ASEP PeerReviewGuide PDF

Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc.
Recommended Guidelines on
Structural Design
Peer Review of Structures
2011
Committee on Design Peer Review (2009-2011)

About this Guidelines
Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 2011

Published by Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc.
Published April 2011
Copyright…

Suite 713 Future Point Plaza Condominium
112 Panay Avenue, Quezon City,
1100 Philippines
Telephone Nos. : +63 (2) 410-0483

Facsimile : +63 (2) 411-8606
E-mail Address : aseponline@gmail.com
Website : http://www.aseponline.org
About ASEP…
Print History
2000
2011
Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures ii

2011
Contents
ABOUT THIS GUIDELINES ................................................................................................................... II
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................... V
ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................................... VI
1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1
2. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................2
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE DESIGN PEER REVIEW ...................................................................................3
4. ETHICS OF PEER REVIEW .............................................................................................................5
5. STRUCTURES TO BE REVIEWED....................................................................................................6
6. REVIEWER’S QUALIFICATION.......................................................................................................8
7. MINIMUM REPORT REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................................................9
8. DESIGN REVIEW CONFLICT RESOLUTION.................................................................................... 13
9. SEQUENCE OF REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 14
10. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF REVIEW ............................................................................... 15
11. INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED TO THE DESIGN REVIEWER ................................................ 18
12. ITEMS TO BE REVIEWED ........................................................................................................ 20
13. CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................... 23
14. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 24
15. PARTICIPANTS LIST................................................................................................................ 25
Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures iii

2011
List of Tables
TABLE 1: ITEMS TO BE REVIEWED CHECKLIST ..........................................................................................................................20

TABLE 2: SAMPLE OF CERTIFICATION ....................................................................................................................................23
Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures iv

2011
Acknowledgements
Sincere thanks to Adam C. Abinales, Ronaldo S. Ison and Anthony Vladimir C. Pimentel and to the rest of
ASEP members who provided their input and guidance in the completion of this guide. The names and
affiliations of all who assisted are included in the Participants List at the end of this guide.
ASEP Design Peer Review Committee 2009 – 2011
Cover image/layout by: Bill San Jose
Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures v

2011
Abbreviations
A&D - Analysis and Design
ACI - American Concrete Institute
AISC - American Institute of Steel Construction
ASCE - American Society of Civil Engineers
ASEP - Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc.
BIM - Building Information Model
CE - Civil Engineer
CTBUH - Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
DOST - Department of Science and Technology
DPWH - Department of Public Works and Highways
EOR - Engineer-On-Record
IAI - International Alliance for Interoperability
IBC - International Building Code
IFC - Industry Foundation Classes
NSCP - National Structural Code of the Philippines
PAG-ASA - Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical & Astronomical Services Administration
PHIVOLCS - Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
PICE - Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc.
PRC - Professional Regulations Commission
SAP - Structural Analysis Program
SE - Structural Engineer
SEC - Security and Exchange Commissions
UBC - Uniform Building Code
Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures vi

2011
1. Introduction
Design review is incorporated in most building codes to provide the means for professional discussion
and evaluation of structural design of projects. Thus, these reviews are the eye openers for the
resolution of problems encountered before a critical phase of the construction project. Design review
truly enhances the ideas for public safety overall and quality assurance. Furthermore, it disseminates
innovation through sharing of information.
Earthquake for instance is a phenomenon that man has been trying to study for centuries but up to
present time is still unpredictable. We, as structural engineers, are faced with the greatest challenge of
formulating procedures on how to lessen if not eliminate destruction and casualties due to this. We
want to make sure that the intent of our design is carefully followed and carried out in the most
professional manner. The burden of setting up and observing rules on how to achieve what has been
planned rest upon our shoulders. Design review can be a valuable tool faced with this challenge.
This document establishes the guidelines for peer review. Since protecting lives and properties are the
paramount goals of the Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP), the only way
perhaps to realise these goals is establish ground rules for all our practicing civil engineers, structural
engineers and consultants to follow strictly the Code provisions and standards parameters.
It is essential to good engineering practice to conduct independent peer review to achieve a concept of
structural system and design tolerant to the crudeness in seismological predictions. The independent
review of structures shall be deemed as the means to promote life safety, achieve excellence in
structural design and front of quality, improvement/advancement and dissemination of structural
engineering knowledge in the country.

