lateral Force Method 8Modal Response Spectrum Analysis Method 10Redundancy Factor 11P-Delta Effects 12Response Spectrum 24Time Histories 25Linear Static Procedure 27Linear Dynamic Procedure 31Nonlinear Static Procedure 37Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure 42Conclusions and Future Research Needs 514.1.Conclusions 514.2.Further Research 515.References 536.Appendices 541
LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1. ASCE/SEI 7-10 Design Earthquake Response Spectrum for Seismic Design Category D . 5Figure 2. Archetype Structure Floor Framing Plan. 7Figure 3. Archetype Structure Story Drift Ratios . 10Figure 4. Archetype Structure Story Deflections . 10Figure 5. Story Shear Comparison between ELF and MRSA Method . 11Figure 6. Story Shear Comparison between Seismic and Wind Demands. 14Figure 7. Typical Moment Frame Elevation . 16Figure 8. Typical Moment Frame Bay Reinforcing Layout . 17Figure 9. Typical Moment Frame Demand Capacity Ratios . 18Figure 10. Moment Frame Beam Reinforcing Schedule . 19Figure 11. Moment Frame Column Transverse Reinforcing Schedule . 19Figure 12. Exterior Shear Wall Design Elevation . 21Figure 13. Interior Shear Wall Design Elevation . 22Figure 14. Exterior (A) and Interior (B) Shear Wall Demand Capacity Ratios . 23Figure 15. ASCE/SEI 41-06 Performance Objective Response Spectrums . 25Figure 16. Time History Record Scaling. 26Figure 17. LSP Failure Elevation for Moment Frames at the IO Performance Objective. 29Figure 18. Moment Frame Elevation Key for LSP and LDP Failures . 30Figure 19. LSP Failure Elevation for Exterior (A) and Interior (B) Shear Walls at the IO PerformanceObjective . 30Figure 20. Shear Wall Elevation Key for LSP and LDP Failures . 31Figure 21. LDP (Response Spectrum) Failure Elevation for Moment Frames at the IO PerformanceObjective . 33Figure 22. LDP (Time History Analysis) Failure Elevation for Moment Frames at the IO PerformanceObjective . 34Figure 23. LDP (Response Spectrum) Failure Elevation for Exterior (A) and Interior (B) Shear Walls at theIO Performance Objective. 35Figure 24. Typical Force-Displacement Curve for Reinforced Concrete . 36Figure 25. Pushover Curve for Moment Frames . 38Figure 26. Pushover Curve for Exterior and Interior Shear Walls . 38Figure 27. NSP Moment Frame Hinge Behavior (CP Objective). 40Figure 28. NSP Exterior Shear Wall Hinge Behavior (CP Objective) . 41Figure 29. NSP Interior Shear Wall Hinge Behavior (CP Objective) . 42Figure 30. Bottom of Column Plastic Hinge Rotations . 44Figure 31. Top of Column Plastic Hinge Rotations . 45Figure 32. Positive Flexure Plastic Hinge Rotations in Beams . 47Figure 33. Negative Flexure Plastic Hinge Rotations in Beams . 48Figure 34. Collapse Mechanism for Moment Frame (Record CP 11). 49Figure 35. Exterior Shear Wall Plastic Hinge Rotations . 502
Figure 36. Interior Shear Wall Plastic Hinge Rotations . 50LIST OF TABLESTable 1. DMAX Seismic Hazard Parameters. 5Table 2. Building Uses and Live Loads. 6Table 3. Horizontal and Vertical Irregularities . 8Table 4. Stiffness Reduction Factors for Structural Modeling . 13Table 5. Performance Objective Seismic Hazards . 24Table 6. ASCE/SEI 41-06 Stiffness Reduction Factors . 26Table 7. Linear Static Procedure and Design Base Shears . 27Table 8. Linear Dynamic Procedure (Response Spectrum Analysis) and Design Base Shears . 31Table 9. Linear Dynamic Procedure (Time History Analysis) and Design Base Shears . 32Table 10. Target Displacements for Lateral Systems . 39Table 11. Nonlinear Static Procedure and Design Base Shears . 39Table 12. Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure and Design Base Shears . 43Table 13. Time History Records causing Collapse Mechanisms. 433
1. INTRODUCTIONSeismic analysis of buildings plays an integral role in modern structural engineering practice. Suchanalyses can be applied to design, rehabilitation, and assessment, amongst others uses. However, themethod with which seismic analysis is used in these applications varies. Specifically, methods with whichnew buildings are designed to resist seismic motions differ from those used to assess existing buildings.The following report outlines an investigation in which an archetype structure, designed usingcontemporary methods governed by ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and OtherStructures (ASCE, 2010), is assessed for compliance