Architectural Flashing Supply
Start a Quote
Tier 6 · Architectural Specification and Engineering

Peer review and constructability

What a peer review is and who may do it, how constructability is defined, the edge-metal tests, joint intervals and metal movement a reviewer checks a flashing detail against, and a worked review of a constructed parapet run with its defects and fixes.

4 lessons · about 42 min · 11 diagrams · 0 videos

Version 1.0.0

Builds on these modules

Related Academy lessons

Lessons

0 of 4 complete

  1. Lesson 1 · 11 min · 12 slides · 8 questions

    Peer review and constructability: principles and terminology

    What a peer review is under NIBS Guideline 3, what makes it independent, how CII defines constructability, and the ladder of checks a flashing detail passes before AFS fabricates it: designer, contractor QC, approval, AFS shop confirmation.

    You will be able to: Define peer review, independent peer review and constructability with their sources, name each step of the review ladder on a flashing job, and state what review does not do.

    Not startedStart →

  2. Lesson 2 · 11 min · 12 slides · 8 questions

    Peer review and constructability: materials, standards and design constraints

    Edge-metal tests RE-1 to RE-3 and the building code, expansion-joint intervals in a federal guide spec, thermal movement by metal from the AFS register, dissimilar metals, and where AFS's piece length, flat width and bend limits sit against all of them.

    You will be able to: Name what a reviewer measures a flashing detail against: the edge-metal tests in the building code, joint intervals in a federal guide spec, each metal's expansion, dissimilar-metal contact, and AFS's fabrication limits, with the source of each value.

    Not startedStart →

  3. Lesson 3 · 10 min · 12 slides · 6 questions

    Peer review and constructability: methods and worked application

    A six-step review method, then a constructed 62.5 ft parapet run worked through it: how many pieces, where the joints go and how far each span moves, why one cap is too wide, and why the narrower 40 in cap still fails in 16 ga.

    You will be able to: Apply a six-step documented review method to a constructed parapet coping run, recording the documents, assumptions, units and evidence for four findings: piece count, joints and movement, flat width and thickness.

    Not startedStart →

  4. Lesson 4 · 10 min · 12 slides · 6 questions

    Peer review and constructability: defects, verification and case study

    The defect families a review finds, why attachments to tested edge metal matter, the verification steps of mock-up, preparatory, initial and follow-up phases, and a constructed case where a lightning conductor is clamped through a coping cap.

    You will be able to: Diagnose a plausible edge-metal defect, name the defect families a review looks for, work through the verification steps from mock-up to follow-up inspection, and document the finding with evidence and corrective options.

    Not startedStart →

Practical task

Review one coping or edge-flashing detail of your own choosing (or the constructed parapet run from lesson 3) as a second reviewer would: collect and date the documents, mark the interfaces, check each number against its source, log the findings with evidence, and write how each is closed.

Hand in

  • A decision rationale: the documents the detail depends on, each with its edition or date, and who reviews what and at which stage
  • A marked-up sketch of the section showing flat width, hem return, end flange, cleat and fastener, joint location and isolation points
  • An assumptions sheet with units: material, thickness, run length, piece length, splice lap, temperature swing, each labelled as from a document, from AFS limits or assumed
  • A finding log with location, reason, evidence, severity and owner for at least four findings, including one number check against AFS limits and one joint-and-movement calculation
  • A defect analysis for one edge-metal finding: what failed, the evidence, the corrective options and how the fix goes back up the review ladder

Rubric

CriterionMeets the standard when
SourcesEvery number names the document or AFS limit it comes from, and any federal guide-spec value is labelled as a guide-spec value, not code.
MethodThe review follows the six steps in order and nothing is judged by look alone.
CalculationsPiece count and movement are worked with the inputs, units and assumptions shown, and rounded the way the lessons round them.
FindingsEach finding has a location, a reason, evidence, a severity and an owner, and none is closed without a dated fix.
BoundariesThe packet leaves wind and structural sign-off to the engineer of record and gives no instruction for working at heights.

Module quiz

10 questions drawn from a bank of 28; a new set each attempt. Pass mark 85%.

1. NIBS Guideline 3 says enclosure performance cannot be verified until when?
2. Which metal has the lowest expansion coefficient of the five in the AFS material register?
3. What makes a peer review independent in NIBS Guideline 3?
4. What must happen before AFS fabricates a profile?
5. In UFGS 01 33 00, who checks and approves each item before it is submitted?
6. Using the lesson's reading of the guide-spec paragraph, how many joints does the 62.5 ft run need at the 40 ft interval, laid out from one end, with the end-stretch test made once and the joints then spaced evenly?
7. What is the most AFS can make in one piece, per the AFS limits register?
8. Across 40 ft and the teaching swing, how does zinc movement compare with galvanized?
9. How does CII define constructability?
10. Which of these does SPRI list as a possible effect of attaching something to edge metal?