2011
2. Background
To accomplish the objectives of ASEP, the Board of Directors for 1999-2000 has continued the program
of the ASEP Board of Directors for 1998-1999 by creating several committees as shown below. These
objectives, as stated in its by-laws, shall be the protection of the public welfare and the welfare of its
constituents through the:
 Maintenance of highly ethical and professional standards in the practice of engineering

 Advancement of structural engineering knowledge;
 Promotion of good public and private clientele relationships, development of fellowships among
CE and SE and encouragement of professional relations with other allied technical and scientific
organisations.
These objectives are focused on these three major areas:
 Codes and Standards

 Fellowships and Linkages
 Technical Advancement
One of the committees created for the Codes and Standards is the Committee on Design Peer Review.
The National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 1992 Edition touches on independent design
review under the section “A Design and Construction Review”, which defines the structures required for
the review considering seismic zones and occupancy categories. However, the scope, procedures and
documentation of the review process are not mentioned. Thus, this paper will include guidelines on the
implementation of the design peer review.
The same committee was revived by the President of the Board of Directors for 2009-2010, Adam C.
Abinales from point of view of engineering practitioners, to improve and expand the guidelines to
incorporate additional parameters and ethical rules and enhance the practice of peer review. The
committee's activities have to continue under the administration of President Anthony Vladimir
Pimentel of the Board of Directors for 2010-2011 for the same noble purpose.
The Committee on Design Peer Review (2009-2011) is composed of the following:
Chairman
Ernesto F. Cruz
Members Advisers
Alden C. Ong Ronaldo S. Ison
Marie Christine G. Danao Adam C. Abinales
Edmondo D. San Jose Anthony Vladimir C. Pimentel

2011
3. Objectives of the Design Peer Review

The current trend in the local construction industry is the development of many high-rise buildings. On
account of this, it is the objective of this peer review to improve sections1.3.2 of NSCP 1992, to insure
the aim for life safety, to observe economy in design and to protect the investment of clients.
The Peer Review is aimed to carry out positive results in the following
areas:
 To comply with the minimum requirements of NSCP and other acceptable established codes and
standards.
 To maintain the quality of projects.
 To improve and maintain the high standards in the practice of structural engineering.
 To promote exchange of information and innovative ideas between the designers and
reviewers.
 To inform the Owner-Client on the benefits of this exercise and any possible cost implications
resulting from the review.
 To inform the Owner-Client of the importance of a timely and properly sequenced conduct of
peer review from the early stage of design and the consequences otherwise.
 To define implementing matrix of all structures subject to practical independent review.
 To promote professional ethics in the conduct of independent or peer review.
 To verify that there are no major errors in structural design calculation, drawings and
specification.
 To review the design load criteria that may affect the economical aspect of the proposed
structural design.
Expected Results of Design Reviews

 As professionals, independent design reviewers and EOR shall not engage into unfair practices.
Both shall observe in the light of fairness and professionalism that the practice of independent
review shall not by any means be a channel to conduct criticism nor a means to discredit the
reviewer or the EOR and disenfranchise them of the contract service they are awarded.
 The design review will bring in positive results to the Owners-Clients in terms of assurance in
better engineering of the proposed structures thru improvement in design, economy and safety
as well as improvement in construction implementation and program by elimination of work
delays due to unwanted and costly repairs.

2011
 There will be good understanding of the structures and relationships between the Owner-Clients
and the structural engineering community resulting to better programs of future developments
and projects.
 There will be good relationships between designers and reviewers by improving the design
through constructive reporting.

2011
4. Ethics of Peer Review

Before peer reviewing another EOR’s work, it is important to inform the EOR concerned. This provides
the opportunity for the review to include all relevant information, some of which the reviewer may not
be aware of but may be known to the EOR. The reviewer should investigate the matters concerned
thoroughly, and refrain from criticising the work of other professionals without due cause.
Peer reviewers must abide the PICE/ASEP Code of Ethics. They must avoid taking the role of the designer
or succumbing to professional jealousy. The peer reviewer must report against only the criteria and
restrictions that were put in place for the designer/author of the work.
Peer reviewers must respect the intellectual property made available in the course of the review, which
often passes from one firm to another during the review process. The peer reviewer must avoid using
hindsight to make a point against the designer, and comment on the design relative to the state of
knowledge at the time of the design.

2011
5. Structures to be reviewed
Structures to be reviewed shall consist of all proposed new structures and addition to structures which
shall be deemed crucial to life safety and/or health of the public and peace if such structures or
buildings would incur damage or failure or both.
The structures to be reviewed shall be as follows:
1. Fast-tracked Projects1.
2. All structures more than 20-storey or 75-meter high from the exterior ground level.
3. All buildings 10 to 20 storeys high but with floor area equal or more than 900 square meters on
a certain floor or level.
4. All buildings with 10 to 20 storeys with floor area per level equal to or less than 900 square
meters but involving irregularities in plan, mass and stiffness.
5. All regular structures with additions from three storeys with an aggregate floor area of 900
square meters or more per floor or level.
6. All structures with floor level of two to less than 10 storeys with floor area equal to or more
than 5000 square meters per level regardless of existence of movement joints.
7. All buildings and structures with three or more storeys linked by interconnecting bridges for
access from one structure to the others with total floor area of the linked structures equal or
more than 2500 square meters per level.
8. Essential facilities such as hospitals fire & police stations, emergency vehicle and equipment
shelters and garages, structures and equipment in communication centres, aviation control
towers, private and public school buildings, water supported structures and designated
evacuation centres.
9. Hazardous Facilities and the like structures housing, supporting or containing sufficient
quantities of toxic or explosive substances dangerous to the safety of the general public if
released due to damage or excessive deformation.
1
Fast-tracked projects are projects that undergo more than the usual pace of procedures in design by employing experience and
benchmarks from previous design of existing structures.