with assessment criteria prescribed by ASCE/SEI 4106, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, (ASCE, 2006).This project is a pilot investigation for a larger ongoing project. The parent investigation aims to evaluatearchetypal structures of various heights and layouts, including both reinforced concrete and structuralsteel buildings. This pilot investigation helps to provide a guide through the entire process for the largescale project, surfacing areas of concern and possibilities for increased efficiency.Specifically, this investigation examines reinforced concrete structures, composed of commonly usedlateral resisting systems; reinforced concrete moment frames and reinforced concrete shear walls willbe evaluated. In order to practically evaluate the archetype structure, an upper-bound seismic hazard isused for design and assessment. In regions of such high seismicity, codes require that reinforcedconcrete structures adhere to strict detailing requirements. These requirements are implemented in“Special Reinforced Concrete Moment Frames” and “Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall”, asdefined in ASCE/SEI 7-10. This report focuses solely on these lateral resisting systems in its evaluation.Prior to the design phase, a detailed review and familiarization with current design practices wascompleted. For this purpose, the design example in Chapter 7 of FEMA P752, NEHRP RecommendedProvisions: Design Examples, (FEMA, In-Print), was thoroughly completed. This process ensures thatevery detail of design, prescribed in either ASCE/SEI 7-10 or ACI 318-08, Building Code Requirements forStructural Concrete and Commentary, (ACI, 2008), is understood and implemented correctly. During thisphase of the project, a design spreadsheet is developed for use in design of the archetype structure,using Microsoft Excel. Similarly, prior to the assessment phase of the project, a comprehensive reviewand familiarization of assessment methods in ASCE/SEI 41-06 was completed. An assessmentspreadsheet is also developed using Microsoft Excel to maintain efficiency during the actual assessmentphase.2. ARCHETYPE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN2.1. Seismic Hazard Definition and Design CriteriaDevelopment of Seismic Hazard for the archetype structure considers documentation within FEMAP695, NEHRP Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, (FEMA, 2009), which usesprobabilistic regions of Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground motions, as defined in ASCE/SEI4
7-10 Section 21.2. FEMA P695 also provides lower and upper bounds on the short-period and 1-secondspectral response accelerations, SS and S1. The investigation is limited to the upper bound groundmotions (denoted Dmax). The archetype structure is not located in a specific region, and therefore isassigned to Site Class D as required in ASCE/SEI 7-10 Section 11.4.2. Design parameters are calculatedusing ASCE/SEI 7-10 Chapter 11 methods, calculations for which are located in Appendix A. Table 1shows the Seismic Hazard for the archetype structure.Table 1. DMAX Seismic Hazard ParametersDesign CategoryDMAXSS (g)1.50S1 (g).60SDS (g)1.00SD1 (g).60As permitted in ASCE/SEI 7-10 Section 12.6, both Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) and Modal ResponseSpectrum Analysis (MRSA) are used in the design of the archetype structure. Development of theResponse Spectrum conforms to ASCE/SEI 7-10 Section 11.4.5. Figure 1 shows the calculated responsespectrum corresponding to DMAX design parameters.Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)1.210.80.60.40.200123456Period (s)Figure 1. ASCE/SEI 7-10 Design Earthquake Response Spectrum for Seismic Design Category DThe archetype structure, although simplified, is intended to emulate a multi-story mixed use (retail andoffice) building, with basement parking levels. Corresponding live loads conform to ASCE/SEI 7-10 Table4-1. A typical cladding load of 15 PSF (vertical) is applied to at the perimeter of the structure. Table 2shows the uses and super-imposed loads for each level in the archetype structure. Wind loads are alsoconsidered in the design, using a 3-second gust speed of 115 mph at an Exposure Category C. Theseparameters are representative of typical upper-bound, non-hurricane zone wind speeds. ASCE/SEI 7-10Figure 26.5-1A provides guidance for obtaining such 3-second gust wind speeds.5
