structural FORENSICS

Investigative Peer Reviews

What are they, really, and what do they entail?
By Cole Graveen, P.E., S.E.

S tructural engineering consulting firms are occasionally hired to

review a design performed by another engineering firm. The
review is frequently a traditional pre-construction structural peer
review performed to achieve a better project outcome. The practice
of having a traditional peer review performed is becoming more com-
monplace for Risk Category III and IV buildings, which include tall
buildings, buildings with large occupant loads, and essential struc-
tures. Peer review is also commonplace for structures designed using
performance-based procedures or with new or innovative framing
systems. Traditional structural peer reviews may be performed at the
request of the owner or developer, to expedite a building department
review, or because it is required by the building code or performance- Guideline is both comprehensive and in-depth, providing information
based design guide. These reviews generally occur in a cooperative on many aspects of peer review while including specific details on
environment. Other types of reviews can also occur. engineering tasks performed in a structural review. While Guideline
A less traditional type of structural peer review is an investigative 962-G is written to address traditional pre-construction structural peer
peer review. This type of review occurs when something has gone reviews, much of the information contained within can be applied
wrong and originates either during construction or after the structure to investigative peer reviews.
has been completed. The party requesting the investigative review
is interested in whether or not the structural design has caused or
contributed to problems that have occurred. An investigative peer
Initiation
review evaluates the structural design and may identify errors or The phone rings, and on the line is an attorney whose contractor client
omissions. These reviews are often made more complicated compared is being blamed for a localized failure that occurred in a recently con-
to typical reviews as the exchange of documents and information may structed building. The stakes are high as the building owner is suffering
be delayed or restricted depending upon the relationships between a loss of use and wants the structure fixed now. The contractor claims
the parties involved and the circumstances initiating the review. they built what the engineer put on the drawings, and it is not their
The author has been fault. The attorney wants to know if the engineer’s design caused or
involved in several investi- contributed to the failure. The contractor’s records include the drawings
The party requesting gative peer reviews where and specifications, and the engineer’s calculations will be available soon.
the investigative review the parties have become
adversarial, and the initial
Scope Review
is interested in whether design information pro-
vided for review consists This fictional but realistic scenario sets the stage for an investigative peer
or not the structural of only the drawings and review. Just like a traditional peer review, the process does not begin
a computer model input until the scope of the review has been established with the client. The
design has caused or file. This article addresses client is often focused on the specific portion of the building with the
contributed to problems investigative peer reviews performance problem; however, a broader review approach is almost
performed under similar cir- always necessary. The structural peer reviewer needs to have at least a
that have occurred. cumstances. Fundamental general understanding of the overall building design. It should also be
engineering review tasks are made clear to the client that any initially agreed upon scope may need
presented with a focus on to be expanded. As the investigation proceeds and both the structural
tasks required to review the structural analysis and design performed design and the details surrounding the project are unveiled, the need to
using electronic calculations and computer analysis models. review certain aspects of the design in more depth may become appar-
ent. Also, in most investigative peer reviews, including this example,
not all of the project information is immediately available.
Background
Several organizations have produced guidelines or rules addressing
engineering peer reviews. A list of references known to the author
Documents
is provided with the online version of this article. Many of these Regardless of what information is initially provided, the peer reviewer
documents were developed for individual states or cities. However, needs to clearly communicate to their client what documents are
in 2013, the Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) needed for the review. Merely stating the “design documents” or
published a national practice guideline, Guideline 962-G: Guidelines the “drawings and calculations” will likely result in receiving the
for Performing Project Specific Peer Reviews for Structural Projects. This bare minimum of documentation, making it difficult to review