2011
10. Any structure whether single storey or multilevel with a floor area per level less than 2500
square meters which includes parts that will be the place for public assembly or congregation of
audiences, spectators or patrons with number equal or more than 250 persons per level
whether in part or in full floor area per level such as theatres, restaurants, gyms, stadiums,
arenas, sport centres, resort convention centres or leisure centres.
11. Special Occupancy structures like schools, jails, and detention facilities, and mental hospitals,
rehabilitation institutions, and other institutional buildings catering to incapacitated patients.
12. Resorts structures housing.
13. Government infrastructures with essential and vital importance in securing national defence,
safety and public welfare.
14. Billboards, communication antennas and transmission towers proposed to be situated in areas
where its collapse will likely affect adjacent or nearby residential, commercial or other industrial
areas and properties or its collapse or displacement whether sliding or overturning may trigger
subsequent damage or collapse of structures within its vicinities.
15. All buildings and structures with 10 to 20 storeys with dual or multiple structural system.
16. Building or structure that has changed its character of occupancy.
17. Buildings, towers and other vertical structures with irregularity in configuration (vertical and
horizontal irregularity) under occupancy Category I, II, and III (as per section 103.1 NSCP VI
edition) within the seismic zone 4.
18. Structures designed under alternative system (as per section 101.4 NSCP VI Edition) that
intends to use other structural materials, design approach and construction methodology not
prescribed by the latest existing structural Code (NSCP VI Edition, 2010) or by other recognized
international codes and standards.
19. Buildings, towers and other structures with undefined structural system not listed in Table 208-
11 of NSCP VI Edition.

2011
6. Reviewer’s Qualification
The independent reviewer shall be nominated by the Owner/Client. The independent or peer reviewer
shall not be the design EOR or engineer appointed by Builder/Contractor except for Turnkey or Design
and Build contract where the review is requested by the Contractor for their own interest.
The independent or peer reviewer shall have the following qualifications:
1. Civil engineers registered with the Professional Regulation Commission of the Philippines with more
than 20 years of experience in civil engineering but not less than 15 years of experience in structural
engineering.
2. Civil engineers with minimum of 15 years of continuous and adequate experience from established
engineering institutions and/or SEC registered engineering consulting firms in the Philippines which
were nominated or commissioned by the Owner/Client to conduct the review.
3. Civil engineers recognised as structural engineer specialist by the PICE through ASEP.
4. Registered CE and SE of engineering consulting companies or corporations duly registered abroad in

their countries of professional practice for structural engineering and consultancy with minimum
experience of 15 years in his profession.
5. Government Civil Engineers with 15 years continuous and adequate experience as Building Officials
or structural design engineers of the DPWH.
6. The reviewers must be at least 36 years old including the qualification above.
7. Registered Civil Engineers with advanced studies in Civil Engineering specialized in structural
discipline.
8. Structural Engineers with comparable qualification and experience as the EOR responsible for the
design (as per section 104.5 NSCP VI Edition).
9. The reviewer or reviewers shall be knowledgeable in new design software, tools, and other
acceptable computer programs.
10. The reviewers must have competitive knowledge or experience in actual structural construction.

2011
7. Minimum Report Requirements

Prior to the issuance of the final peer review report, the peer reviewer is encouraged to exchange
review comments with the EOR in the presence of the Owner and/or his representative in order to
resolve as many issues as possible.
Content
The following items shall be included in the final peer review report:
1. List of the documents on which the review was based.
2. Building Code on which the peer review was based.
3. Methodology and assumptions of the review.
4. List of software/analysis tools used with descriptive statements about software, tools, and other
computer programs used in the review.
5. Items to be subsequently reviewed by others (e.g. contractor-designed items).
6. Exclusions/limitations (e.g. peer review was limited to primary structural support systems).
7. Outstanding items/unresolved issues.
8. Results, findings, conclusions and recommendations of the review.
The final peer review report shall be addressed to the Owner/Owner’s representative and the EOR.
Upon completion of the review, the peer reviewer shall issue a certificate stating that the peer review
has been successfully completed and accepted by the EOR. This certification shall be submitted to the
Building Official in compliance with one of the requirements for the issuance of the building permit. All
review reports must be signed and sealed by the independent reviewer's authorised signatories who
shall be qualified as reviewers.