Table 2. Building Uses and Live LoadsLevelUseLive Load (PSF)RoofLevel 08Level 07Level 06Level 05Level 04Level 03Level 02Level 01Level ALevel ingLoad (PSF)1015151515151515151515M/E/P/CeilingLoad (PSF)10101010101010101010102.2. Structural Layout and ConfigurationThe layout of the archetype structure is the result of maintaining simplicity while ensuring moderndesign practices. In order to provide simplicity, a rectangular floor plan with orthogonal lateral resistingsystems is used. In addition, the lateral resisting systems do not share common components, eliminatingthe need for concurrent lateral loading requirements. During the initial design phase, multiple floor planoptions are reviewed by licensed professional engineers to ensure a practical design. Additionally,specific layout details such as bay widths, story heights, and preliminary sizes are chosen to closelyresemble previously peer reviewed structures. Both FEMA P752 and Haselton (2006), Assessing SeismicCollapse Safety of Modern Reinforced Concrete Moment-Frame Buildings, are used for this purpose.Figure 2 shows the final floor plan layout for the archetype structure.The finalized layout is composed of two perimeter lines of Special Reinforced Concrete MomentResisting Frames in the East-West (E-W) direction, and 4 full height Special Reinforced Concrete ShearWalls in the North-South (N-S) direction. Interior and exterior columns not acting as part of the lateralsystems are designed to resist gravity loads only. Interior beams are designed to resist gravity loads only,and are configured to provide a one-way slab system with a 4-1/2 inch thick slab spanning 10 feet.Throughout the structure, beams acting as part of the moment-resisting frame are 24 inches wide by 32inches deep, while the interior beams are 16 inches wide by 20 inches deep. Columns throughout thestructure are 28 inches square. The shear walls are 16 inches thick, with columns acting as boundaryelements on each side of each wall. All structural reinforced concrete members use normal weightconcrete with f’c of 5000 PSI and ASTM A615 reinforcing steel.6
Figure 2. Archetype Structure Floor Framing Plan2.3. Analysis MethodologyIn modern building design, there are three analysis methods used to determine the seismic behavior ofa structure. As noted in ASCE/SEI 7-10, these methods include the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF)method, the Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (MRSA) method, and the Time History Analysis (THA)method. Additionally, ASCE/SEI 7-10 permits the use of auxiliary rational analysis methods, howeversuch methods are out of the scope of this project. ASCE/SEI 7-10 Table 12.6-1 provides guidance onanalysis procedure selection. In general, this selection is based on seismic design category, structuralsystem, dynamic properties, and structural regularity.Table 3 lists the horizontal and vertical irregularities in the archetype structure in accordance withASCE/SEI 7-10 Table 12.3-1 and Table 12.3-2. In order to exclusively use the ELF method, the structuremust not exhibit specific structural irregularities, and also must meet size limitations. The archetypestructure exceeds the 2 story (above grade) requirement, but is within the 160 foot height restriction. Asshown in Table 3, no irregularities exist in the structure, and therefore it is permissible by code to designthe structural using only the ELF method. However, as the ELF method typically results in conservativedesigns, this research will use both the ELF method and the MRSA method in order to produce a more7
efficient design. The THA method also provides a more representative analysis model of groundmotions, however due to the simplicity of the structure, this method would be unlikely to produce alargely more efficient design when compared with the MRSA method.Table 3. Horizontal and Vertical IrregularitiesHorizontal Irregularities1a. Torsional1b. Extreme Torsional2. Reentrant Corner3. Diaphragm Discontinuity4. Out-of-Plane Offset5. Nonparallel System-ExistenceNo1No1NoNoNoNoVertical Irregularities1a. Stiffness-Soft Story1b. Stiffness-Extreme Soft Story2. Weight (Mass)3. Vertical Geometric4. In-Plane Discontinuity5a. Weak Story5b. Extreme Weak StoryExistenceNo1No1No1NoNoNo1No11. Reference Appendix A for supporting calculationsASCE/SEI 7-10 