×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

structual plans vs steel placing plans

structual plans vs steel placing plans

structual plans vs steel placing plans

(OP)
If the steel shop drawings as been approved for field use, do they override the structual drawings?

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

No.  Although structural answers to RFI's could modify both.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto:  KISS
Motivation:  Don't ask

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

In my limited experience - the shops don't supercede the structural drawings, but if you approve something that doesn't work or needs to be changed someone is going to ask why.

I've had cases where the architect changed dimensions on me after I sent shops back to him and it caused some problems.  It was
on him, not us, but the point is that they build from the shops so even though, technically, the CD's are the actual contract it's very important to make sure that the shops are complete and accurate.

I'm sure others have a similar note, but our shop drwawimg stamp has a note that says approval of the shops doesn't alleviate the contractor from his responsibility to follow the contract documents.

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

Shop drawing once approved always supercede the structural plans, no matter what is on the approval stamp. This is because the steel is fabricated and erected in accordance with the approved shops, not the structural drawings.

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

DRC,

I disagree.  While shop drawings may be approved as per the engineering company, they should never, ever supercede the structural drawings, which have been reviewed and stamped by a PE.  If there is a discrepancy between the two, then it is the responsibility of the EOR to alleviate the situation.  Of course, then the question is why the shop drawings were approved by the EOR if there were any discrepancies to begin with, but that's a whole different battle in and of itself.

As an inspector, which if I'm reading correct is what brownbagg is, their job is to make sure that the project specifics conform to any and all construction documents, including shop drawings, structural drawings, specifications, and if it's referenced, codes (I have seen cases where on the reinforcing notes they state that the rebar laps must be in accordance with ACI 318, not stating an actual length of overlap).  As such, if there is a discrepancy between any of those mentioned above, or if something is really unclear, a call should be made to the EOR for clarification.

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

Fabrication shop drawings and erections drawings represent the final clarification of the structural drawings.  On nearly every project the shop drawings will clarify connection details and actual dimensions.  Clarification maybe communicated by field verifications, rfi's, etc.  Rarely is this information updated on revised contract drawings.  So ultimately the shop drawings represent the most correct information.  The EOR must verify the accuracy of the information on the shop drawings and erection drawings and that changes remain structurally adequate.    Ideally this should be clearly documented.   

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

The custom may vary with location, and certainly from country to country.  My approach has always been to define this precedence in the project specifications.  The approval of connection details would normally be considered final for capacity, provided proper fit is achieved.  I suppose this may vary when the connection design is the responsibility of another engineer, but I have never worked in that environment.  Dimensions are the responsibility of the fabricator, and normally receive only a cursory check by the EOR.

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

Shop drawings do not supercede structural plans. Shop drawing review is an aid to assist the contractor only. Shop drawings are reviewed by the EOR, not approved. There is no guarantee that everything will be caught during the review process.

Shop drawings are generally not part of the sealed construction document set. Any changes generated by the shop drawing review should be documented through an RFI or ASI and passed onto the inspectors. Any changes made in the detailing by the fabricator are not assumed to be approved if they were not caught during the review. Assuming approval is a good way to create serious problems (remember the Kansas City Hyatt).  

With the exception of PT slabs, I would just as soon have it so the inspectors do not have access to the shop drawings in the field- they should review off the sealed plans, SKs, memos, RFIs...


 

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

You might want to read up on the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse in Kansas City many years ago.  Basically - it was some variation of what you are asking about that caused the problem.

Seems engineer specfied one design, shop changed it and said engineer approved it, yet engineer says he never really saw the change.  Finger pointing galore...

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

As far as which fabricated piece goes where, yes, the field guy gets his info off the erection drawings.

Now, whose responsibility is it to make sure the erection drawings are correct? For the sake of his own liability the detailer must have a paper trail as to why there are differences from the engineering drawings to the detail drawings and that those changes are from the hand of the EOR.

We have had many discussions here at our office about where the liability would fall if there were an issue with something changed at the shop drawing review stage (but not actually issued in a bulletin) and there was some significant field issue.  

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

This is the reason why some large west coast structural firms are now refusing to review shop drawings.  They're afraid of gaining liability by "approving" shop drawings and aren't paid enough to fully review the drawings.

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

as the EOR you will be blamed for any failure regardless if you reviewed the shops or not. Lawyers will blame everybody and let the judge sort it out. That guarantees that the guilty party will be summoned and that the attorneys will get maximum fees. In court it will be your responsibility to defend yourself either way. Might as well just review them to help the process along...