2011
Terms of Review Procedure and Methodology to be used

The comparison shall be agreed and done as much as possible for the right standards at the start of the
review in the presence of the Owner-Client or his duly designated representatives. The review analysis
and design criteria must be compatible with the requirement of the Owner-Client as defined in his
design brief including any applicable item in the terms of reference which form part of their agreement
with the designer.
Preferably, the peer reviewer shall use the same design criteria and standards specified by the designers
or EOR. Deviations from the designer’s standards and procedures must be done only with the
permission of the designers.
Software to be used in the review should preferably match the same software used by the designers
including the same editions or versions, unless the designers agree to allow the said version. The
difference of versions should be agreed upon but a difference of one level may be considered
acceptable unless the more recent versions employ a different analysis procedures or features that are
almost entirely different to the designer’s software procedures or features.
Language to be used
The manner of reporting shall always be factual. Values and status to be presented must be taken purely
from the design review documents submitted and the results of the independent review's analysis and
assessments per applicable codes and standards.
The terms and phrases to be included in reporting any issue arising from the design review must be
written carefully and reflect professionalism. The reviewer must not include offensive nor malicious
words or phrases. Thus the reporting must be factual, enlightening and must not be humiliating for the
designers-reviewers.
The report findings for assessment of each part of the report should avoid terms like inadequate,
erroneous, in error, misses. Reporting should preferably be neutral for example statement for bars
needing additional quantity may be stated “underestimated” and bars in element with quantities that
maybe reduced may be stated that “bars are over estimated by as much as 25%”.
The reviewer shall make comments that are clear, legible, and complete so that designers will easily
understand it. Clear comments will alleviate confusion and reduce time spent in back-check.
The reviewer should not specify any size of members, materials, details, or methods of construction in
the comments, nor should calculations be provided to the EOR.

2011
Mark-up and Comments

The EOR is bound to rectify any issue that may be raised by the reviewer. Comments should be
complete, clear and legible to be easily understood so that the EOR can make a proper interpretation
and correction. Although the EOR may ask for suggestions about how to address an issue it is
inappropriate for the reviewer to perform design or make design decisions for the EOR.
If possible, the reviewer should word general comments which apply to numerous drawings so that the
comments do not need to be repeated on each drawing.
When the reviewer makes the same specific comments at many different details the comments should
be identified by either creating a standard, numbered list of comments with the comment numbers
referenced at each detail, or marking the comments on each detail.
The reviewer may use 'paste-on' comments where applicable to save time and to maintain uniformity of
comments.
The reviewer should avoid correcting spelling or grammar unless the meaning is not clear.
The reviewer shall make comments as follows:
 Use yellow pen to mark items found to be in compliance.
 Use red pen to mark corrections to be made, errors, or omissions found on drawings and in
specifications.
 Place a tag on specification pages that receive comments.
 Place a red check mark on lower right hand corner of drawing sheets that have red marks.
 Place a yellow mark in the lower right hand corner of each sheet to indicate completed review
of that sheet.
Examples of reviewer comment wording

Use specific comments such as:
“Show complete details in accordance with your calculation pages 17 to 24.”
Do not use vague comments such as:

“Clarify welding.”
Avoid personalized wording such as:

“Your calcs for this connection is in error”

2011
Provide code references for comments whenever possible:

“Provide additional lath support at horizontal soffits per. . .”
If the properties of an element were improperly used in calculations and the element is overstressed,
the PRE should write a comment on the sheet where the overstressed element is shown such as:
“W18 x 36 overstressed. Recheck Section Modulus used in calculation. See AISC page…. and your calc,
sheet F-19”
The reviewer can make independent calculations when portions of the design professional’s calculations
are difficult to follow or interpret:
“Shear wall is overstressed along Gridline-A, wall shears are 13 kN/m by independent calculation”
If the reviewer does extensive independent calculations, then he or she must number the calculations in
sequence and mark the calculation page number on the comment to facilitate the back-check:
“Composite beam overstressed, recheck design loads. See page 28”
Note that the reviewer's calculations are never provided to the EOR. The EOR (and/or his or her
consultant) is responsible for providing complete and correct calculations.

2011
8. Design Review Conflict Resolution

1. During the generation of his/her independent calculation, the peer reviewer may find design issues
where in some of the primary structural support systems do not conform with the Building Code,
and this information is then brought to the attention of the EOR. Should the EOR disagree with the
peer reviewer’s findings, the EOR shall furnish the peer reviewer with the EOR’s applicable structural
calculations (including computer analysis) which substantiate the adequacy of the portion of the
structural design in question.
2. After review of the EOR’s structural calculations, if the issue in question has not been resolved or
reconciled, then the peer reviewer shall furnish the EOR with the peer reviewer’s applicable
independent structural calculations (including computer analysis) for the EOR’s assessment.
3. The independent reviewer shall update the Owner/Client and/or his representatives on the progress
of the review at regular intervals. He should make the Owner/Client and/his representatives aware
of such conflicting views and of any outstanding issues which should be inclusive of the findings
details, actions of the designer-reviewee and dates targeted to be done. The independent reviewer
and EOR shall commit to the Owner/Client and his representatives when and how to resolve such
issues in a resolution acceptable to the Client.
4. In the event that a dispute between the EOR and the peer reviewer cannot be resolved, the parties
are encouraged to engage the services of a neutral structural engineering consultant to assist in the
resolution of the dispute. The office of the ASEP maintains a list of structural engineering
consultants who offer peer review dispute resolution services.
In case of non-resolution of outstanding issues in spite of mediation in number 4, the independent

reviewer shall inhibit himself from taking over the continuation of engineering design unless expressed
in writing as commissioned by the Owner/Client with the consent of the previous EOR and
recommendation by the mediator consultant.

