2009 Issue

36 T HIS MAY ALLOW ENGINEERS TO, see the forest from the trees. Some engineers feel apprehensive when they hear that a peer review is coming. Most of the peer reviews that have occurred in my career have been beneficial. My understanding of a peer review is to verify that the structural design and detailing of the primary structure is in general conformance with code. It also verifies that an appropriate load path exists and that standard practice is observed. A peer review should be treated as a recommendation to the Engineer of Record (EOR), since the ultimate responsibility and liability for the design re- main with the EOR. The two most common types of peer reviews are in house and city/owner required reviews. Both types of reviews can be beneficial to the customer and the engineer. Every office wants to turn out quality work; an efficient way to do this is by having in house reviews. In house reviews typically deal with friendly questions and suggestions such as, Have you thought of this as an option? or, That works, but have you thought of detailing this connection in this way? This type of conversation allows synergy in an office, promotes forward think- ing, broadens ones perspective and provides office unity. With tight schedules and fast approaching deadlines, in house reviews are sometimes over looked. A professional engineer that does a large number of plan reviews, ex- plained that he sees too many substandard plans. These plans come from all types of firms, including those that are reputable and conscientious. He attributes the high number of substandard plans to the lack of in house reviews. Even though an engineer may work hard to do his/her best, it is still possible to over look something or not fully explore all engineering options. Taking the time to do peer reviews can improve the quality of work that leaves an office. City/owner required peer reviews are an- other type of review that can be beneficial. A peer is defined as, one that is of equal stand- ing with another. A peer review should be done by an engineer from a local firm that you are familiar with, and one that has designed structures similar to those that they are re- viewing. These types of reviews have helped me the most in my career. I receive feedback from reputable firms that have experience in the field. They give advice, ask for clarifica- tions and try to make the project better, safer and more cost effective. They also verify that a viable load path exists for both the lateral and gravity systems. Hopefully there are few Peer Reviews CLIFF COLE, P.E., S.E., WCA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING INC. Many engineers stress the importance of peer reviews, the benefits of review are obvious. An engineer that has not been closely involved in the design and detailing of a project, provides a fresh perspective. to the plans or detailing were required. It was a huge source of frustration and a waste of time. Another review that is of concern, are those that imply that a permit will not be granted until the EOR has answered all review questions to the reviewer’s satisfaction. This forces the EOR to do things the way the reviewer thinks is best, without relieving the EOR from the liability of the project. Sometimes it can be difficult to find the time for review, and occasionally reviews are not well done. Never the less, if we work together as individuals and as an engineering society, peer reviews can help improve the quality of work that we produce. code interpretation conflicts with these types of reviews. You may agree to disagree at times, but always maintain a mutual respect for the other’s point of view. There are times when a reviewer may have a strong opinion about a system, detail or code interpretation that the EOR does not agree with. When these conflicts arise, the opinion of a third firm can be very helpful. A simple phone call can help resolve disagreements. If, however, an understanding cannot be reached, the EOR has the final say. It is his/her responsibility to bear. If the questioned item can not be resolved and is a life safety issue, not a difference of opinion, the reviewer has the obligation to report the issue to the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing for review. Although both types of peer reviews can be helpful, poorly done reviews can be a waste of time and energy for all involved. Our office recently had one such review. The review came back with 32 items they felt needed to be ad- dressed. As we went through these items, one by one, only two of items were valid, relating to the specifications of the project. No changes Sometimes it can be difficult to find the time for review, and occasionally reviews are not well done. Never the less, if we work together as individuals and as an engineering society, peer reviews can help improve the quality of work that we produce. Mr. Cole is a graduate in Civil Engineering from the Utah State University, Logan, Utah, and principal in WCA Structural Engineering, Inc. His projects range from commercial buildings, and seismic retrofit and feasibility.