The fact is that most construction plans have significantly more information provided than the shops - which are really done to provide fabrication level details only. The entire collection of plans, shops, RFI's, field orders, construction meeting minutes etc. should be used as a whole and it is up to the construction manager / resident engineer to make sure that it all fits together properly.  

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

I don't suppose it is appropriate or relevant to the OP's q, but after reading Gumps comments and having seen some similar instances I have to ask, when did we (EOR's)get this way?  Site superintendents are stretched to the absolute limit these days, and I am not convinced they check fit, let alone any dimensions.  I also doubt the GC's project manager is checking things closely until there is a problem and then the first question is, "who's fault or who's paying?"  All of our EOR stamps clearly state that we are not responsible for dimensional problems and now some engineers don't even want to review shop drawings for fear of liability.  Building Inspectors don't review shop drawings, because they always have the deepest pockets of anyone in any building project.  Who's checking what?

I always thought engineering was not just the design, but also included assisting our clients to put all the parts together.  What happened?  Is it us or just the law?  I do think we are partly to blame.  We claim, "I am not getting paid enough," charge more and do the job correctly.  If you lose a bid to the guy that does 50% of the job, that might not be a bad thing.  Maybe someday those owners seeking the lowball prices will figure out the reality of those bids, I do have my doubts, but maybe.  Risk and legal problems are proportional to the amout of effort put forth into our projects.

Brad

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

In my opinion the structural drawings always govern unless modified in writing. How would the inspector know if the last set of comments were incorporated in the field set of shop drawings? How many times have you marked up a set of shop drawings and asked for a resubmittal only to find that the detailer didn't fix the last set of comments?

Worst problem that I have ever seen on a job was a transfer beam that was designed for 3#5 hoops at some spacing. The shop drawings only had 1#5. The review of the shop drawings in the office missed it. The inspector used the shop drawings to inspect the beam. Beam cracked but didn't collapse. Very costly repair. Then came the lawyers. Ugly and dangerous situation.

GC's don't verify anything on most jobs. They hire subs and sit in the trailer and shuffle paper. If something goes wrong the lawyers come in and make lots of money and everyone else involved gets hosed. Brad805 I guess I am getting too old but I think this is capitalism gone wild. Anything for money and damn the commitment to quality. If you want to go old school you simply won't get any work. And on that happy note Merry Christmas to all.

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

Our shop drawing stamp notes;
'The endorsement of our examinations (of the drawing) does not in any way constitute an engineering instruction under contract'.

Whether that would stand up in court is another thing.

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

WOW apsix, that is some legal speak mumbo jumbo if I have ever heard it. Not your fault or anything, probably a lawyer or your E and O insurance company told you to put up with it. I translate that as, "We looked at these drawings, but not really that much... Uhhmmmm, looks pretty good though. Proceed with caution."

I was "raised" to never say INSPECT but say OBSERVE when on site, and shop drawing stamps should say REVIEWED not APPROVED. In my continuing ed literature from my E and O insurance company they state this, and they give an example of a shop drawing stamp that is pretty similar to ones I have seen throughout my career. If any of you have E and O insurance I encourage you to ask them about liability education, mine gives discounts for doing home study that is well worth the time and really makes you think about all of the legal aspects.

FWIW- this is a similar good thread:
thread507-235146: Shop Drawing review protocol


A little old but still pretty good:
http://www.mgwelbel.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=M4lEkchRCYo%3D&tabid=83

From that article:
Shopping For A Stamp: There is a wide variety of opinion and practice on the shop drawing stamp text. Some firms have repeated the AIA language from A201, ¶ 4.2.7. This makes the stamp a bit cumbersome. If your contract is clear, you should not need to restate the A201 language. Your shop drawing stamp should reflect your limited role ("reviewed in accordance with General Conditions ¶ 4.2.7," or "revise and resubmit"). You should avoid words like "approved" or "accepted" (not to mention "blessed" or "guaranteed").

 

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans


LEGAL CASES: I have known good firms, through seemingly no fault of their own, that have been drawn into lawsuits, and their E and O company settled, for reasons so far out of their control it was ridiculous. I have always lived under the assumption that any project with my name on it is a potential liability. This should be considered in your decision of which architects, owners, contractors, fabricators, even other MEP engineers to get involved with. They can all drag you into a mess!

So if you have a new fabricator you have never heard of or worked with, you have to be that much more vigilant during your review. The good ones will help you catch your mistakes before it gets built. Mistakes on paper that are caught are so much better than after steel is cut or worse already erected!





 

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

The wording on our stamp, if we have no comment, is;

'Review complete'

It implies we have nothing to comment on, but we haven't approved it as such.