2011
9. Sequence of Review
The EOR and the peer reviewer are encouraged to have open and on-going communication throughout
the design peer review since this will accelerate the review as well as reconcile differences of opinions.
They must abide by the code of ethics of ASEP. It is recommended that applicable design reviews are
completed prior to bidding the structural construction contracts to avoid unnecessary delays as well as
minimize impact on construction cost.
It shall be recommended and explained to the Owner the importance of the involvement of the peer
reviewer throughout the development of an effective and efficient work programme.
It should be explained further that any review during construction phase would be highly disruptive to
the project and is an unhealthy practice.
Here are the defined stages of work for the review:
Preliminary Review
A review at the completion of the Design Development Phase is recommended, particularly for large
and complex projects. If discrepancies are detected relative to the basic design assumptions, they
are more readily resolved at this early stage than they would be at the Pre-Tender or completion of
the Construction Documents Stage.
Foundations Review
If the project schedule dictates, the Owner may desire to obtain a Foundation Permit prior to the
completion of the superstructure design documents; this will lead the peer reviewer to utilise
incomplete documents for the basis of the foundation evaluation. Any special conditions or
contingencies relating to a Foundation Review must be clearly identified to the Building Official; any
assumptions must be confirmed during the Preliminary Design Review. The Building Official is not
obligated to furnish this form of Partial Building Permit.
Pre-Tender Review
The primary review for the project is conducted at a time before or near completion of the
Construction Documents such that the incorporation of findings and issues raised by the reviewers
would be feasible for the EOR without stopping or disrupting the original design programme.

2011
10. Scope and Methodology of Review
Scope of Review
The peer reviewer must review all items agreed to be reviewed with the Client, EOR per
relevant/recommended items listed in this Guide. The reviewer shall refer regularly to check for
completeness of the review per applicable items listed in this Guide. The quantity of elements to be
reviewed shall be in accordance with the second paragraph of the subsection Methodology of Review
below.
Methodology of Review
The review should agree with the Owner-Client and the EOR on the methodology of review. The review
shall cover for completeness and timeliness of the design documents submitted per relevant items listed
in this Guide.
The reviewer should assess the review documents with regards to the agreed number of elements to be
checked with the Owner-Clients or his, if at random, selected or full review of the structure and any
limited procedure. Although a random or selected review may not be ideal but a selection of critical and
essential items will enable the Owner to keep up with his intended program and budget while a full
review maybe expensive and requires along period that may greatly affect the construction schedules.
Review maybe agreed also as for each phase or entirely on the final detailed design of the structure for
review. While a final detailed design review is basically economical, a phased review from the beginning
maybe better in order to avoid the errors from the beginning and save also valuable time in redesign
Preliminary Review
1. Review design criteria to verify compliance with the Building Code.
2. Assess assumptions made by the EOR.
Foundation Review
1. If Preliminary Review was not performed, then perform those tasks identified under Preliminary
Review. If Preliminary Review was performed, confirm that design criteria and assumptions have
not changed.
2. Establish foundation loads via independent analysis. Alternatively, obtain foundation loads from
EOR contingent upon subsequent verification. Obtain soil design parameters from geotechnical
engineering report.

2011
3. Perform independent analysis of representative foundation elements including spread footings,

pile caps, foundation walls, grade beams, piles, among others. Review of a minimum of 25% of
foundation elements is recommended, depending on the relative nature or complexity of the
project. Depending on the results of the independent analysis, the peer reviewer may find it
necessary to increase the percentage of elements reviewed to determine compliance with the
Building Code.
4. Review specification sections pertaining to foundation system including earthwork, piles,

concrete work, among others.
5. Review performance criteria for contractor-designed components such as slope protection

systems, mini piles, tie-down anchors, among others.
Pre-Tender Design Review

1. If Preliminary Review and Foundation Review were not performed, then perform those tasks
identified under Preliminary Review. If Foundation Review was not performed but Preliminary
Review was performed, confirm that design criteria and assumptions identified in Preliminary
Review have not changed.
2. Review load paths for gravity and lateral loads to confirm that loads are distributed through the
height of the structure to the foundation in a rational fashion.
3. Perform independent analysis of the gravity force and lateral force-resisting systems. Perform
independent analysis of representative components of the Primary Structural Support System
including slabs, beams, columns, braces, diaphragms, among others. Review of a minimum of
25% of framing components is recommended, depending on the relative nature of complexity of
the project. Depending on the results of the independent analysis, the peer reviewer may find it
necessary to increase the percentage of elements reviewed to determine compliance with the
Building Code.
4. Check building drift and separation under seismic loading conditions.
5. Check frame element deflections under the applicable gravity loading conditions.
6. If Foundation Review was not performed, then perform independent analysis of representative
foundation elements including spread footings, pile caps, foundation walls, grade beams, piles,
among others. Review of a minimum of 25% of foundation elements is recommended,
depending on the relative nature or complexity of the project. Depending on the results of the
independent analysis, the peer reviewer may find it necessary to increase the percentage of
elements reviewed to determine compliance with the Building Code. If Foundation Review was
performed and was based on loads furnished by the EOR, confirm that loads on which
Foundation Review was based coincide with those established in the independent analysis.

