In Name Only: Peer Review of Performance-Based Engineering Projects

Abstract eng:
With the ever-increasing use of performance-based structural engineering, particularly in the field of earthquake engineering, the peer review process has become almost universally relied on to ensure that performance-based seismic designs meet the intent -- rather than the letter -- of the building code. Because prescriptive requirements to ensure ductility and good behavior are being waived based on the results of performance-based analyses, and because the typical jurisdictional plan checker is unable to verify if any particular design meets the intent of the building code, public safety is increasingly being entrusted to peer review panels, which are charged with providing the necessary checks and balances in the design process but who rarely take any responsibility for the designs. Unfortunately, the peer review process is highly variable and in many incarnations has numerous flaws, leading to inconsistent levels of effort and inconsistent reliability. Through several case histories, this paper addresses the problems inherent in the peer review process and points out how each of the highlighted peer reviews derailed, failed to adhere to engineering fundamentals, and/or failed to maintain objectivity. The paper also presents a number of suggestions that, if adopted, will help reduce problems in the peer review process, including addressing the independence of the review, the scope and assignment of the peer reviewer, limitations of liability, access to computer models, and funding responsibility for the peer review.

• Export as: BibTeX | MARC | MARCXML | DC | EndNote | NLM | RefWorks
• Add to your basket