ShearwiseproVisit Website →
← Back to blog

Avoid Rework: Peer Review of Structural Calculations for EORs and AHJs

September 5, 2026
Avoid Rework: Peer Review of Structural Calculations for EORs and AHJs

A structural peer review is an independent check of a design's assumptions, load paths, and a representative sample of calculations, performed by a qualified engineer who did not produce the original design. The outcome is acceptance, conditional acceptance with required revisions, or rejection, always documented in a signed report. If you're an engineer of record, build a review-ready package now and plan your response process. If you're a building official, confirm the reviewer's qualifications and independence before the review starts.

TL;DR:

  • Peer review is required mainly for tall, large, or complex buildings, or when unique materials or systems are involved, often triggered by jurisdiction or design complexity.
  • Reviewers must be licensed, experienced engineers with no involvement in the original design, and must disclose conflicts of interest before starting the review.
  • A typical review verifies load paths, member sizing, foundation compatibility, transfer elements, and construction staging stability through sampling selected calculations.
  • Review reports should clearly state acceptance or rejection with actionable revisions, referencing specific documents, pages, and code editions, to prevent delays.
  • Preparing an organized, labeled calculation package with clear summaries and change flags can significantly reduce review cycles and support a smoother permitting process.

Table of Contents

When Is Peer Review of Structural Calculations Required?

Some jurisdictions mandate peer review by code section; others invoke it at the building official's discretion when a design falls outside routine practice. TG-200 from Clark County frames the process as a professional second opinion, with the building official setting the scope rather than the engineer of record. Chicago runs a formal Structural Peer Review Program that applies to specific building categories, with the applicant covering the review cost.

Common triggers for a required or encouraged review include:

  • Buildings exceeding jurisdiction-specific height or floor-area thresholds
  • Performance-based seismic or wind design in place of prescriptive code paths
  • Special or novel structural systems without an established code precedent
  • Alternate materials or methods requests that require additional scrutiny
  • Complex foundation conditions flagged by geotechnical reports

Scope can be full (every calculation and drawing) or limited (lateral system only, or a specific connection type). Confirm scope and expected turnaround with the AHJ before permit submission, since a late-added peer review requirement is one of the most common causes of permit delay.

Who Can Perform a Structural Calculations Review?

The reviewer must be a registered professional engineer with experience in the relevant structural system, and that engineer cannot have any role in the original design. TG-200 requires reviewers to be qualified and independent, and several municipal programs go further by requiring formal registration.

Chicago's program requires a peer reviewer who is registered and approved by the city, meaning the city maintains the pool of eligible reviewers rather than leaving qualification checks to the applicant. Massachusetts guidance describes a similar independent-review structure, where the engineer of record submits calculations to the reviewer for reference while the reviewer produces a separate report back to the AHJ, as outlined in the state's independent structural engineering review guidance.

Key qualification and independence points:

  • Active PE license in the state, plus demonstrated experience with the specific structural system under review
  • No financial, contractual, or supervisory relationship with the design firm
  • Written conflict-of-interest disclosure submitted to the AHJ before review begins
  • Registration or pre-approval (RSPR or equivalent) where the jurisdiction requires it

Pro Tip: If your jurisdiction doesn't publish a registered reviewer list, ask the AHJ directly whether it accepts any independent PE or maintains an informal preferred list. Guessing wrong here can cost you a full resubmittal cycle.

What Does a Structural Calculations Review Checklist Cover?

A reviewer working through calculations and drawings generally moves through the same sequence every time, regardless of project size. Structure Magazine's discussion of peer review in structural engineering practice frames this as risk management that still leaves ultimate design responsibility with the engineer of record. The checklist below reflects that division: the reviewer verifies, the EOR remains accountable.

  1. Load paths and combinations. Confirm gravity, lateral, and uplift loads trace continuously from roof to foundation, with the governing combinations correctly applied per the adopted code edition.
  2. Member sizing and connections. Spot-check beam, column, and shear wall sizing against demand, with particular attention to connection capacity at transfer points.
  3. Foundation compatibility. Verify foundation design matches the geotechnical report's bearing and lateral resistance values, not an assumed default.
  4. Transfer elements. Trace hold-down forces and strap capacities through each level, since discontinuities here are among the most common review findings in wood-frame structures.
  5. Representative independent calculations. Reviewers typically recalculate a sample of members, connections, and critical details rather than every line item in the package.
  6. Construction staging stability. Confirm the design addresses stability at each major construction phase, not just the completed structure.

Pro Tip: Reviewers flag transfer strap and hold-down discontinuities more than almost any other item in wood-frame packages. A lateral loads guide that ties load paths to code sections helps you preempt that comment before it's written.

How Do Reviewers Sample and Verify Calculations?

Reviewers don't recheck every calculation in a submission. Independent verification typically covers a representative fraction of systems, members, and connections, chosen to expose whether the governing assumptions hold across the design rather than to duplicate the entire analysis. That sampling approach is standard practice, not a shortcut, because it targets the calculations most likely to reveal a systemic error.