2011
7. Review structural framing connections which are part of the primary system including shear
connections, braced frame connections, moment-resisting connections, among others. When
connections are not detailed on the design drawings, verify adequacy of the cited connection
design loads/procedures.
8. Perform general review of design to evaluate presence of any conditions which might
precipitate conditions of instability or structural overstress. Examples would include unbraced
beams or columns; composite beams where openings compromise the composite action;
excessive unshored deck spans; conditions which induce out-of-plane loads into framing
components, among others.
9. Review specification sections pertaining to Primary Structural Support System.
10. Review performance criteria for contractor-designed components such as precast concrete
elements, shear connections, braced frame connections, moment-resisting connections, cold-
formed metal framing components (primary framing components, not cladding), pre-engineered
metal building systems, among others.

2011
11. Information to be Furnished to the Design Reviewer

The review documents should be checked for completeness and timeliness of the design documents
submitted per relevant items recommended in this guide. The reviewer should assess the review
documents received and report immediately to the Owner-Client and or his duly appointed
representative for the following:
If any of the design documents submitted are not sufficient for him to proceed with the review such that
an entire document is missing for example the design criteria document is not included and the
drawings do not reflect the design parameters/information completely, or
 The documents given and received may enable him to start and work immediately but the peer
reviewer have to stop soon for some items of works as some documents are given as partial
only.
 The documents given and submitted are irrelevant to the project
 The documents received are of poor quality such as illegible, faintly printed, blurred, torn, and
or unacceptably dirty or laced with hazardous materials.
The peer reviewer shall also report if the items received were not delivered in good condition that may
not enable him to proceed at all such as wet due to improper, incomplete or inadequate protection
from packaging materials.

2011
The following items are recommended to be furnished by the Owner/Client:

(As applicable)
 Printed copies and DWF/DWFx files of complete set of architectural and structural drawings
 General building narrative (number of stories, gross building area, estimated construction cost,
unique features, among others.)
 Geotechnical engineering report
 Wind Tunnel Test report (if any)
 Site-specific spectra and ground-motion time histories (if any)
 Major equipment or special loadings
 Existing building drawings/data if impacted by or impacting the threshold structure
 Special phasing (e.g. will a Foundation Permit be sought in advance of the full Building Permit?)
 Scope of work
 Design schedule
 Site inspection program (if any)
 Analysis models including User’s Guide of software used by EOR (e.g. ETABS, STAAD, SAP, SAFE
and among others.). It is recommended to include also interoperable files such as .$ET, .ANL,
.S2K and .F2K to facilitate conversion of data.
 3D model/BIM2 file or *.ifc3 file (if any)
 Design basis
 Design criteria
 Structural systems design narrative (including wind and seismic design parameters)
 Structural elements design calculations
 Structural specifications
2
Building Information Model (BIM) is a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a structure. As such it
serves as a shared knowledge resource for information about a structure forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life
cycle from inception onward.
3
Industry Foundation Classes (.ifc) – A file format developed by the IAI. IFC provides an interoperability solution between IFC-
compatible software applications in the construction and facilities management industry. The format has established,
international standards to import and export building objects and their properties.

2011
12. Items to be Reviewed

The reviewer may include as appropriate/applicable any or all of the following:
Table 1: Items to be Reviewed Checklist
Item Specific Design Checks to be Carried Out

Design Basis/ Criteria Minimum loadings set out in the code.
Prevailing site conditions and assumptions in design analysis.
Materials used in the design and specifications.
Reference to any assumed loadings, construction methods, A&D
Description of the operational language and/or algorithms, capability and
source of the software used, including the proof of good comparison with
results of known and accepted method of analysis.
Seismic design parameters and base shear.
Number of mass participation for dynamic analysis.
Wind loadings design parameters and comfort criteria.
Design Methods, Appropriateness to the client’s technical brief and functional
Standards and requirements.
Specifications Conformance to the governing codes used in the analysis and design.
Provisions for quality control and test of materials.
Provisions for quality assurance program.
Site inspection program (if required by contract)
Analysis models Input and output data including geometry, loadings, assignments and
parameters used in ETABS/STAAD/SAP/SAFE.
Foundation loads Appropriate values of dead, live, wind and seismic loads used.
Column loads have been appropriately computed.
Effects of wind and notional loads on the building or structure have been
checked.
Piles Piles have been designed for skin friction and end bearing capacities.
Piles have been designed for lateral loads and bending moment.
Pile joints have been designed for.
Piles have been designed for uplift.
Socketing has been designed for piles with short penetration depths.
Piles have been designed for negative skin friction.
Raft Appropriate allowable bearing capacity of soil has been assumed in
design.
Appropriate modulus of sub-grade reaction of the soil has been assumed
in design.
Appropriate model used for structural analysis of the raft
The raft has been designed to resist punching shear from columns.
The building or structure has been designed to cater for probable
differential and total settlement.

