What Happens When a Fire Safety Engineer Peer Reviews a Design?
A peer review is more than a second set of eyes.
Fire engineering designs can involve complex assumptions, calculations, modelling and engineering judgement. An independent review provides an opportunity to critically examine the proposed approach and determine whether the methodology, analysis and conclusions are technically appropriate and adequately supported.
Depending on the project, this may include reviewing:
- The proposed fire safety strategy and Performance Solutions
- Design assumptions and fire scenarios
- Relevant calculations, modelling and analysis
- The application of the NCC, Australian Standards and other guidance
- Whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence presented
What is a peer review?
The Australian Fire Engineering Guidelines (AFEG) uses the broader term third party review, which includes peer reviews and specialist reviews.
A peer review is undertaken by an accredited fire engineer, or someone with equivalent competency and experience, who is independent of the project and project participants.
Importantly, peer review is not simply about whether another engineer agrees with the design. The role of the peer reviewer is not to redesign the project, but to provide an independent technical assessment.
Fire engineering often involves expert judgement, and different engineers may adopt different approaches. The reviewer should instead consider whether the proposed approach is technically sound, appropriately justified and adequately documented.
What does the reviewer look for?
AFEG describes peer reviews as a constructive process that will ultimately protect the community be in best interest for the end users of the building.
AFEG recommends that the reviewer should ensure the decisions made in the PBDB process have been followed in the analysis and conclusions and carry out calculation checks as appropriate to determine the quality of the analysis.
A calculation may be mathematically correct but still rely on an inappropriate assumption. Similarly, computer modelling may not adequately support a design if the scenarios, inputs or acceptance criteria have not been properly justified.
The reviewer therefore considers both how the analysis was undertaken and whether the chosen approach was appropriate.
Review outcomes
The peer review report needs to be explicit and constructive and will generally identify one of four outcomes.
- The report adequately documents the evaluation of the design and supports the Performance Solution
- The trial design is acceptable but further analysis or justification is required
- The design or analysis strategy is flawed.
- The PBDB process has not been adequately undertaken and the design is unsound or not sufficiently justified.
A deficiency in documentation does not necessarily mean the underlying design is unacceptable, but it may mean further work is required by the original engineer to demonstrate that it is appropriate.
Conclusion
The role of the peer reviewer is to provide an independent technical assessment of the proposed approach, not to develop an alternative design.
A constructive peer review should clearly identify concerns and explain why they require further consideration, allowing the original fire engineer to respond or revise the design where appropriate.
Peer review can be particularly valuable for complex or unusual fire engineering designs. Identifying issues during design can be far easier and less costly than discovering them after construction has commenced or the building has been completed.
Ultimately, the goal is public safety and the safety of the end users of the building.
For a concise and unbiased fire engineering peer review contact CJK Fire & Safety.