also provides load combination requirements for seismic design. Pertinent combinationsinclude: (1.2 0.2SDS)D ρQE 0.5L(0.9 – 0.2 SDS)D ρQEWhere, SDS Short-period design spectral accelerationSD1 1-second design spectral accelerationD Dead LoadL Live LoadQE Effect of horizontal seismic forcesρ Redundancy Factor2.3.1. Equivalent Lateral Force MethodThe general process of the ELF method includes calculating equivalent lateral static forces that representthe inertial forces that a structure would experience during a seismic event. These forces are derivedusing a seismic response coefficient, based on seismic design parameters, that is applied to the seismicweight of the structure. This overall base shear is then distributed vertically based on the distribution ofseismic weight at each level. The structure must be able to resist seismic forces in any direction, andtherefore typically the ELF distribution is applied in both orthogonal directions. If orthogonal lateralresisting systems share components, concurrent loading is required. For this investigation, the structurewas not analyzed for strength using the ELF method, as a more efficient design can typically be obtainedby using the MRSA method. However, as
lateral systems. The report focuses on 'Special Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames' and 'Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls'. The parent project aims to relate design and assessment for a broad spectrum of building layouts and heights, for both reinforced concrete and structural steel lateral resisting systems.
57th Annual Fisher's Ghost Art Award Finalists Category Given Name Surname Artwork Title Contemporary Kerrie ABELLO Transition Contemporary Leila ALI FRAMED MEMORIES Contemporary George ANGELOVSKI laughing Between the instant and the photo #1 Contemporary Chris ANTICO Scared of the dark Contemporary Louisa ANTICO Prometheus Contemporary Jacqueline BALASSA
POINT METHOD OF JOB EVALUATION -- 2 6 3 Bergmann, T. J., and Scarpello, V. G. (2001). Point schedule to method of job evaluation. In Compensation decision '. This is one making. New York, NY: Harcourt. f dollar . ' POINT METHOD OF JOB EVALUATION In the point method (also called point factor) of job evaluation, the organizationFile Size: 575KBPage Count: 12Explore further4 Different Types of Job Evaluation Methods - Workologyworkology.comPoint Method Job Evaluation Example Work - Chron.comwork.chron.comSAMPLE APPLICATION SCORING MATRIXwww.talent.wisc.eduSix Steps to Conducting a Job Analysis - OPM.govwww.opm.govJob Evaluation: Point Method - HR-Guidewww.hr-guide.comRecommended to you b
Section 2 Evaluation Essentials covers the nuts and bolts of 'how to do' evaluation including evaluation stages, evaluation questions, and a range of evaluation methods. Section 3 Evaluation Frameworks and Logic Models introduces logic models and how these form an integral part of the approach to planning and evaluation. It also
design evaluation. In accordance with ASME III, non-linear design evaluation is an alternative to the linear design evaluation. Depending on which stress intensity limit is violated in the linear design evaluation, there are two types of
Learners research a variety of different recipes for contemporary world food and collect different recipes to try out. Assignment 1 – Planning Menus, Taking into Account Current Developments in Contemporary World Food (P1) Learners produce contemporary world food menus.
2016 A Stand of Pine in a Tilled Field: 21 Years at PDX, PDX CONTEMPORARY ART, Portland, OR 2013 Nice to Meet You, Atlanta Contemporary Art Center, Atlanta, GA 2011 oomph, PDX CONTEMPORARY ART, Portland, OR 2007 th Drawing(s): 40 artists/200works- A 25 Anniversary Exhibition, The Art Gym, Marylhurst Unive
The evaluation roadmap presents the purpose of the evaluation, the evaluation questions, the scope of the evaluation and the evaluation planning. The Steering Group should be consulted on the drafting of the document, and they should approve the final content. The roadmap identifies the evaluation
This Project Evaluation Plan Sample is part of the Evaluation Plan Toolkit and is designed to support the associated Evaluation Plan Guide and Evaluation Plan Template. This toolkit is supported with an educational webinar: Program Evaluation Plan Toolkit. The purpose of the Evaluation Plan Toolkit is to su