2011
Lateral Load Resisting The presence in the structural framing of any plan and/or vertical
Framing Systems as irregularities mentioned in NSCP or governing codes.
assumed in the Limitations of lateral load resisting framing systems by NSCP, or by the
Design Basis/ Criteria owner-client preferred code and standards, and or from any prevailing local
ordinance and regulations in the vicinity of the proposed structure.
Details of seismic-resistant concrete structure were checked.
Slender Columns Effective height has been computed according to code
Bending moment about minor axis has been designed for
Additional bending moment due to slenderness has been designed for.
Biaxial bending moment has been designed for.
Columns supporting Designed for bending moment due to frame action.
transfer beams
long span beams
cantilever beams
Columns in a two Designed for horizontal load and moment acting on columns due to arched
column frame system or pitched roof.
Designed for bending moment at the column base.
Designed for bending moment due to frame action.
Cantilever beams Cantilever support has been designed to resist bending moment and shear.
Designed for lateral stability of beam.
Designed to meet allowable span depth ratio.
Long span beams Torsional rigidity of beam has been checked.
Designed for lateral restraint of beams.
Designed for support and member connections.
Designed to meet allowable span depth ratio.
Transfer beams Designed for torsional capacity
Designed for shear capacity
Designed for all relevant upper floor loads on the beam
Designed for lateral restraint of beam
Flat slabs/plates Appropriate model used for analysis
Span/depth ratio of slab has been checked.
Adequacy of top and bottom reinforcement throughout slab panel has been
checked.
Designed to resist punching shear from columns.
Openings in slabs, especially near columns, have been designed for.
Torsional rigidity at slab edges has been checked.
Effects of construction loads have been checked.

2011
Engineering drawings Clarity and consistency with the design intent of the architect and
consultants, design bases and calculations, site surveys and investigations.
Complete sections and details.
Consistency with and conformance to the specifications.
Constructability4 and if all construction methods and stages are reflected in
the analysis and design.
Provision of coordination with other disciplines.
Consistency of the revisions and/or amendments to the design basis and
criteria and their compliance with the design intent and client
requirement.
Structural calculations Consistency of design loading with the criteria and the equipment
supplier/vendors data, finishes, plus the possible construction method
requirements, effects of foreseen temporary works and activities during
construction, among others.
Usage of correct wind/seismic load parameters for analysis and design with
regards to the structures lateral load resisting framing system, seismic
zone, material type and structural framing plan or vertical irregularity.
Seismic load analysis if requiring P-delta effects and/or dynamic method as
to height limitations and irregularities.
Load combinations and special load combinations as required and
prescribed by the code.
Structural geometric model for completeness of the structures vertical load
carrying elements and for consistency with the basis and criteria.
Member and element checks such as minimum reinforcements and details,
strength requirements, slenderness effects, joints forces checks and
connection requirements.
Structural deformation Drift limitation of the structures (service and ultimate state).
and displacement Size of movement joints or expansion joints.
checks Girder and secondary beam deflections.
Deformation compatibility on non-lateral load resisting elements.
Stability/factors of Overall and local structural stability against overturning and sliding.
safety check Compliance with factors of safety for miscellaneous requirements by
clients.
Earth retaining Structure has been designed to resist overturning, sliding and bearing
structures capacity failure.
Structure has been designed to resist slip circle failure.
Structure has been designed for water pressure acting on it.
Adequate surcharge load has been taken into account in design.
Embedment into ground for stability has been designed for in cantilevered
structures.
4
Constructability is a project management technique for reviewing construction processes from start to finish during the pre-
construction phrase.

2011
13. Certification
Upon completion of the review, the reviewer shall issue a certificate stating that a design peer review
has been completed. This certification shall be submitted to the Office of the Building Official in
compliance to one of the requirements for the issuance of building permit.
Table 2: Sample of Certification
Project Name: Location:

Owner/Client: EOR:
CERTIFICATION
I, _______________________________, being a registered civil engineer, hereby certify that I have in

accordance with the local Building Office Regulations carried out an evaluation, analysis and review of
the plans of the building works attached, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, the plans do not
show any inadequacy in the key structural elements of the building to be erected or affected by the
building works carried out in accordance with those plans.
In arriving at my conclusion, I confirm that I have reviewed and evaluated the design in accordance
with the ASEP Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures:
a. Building codes adopted in the design;

b. Design loading (including wind load, construction load or dynamic load, if applicable) checked;
c. Standards and specifications of structural materials checked;
d. Structural design concept ascertained and the key structural elements identified;
e. Key structural elements including foundation system has been checked;
f. Stability of the structural frame determined;
g. Structural/Seismic detailing has been checked;
h. Others (please specify) _________________________________________________________
I append my review report (comprising _____ pages) as well as the analysis and design calculations.
Name & Signature of Peer Reviewer: Name & Address of Company:
PICE/ASEP Specialist No.: Contact Details