16 STRUCTURE magazine
the design or even possibly not getting information for portions submittal documents and design calculations for those delegated
of the structure. The list of requested items should include: the items apply to the review scope. If a review of delegated designs is
project drawings (at a minimum the structural and architectural necessary, both the delegated design itself and the compatibil-
drawings), the project specifications, design summaries or narra- ity with the primary structure require review.
tives, engineering reports, structural calculations (hand-written • Identifying the gravity and lateral load resisting systems and
and computer output), copies of the electronic files for computer diaphragm types in the structure. Having a global understand-
output calculations and for structural analysis and design performed ing of the structural design will aid in the review of both the
using computer models, RFI’s, addenda/Supplementary Instructions overall building behavior and the analysis and design of specific
from the engineer, and documents produced by specialty structural building members.
designers involved in the project. • Performing an initial review of the provided printed calculations,
The latest versions of these documents should be obtained so that the electronic files, and design summary or project narrative to identify
changes that occurred during the design and construction process are the subject matter of each document. It is essential to understand
included. Record drawing sets are not always produced but, if available, early on if the analysis and design of the entire structure are
will incorporate such changes. Otherwise,
reviewing RFI’s, engineers' field sketches
and directives, and addenda may be neces-
sary to understand the final design.
If a design summary or project narra-
tive is available, it can significantly assist
with understanding the design intent
and criteria. It will likely describe the
gravity and lateral load systems and
building code design criteria. It should
also include project-specific design crite-
ria such as floor deflection and vibration
limits, building drift limits, and design
loads determined from site-specific stud-
ies such as wind tunnel testing, seismic
site class testing, and seismic ground
motion hazard analysis. The summary
may also indicate how software programs
were used in the analysis and design of

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

the building (more on this later).

General Review Tasks

The specific review tasks and sequence for
an investigative peer review will depend
upon the nature of the structural fail-
ure or performance problem and the
agreed-upon scope. As previously stated,
however, the reviewer will need to have
at least a general understanding of the
overall building design. Certain review
tasks apply to any investigative review.
These tasks include:
•U  nderstanding the design criteria
and building code requirements.
The review should independently
verify the appliable edition of
the building code and material
design standards and compare the
design criteria contained within
the code and standards to the
project requirements. State or local
amendments to the locally adopted
national model building code may
change design requirements and
need to be understood.
• I dentifying portions of the structure
where the design was delegated
to others and evaluating if the

