Structural Peer Review
Catch it in design.
Not in the field.
Independent third party review of structural calculations and construction documents, for owners, architects, contractors and design teams.
A peer review is cheap insurance. An independent engineer reads the calculations and the documents with fresh eyes and no attachment to the decisions already made, and reports what does not hold up.
The value is not catching arithmetic. It is catching the assumption everyone stopped questioning three months ago, the load case that was never checked, the detail that is drawn but cannot be built, and the gap between the structural set and the rest of the documents.
Who asks for one
Owners protecting a capital investment. Architects who want a second opinion before issuing. Contractors who inherited a set they do not trust. Building officials on complex or unusual structures. Occasionally an engineer who simply wants their own work checked, which is the most professional reason of all.
Reported so it is usable
Findings come back categorised by significance, not as an undifferentiated list. What is a genuine structural concern, what is a documentation gap, and what is a difference of professional preference that does not need to change.
What a review covers
- Design criteria and load assumptions, including whether the right code was applied
- Structural calculations and member sizing
- Lateral system and load path continuity
- Foundation design against the geotechnical report
- Connection details and their constructability
- Coordination between the structural set and the architectural and MEP documents
- Completeness of the documents for bidding and construction
Common Questions
Straight answers
Will this create a fight with our engineer of record?
It should not, and it usually does not. Findings are reported factually and separated by significance, and difference of professional opinion is labelled as such rather than dressed up as an error. Good engineers welcome the check.
How much of the set do you need?
Structural drawings and calculations at minimum. The architectural set and the geotechnical report make the review substantially more useful, because a large share of real findings sit at the coordination boundary.
Can you review at an early design stage?
Yes, and that is where a review returns the most. Catching a system level assumption at schematic design is worth far more than finding it in construction documents.
Do you also do constructability review?
Yes, as a separate service under project controls, and the two are often run together.
Set you are not sure about?
A review before it goes out is a fraction of the cost of finding it during construction.