PRC Registration/License No.: Telephone/Mobile Number:
Validity: E-mail:
PTR No./Date/Place of Issue: Website:

2011
14. References
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc., Recommended Guidelines on Structural
Design Peer Review of Structures. ASEP Committee on Design Peer Review 1999-2000
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc., National Structural Code of the Philippines
1992, Volume 1, Fourth Edition
2001, Volume 1, Fifth Edition
2010, Volume 1, Sixth Edition
American Council of Engineering Companies of Connecticut – Structural Engineers Coalition.

Recommended Guidelines for Performing an Independent Structural Engineering Review in the State of
Connecticut. Document SEC/CT301-08.
American Concrete Institute, ACI 318 (2008). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-08) and Commentary.
American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7 (2005), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05).
American Society of Civil Engineers, Ethics: Guidelines for Professional Conduct for Civil Engineers.
January 2008
Autodesk, Inc., Revit Structure 2011 User’s Guide.
Computer and Structures, Inc., Analysis Reference Manual
CTBUH 8th World Congress 2008, The Role of Peer Reviewer in the Foundation Design of the World’s
Tallest Buildings, Baker, Kiefer, Nicoson and Fahoum.
D. Matthew Stuart, Project Specific Peer Review Guidelines – A Professor Odyssey, Structure Magazine
August 2010.
International Code Council, Uniform Building Code 1997.
IPENZ Practice Note 02, Peer Review – Reviewing the work of another Engineer.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. 2010/05, Guidelines for Performance-Based
Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, Version 1.0, November 2010.

2011
15. Participants List
ASEP Committee on Design Review 2009-2010

Chairman
Ernesto F. Cruz
Advisers
Ronaldo S. Ison
Adam C. Abinales
Anthony Vladimir C. Pimentel
Members
Alden C. Ong
Marie Christine G. Danao
Edmondo D. San Jose
ASEP Board of Directors

Director1
Director2
Director3
.
.
.
Others
Secretary1
Engineer1
ACO Consulting Office
Engineer1
Meinhardt Philippines, Inc.

2011

ASEP PeerReviewGuide PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

ASEP PeerReviewGuide PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc.

Committee on Design Peer Review (2009-2011)

About this Guidelines

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 2011

Published April 2011

Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc.

Telephone Nos. : +63 (2) 410-0483

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures ii

ABOUT THIS GUIDELINES ................................................................................................................... II

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ IV

3. OBJECTIVES OF THE DESIGN PEER REVIEW ...................................................................................3

4. ETHICS OF PEER REVIEW .............................................................................................................5

7. MINIMUM REPORT REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................................................9

8. DESIGN REVIEW CONFLICT RESOLUTION.................................................................................... 13

9. SEQUENCE OF REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 14

10. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF REVIEW ............................................................................... 15

11. INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED TO THE DESIGN REVIEWER ................................................ 18

12. ITEMS TO BE REVIEWED ........................................................................................................ 20

13. CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................... 23

14. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 24

15. PARTICIPANTS LIST................................................................................................................ 25

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures iii

TABLE 1: ITEMS TO BE REVIEWED CHECKLIST ..........................................................................................................................20

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures iv

ASEP Design Peer Review Committee 2009 – 2011

Cover image/layout by: Bill San Jose

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures v

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures vi

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 1

 Maintenance of highly ethical and professional standards in the practice of engineering

These objectives are focused on these three major areas:

 Codes and Standards

The Committee on Design Peer Review (2009-2011) is composed of the following:

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 2

3. Objectives of the Design Peer Review

 To define implementing matrix of all structures subject to practical independent review.

 To promote professional ethics in the conduct of independent or peer review.

Expected Results of Design Reviews

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 3

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 4

4. Ethics of Peer Review

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 5

The structures to be reviewed shall be as follows:

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 6

12. Resorts structures housing.

16. Building or structure that has changed its character of occupancy.

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 7

The independent or peer reviewer shall have the following qualifications:

4. Registered CE and SE of engineering consulting companies or corporations duly registered abroad in

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 8

7. Minimum Report Requirements

1. List of the documents on which the review was based.

2. Building Code on which the peer review was based.

3. Methodology and assumptions of the review.

5. Items to be subsequently reviewed by others (e.g. contractor-designed items).

7. Outstanding items/unresolved issues.

8. Results, findings, conclusions and recommendations of the review.

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 9

Terms of Review Procedure and Methodology to be used

Recommended Guidelines on Structural Design Peer Review of Structures 10

Mark-up and Comments

The reviewer shall make comments as follows:

 Use yellow pen to mark items found to be in compliance.