M A R C H 2 0 21 17
 contained in the received documents. If the analysis or design to account for increased or reduced stiffness properties. A single mate-
of portions of the structure is not addressed therein, requests rial may require multiple material property definitions. Models using
for additional information can be made if necessary. advanced analysis types may require nonlinear material properties.
Once these general tasks have been completed, more focused and Property Modifiers: Adjusting the default member stiffness is
in-depth peer review tasks can be performed – the specific aspects of commonly performed in structural analysis. For example, con-
the design to be reviewed, and to what degree, will be dictated by the crete beam-column joints are modeled with larger stiffness, while
review scope, the complexity of the structure, and the detail provided reduced member stiffnesses may be used for serviceability analysis.
in the calculations. Independent analysis and design calculations are This can be accomplished in multiple ways, such as by modifying
typically performed on a limited basis to check the results in the material properties as mentioned above, by applying property
provided calculations. modifiers to section definitions or individual members, or by
using user-defined members.
Load Cases and Combinations: Compare the design loads to the
Digital Reviews loads contained in the model and review the load combinations for
Electronically-created structural calculations and structural analysis compliance with building code criteria. Note that if advanced analyses
and design performed using computer models present unique chal- are being used, such as response spectrum, time-history, or nonlinear
lenges to an investigative peer review. Merely reviewing printed output analysis, the means of combining the design loads may be different
and summary reports from a program provides a limited amount of than when a straightforward linear static analysis is used.
information. Even the built-in default reports available in many pro- Design Modules: Member design is performed based on the results
grams do not typically provide enough detail regarding the selected of the analysis. This may be performed in a separate stand-alone
setting options and input or model definition to adequately describe program or within the same program. If the program is separate,
what the software is solving and how it is solving it. Opening the the transfer of member forces from the analysis program to the
software and reviewing the electronic files is the best way to under- design program should be reviewed. In any design program, the
stand what has been done. design settings will need to be reviewed for agreement with the
The investigative review tasks presented below were developed with type of analysis performed, proper edition of the material design
a focus on software where the structure or portion of the structure standard, and both global and individual member settings, which
is modeled and then analyzed. However, many of the tasks are also include items such as unbraced lengths and prescriptive minimum
applicable to more straightforward engineering calculation software. and maximum limits.
A comprehensive review consists of the following areas of the struc- Model Integrity: Verify that the model runs without errors or warn-
tural model. ings. If errors or warnings appear in the log or output file, they need
Software Review: Determine the software version used to create the to be investigated to determine if they significantly affect the results.
electronic files and, if at all possible, use the same version to open Model Results: Review deformed shape plots and member force
and review the contents. Opening older files in newer versions of plots to evaluate if the behavior of the structure makes sense. These
the software can sometimes result in settings being reset to defaults. plots illustrate the load paths and member behavior and are the
A newer version may have revised input menus or additional input easiest way to find unintended results. Compare the individual
options, which may reset when the newer version opens the older load case sum-of-reactions to the intended applied loads. This is
file. Different software settings will change results, which may then a simple way to verify that the design loads were entered correctly
mislead the peer reviewer. When it is not possible to use the same into the program.
version, the changes between versions should be researched.
Model Purpose: The analysis and design of tall or complex struc-
tures may be accomplished using multiple software programs or
Summary
using multiple models created from the same software package. An investigative peer review evaluates the structural design after
There could be a model simply used for the analysis of the struc- something has gone wrong. Unlike a traditional pre-construction
ture, to apply the design loads to the structure, distribute them to peer review, the peer reviewer and the designers are usually not able
the individual members, and determine the member forces, with to interact. This restricts the exchange of information and places
separate programs for designing the members using those forces. greater importance on obtaining the design documents, calcula-
There could also be separate models for gravity load analysis, lateral tions, and related information. As such, an essential characteristic of
load analysis, and serviceability checks. If a design narrative or sum- an investigative peer reviewer is the ability to communicate to their
mary report does not describe the purpose of multiple models, the client which documents are needed and why.
investigative reviewer will need to review each electronic file and The review of electronic calculations and analysis models is typically
software package to evaluate its purpose. a part of an investigative peer review. These files need to be
General Model Definition: Compare the model to the project opened within the software to understand and evaluate the
drawings and specifications to evaluate if the model is representative structural analysis and design performed with the software.■
of the intended construction. This includes the overall vertical and
plan dimensions, the individual member locations, member sections, References are included in the PDF version
base of column support conditions, and the connections between of the article at STRUCTUREmag.org.
members, including member offsets, rigid zones, and end releases.
Material Definitions: Software typically has default settings for Cole Graveen is a Senior Engineer at Raths, Raths & Johnson, Inc.,
concrete, steel, masonry, and timber material properties. These default Willowbrook, IL. He currently serves as a voting member of the ASCE
7-22 Main Committee and Chair of the ASCE 7-22 Subcommittee on
settings usually need to be changed, or copied and modified, to
Dead and Live Loads.
account for multiple steel grades, concrete and masonry strengths, or

18 STRUCTURE magazine
 Reference Documents – online only
American Council of Engineering Companies of New York, Recommended Practice Guidelines Peer Review for Code Compliance,
February 2013.
City of Chicago Department of Buildings, Rules for the Structural Peer Review Program, December 2017.
Council of American Structural Engineers, Guidelines for Performing Project Specific Peer Reviews for Structural Projects
(CASE Guideline 962-G), 2013.
Massachusetts, State of, Independent Structural Engineering Review Guidance, referenced in Section 105.9 of the Massachusetts State
Building Code, 780 CMR, 9th Edition.
Miami, City of, Structural Peer Review Guidelines, Rev. 02-20-2018.
Professional Engineers Ontario, Professional Standard Committee, Professional Engineers Reviewing Work Prepared by Another Professional
Engineer Guideline, October 2011.
Structural Engineers Association of California, Recommended Guidelines for the Practice of Structural Engineering in California, 2020.
Structural Engineers Coalition of American Council of Engineering Companies of Connecticut, Recommended Guidelines for Performing
an Independent Structural Engineering Review in the State of Connecticut, July 2008.
Stuart, Matthew, Project Specific Peer Review Guidelines, STRUCTURE, January 2007.
Stuart, Matthew, Project Specific Peer Review Guidelines, A Professional Odyssey, STRUCTURE, August 2010.

M A R C H 2 0 21 19