Sound sampling practice usually includes:

  • Selecting at least one member or connection from each repetitive structural type (typical floor beam, typical shear wall, typical hold-down)
  • Verifying model boundary conditions and load application points against the drawings, not just the numeric outputs
  • Requesting input summaries, software version numbers, and selective printouts so results can be reproduced independently
  • Treating construction staging analysis as a distinct check, separate from the completed-structure model

If your calculation package doesn't include input summaries alongside output printouts, expect a comment asking for them. Reviewers can't sanity-check what they can't see.

What Belongs in a Peer Review Report and Certificate of Compliance?

A peer review report needs to stand on its own as a permit document, readable by the AHJ without requiring a follow-up call to either engineer. NYC's Buildings Bulletin 2013-014 specifies that the report state a clear acceptance or rejection, and most jurisdictions follow that same logic even without an identical bulletin.

A complete report generally includes:

  • Identification of every document reviewed, with drawing and calculation revision dates
  • The code edition and any local amendments applied during review
  • The defined scope of review (full or limited) and any explicit exclusions
  • Specific findings, tied to drawing sheets or calculation pages
  • Required revisions, stated as actionable items rather than general concerns
  • A concluding statement of acceptance, conditional acceptance, or rejection

Most AHJs want an unqualified acceptance statement before issuing a permit. Conditional language ("acceptable pending revision of Item 4") usually triggers a second review cycle rather than closing the file, so resolve conditions before resubmittal rather than leaving them open. The certificate of compliance itself carries the reviewer's PE seal, signature, and date, and should reference the specific report it accompanies rather than standing as a generic form.

How Do You Respond to Peer Review Comments?

A disorganized response is the single most common cause of an unnecessary second review cycle. Taylor & Francis's guidance on responding to reviewer comments applies directly here: every comment needs an answer, and disagreement needs a justification, not a dismissal.

  1. Mirror the reviewer's numbering exactly. A response letter organized in a different order than the comments forces the reviewer to hunt for answers, which slows their read.
  2. Answer every comment, even the easy ones. Skipped comments read as ignored comments, whether or not that was the intent.
  3. Choose revision or justification deliberately. If you're keeping the original approach, back it with a code reference or calculation excerpt rather than a general assurance.
  4. Cite exact locations for every change. Reference sheet numbers and calculation page numbers so the reviewer can verify each revision in seconds.
  5. Build a response matrix. A simple table mapping comment number, response, and revision location does more to speed the second review than any narrative letter.
  6. Reconcile revision dates across the whole set. A streamlined submittal approach keeps stamped sheets and calculation revisions dated consistently, which avoids a reviewer questioning which version is current.

Coordination services that centralize documents and track comments through resubmittal, as described in plan check and resubmittal coordination guidance, exist specifically because this step goes wrong often enough to justify a dedicated process.

How Long Should Reviewers Keep Peer Review Records?

NYC's bulletin sets explicit retention expectations for peer-reviewed calculations, and even jurisdictions without a stated period benefit from the same discipline. Reviewer calculations, the final report, and the certificate of compliance should all be retained well beyond permit issuance, since disputes and code-compliance questions can surface years later.

  • Archive the final approved drawing and calculation set with a clear index showing exactly which revision was reviewed
  • Keep both PDF and native calculation files, since a PDF alone can't always answer a follow-up question about an input value
  • Label files with review dates and report reference numbers, not just project names
  • Store reviewer-supplied documents separately from EOR working files to avoid version confusion later

What Does a Review-Ready Calculation Package Look Like?

A calculation package that speeds review shares a few traits regardless of project size or jurisdiction. Reviewers consistently respond well to organized wall lines, labeled load tables, and a short summary page that states what changed since the last submission.

  • Clear, consistent headings that match the drawing set's naming convention
  • A one-page summary flagging revised items so the reviewer doesn't have to hunt for changes
  • Exportable PDF calculations paired with reproducible input summaries
  • Version labels on every page, not just the cover sheet

Engineers using ShearWise Pro can review a sample report and walk through the tutorial library to see this kind of formatting in a real shear-wall package before building their own. A lateral analysis summary guide covers the specific summary format reviewers expect to see up front.

The Real Trade-Off Behind Peer Review Timing

Most engineers treat peer review as a compliance hurdle to survive, not a design tool to use early. That's backwards. The biggest lever for faster permitting isn't a more exhaustive checklist. It's timing the review before the design is locked, so comments land while changes are cheap. Exhaustive independent recalculation of every member sounds thorough, but it isn't what reviewers actually do, and it isn't what protects a permit schedule. Transparent documentation and an honest response matrix do more work than defensive over-engineering ever will.

— Evalin

A Practical Next Step for Organizing Your Review Package

Getting to a clean acceptance statement starts with a package that answers questions before the reviewer has to ask them. The platform organizes shear wall calculations, wall lines, openings, full-height segments, hold-down forces, transfer straps, and story drift checks into labeled, versioned PDF reports reviewers move through quickly, instead of scattered spreadsheets and hand calculations that generate extra review cycles.

ShearWise Pro

That said, ShearWise Pro organizes and documents your calculations. It doesn't replace a qualified, independent peer reviewer, and it never claims to. What it does is give you a review-ready starting point for 1-story and 2-story wood-framed projects, with a sample report format you can inspect before committing. Try the shear wall calculator with a free trial that includes three watermarked reports, and see whether a cleaner package shortens your next review cycle.

Where to Find the Underlying Code Language

Sources