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

Here's some text from AISC's Code of Standard Practice.  Note the highlighted text in blue below:

4.4. Approval
Except as provided in Section 4.5, the Shop and Erection Drawings shall be
submitted to the Owner's Designated Representatives for Design and
Construction for review and approval. These drawings shall be returned to the
Fabricator within 14 calendar days. Approved Shop and Erection Drawings
shall be individually annotated by the Owner's Designated Representatives for
Design and Construction as either approved or approved subject to corrections
noted. When so required, the Fabricator shall subsequently make the corrections
noted and furnish corrected Shop and Erection Drawings to the Owner's
Designated Representatives for Design and Construction.

Commentary:
As used in this Code, the 14-day allotment for the return of Shop and Erection
Drawings is intended to represent the Fabricator's portal-to-portal time. The
intent in this Code is that, in the absence of information to the contrary in the
Contract Documents, 14 days may be assumed for the purposes of bidding,
contracting and scheduling. A submittal schedule is commonly used to facilitate
the approval process.
If a Shop or Erection Drawing is approved subject to corrections noted,
the Owner's Designated Representative for Design may or may not require that
it be re-submitted for record purposes following correction. If a Shop or
Erection Drawing is not approved, revisions must be made and the drawing resubmitted
until approval is achieved.


4.4.1. Approval of the Shop and Erection Drawings, approval subject to corrections
noted and similar approvals shall constitute the following:
(a) Confirmation that the Fabricator has correctly interpreted the Contract
Documents in the preparation of those submittals;
(b) Confirmation that the Owner's Designated Representative for Design has
reviewed and approved the Connection details shown on the Shop and
Erection Drawings and submitted in accordance with Section 3.1.2, if
applicable; and,
(c) Release by the Owner's Designated Representatives for Design and
Construction for the Fabricator to begin fabrication using the approved
submittals.

Such approval shall not relieve the Fabricator of the responsibility for either the
accuracy of the detailed dimensions in the Shop and Erection Drawings or the
general fit-up of parts that are to be assembled in the field.

The Fabricator shall determine the fabrication schedule that is necessary to meet the requirements of the contract.


Commentary:
When considering the current language in this Section, the Committee sought
language that would parallel the practices of CASE. In CASE Document 962,
CASE indicates that when the design of some element of the primary structural
system is left to someone other than the Structural Engineer of Record, "...such
elements, including connections designed by others, should be reviewed by the
Structural Engineer of Record. He [or she] should review such designs and
details, accept or reject them and be responsible for their effects on the primary
structural system." Historically, this Code has embraced this same concept.
From the inception of this Code, AISC and the industry in general have
recognized that only the Owner's Designated Representative for Design has all
the information necessary to evaluate the total impact of Connection details on
the overall structural design of the project. This authority has traditionally been
exercised during the approval process for Shop and Erection Drawings. The
Owner's Designated Representative for Design has thus retained responsibility
for the adequacy and safety of the entire structure since at least the 1927 edition
of this Code.

 

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

The onus is on the Structural Engineer of Record to ensure that the shop drawings achieve what is required for a safe and functioning structure.  The responsibility cannot be passed on to others.

Unfortunately, this may lead to arguments between the EOR and the fabricator's engineer about what is acceptable and what is not.  It is best that the EOR make his requirements abundantly clear in the contract documents prior to tender so that this type of confrontation can be avoided.

In the final analysis, it is the EOR who takes responsibility for design.

BA

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

(OP)
so take the question one more step. do you inspect from the shop drawing or the structural drawing?

ICC special inspector, Structural masonry, Reinforced concrete.  

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

If the EOR has properly checked and approved the shop drawings then this should be a moot point.

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

I'm sticking to inspecting off the record set/documents, not the shops. Shops are not generated by the EOR, they are not sealed by anyone and may not give you the whole picture. If you need extra plate field welded to members, headed studs, anything that may involve more than one trade... These will not necessarily show up on the shops.

Engineers generally have months to prepare structural plans, shops are drawn in weeks and the review is done in days. Some structural steel sets can have hundreds of sheets. We catch whatever we can, but it is unrealistic to think that 100% of items will be caught during this review.



A matter of semantics: We never "approve" shop drawings. Architects can approve wall finishes and flooring if they want to, we "review" structural shop drawings. Any engineer who "approves" shops is nuts and their insurance company is going to have kittens.
 

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

hawkaz - I know what you mean about "approve" but per AISC (see my post aboe) they do say "approve" in that you are agreeing, as the EOR, that the shop drawings represent a correct interpretation of your design.

It doesn't suggest that you have checked every dimension and fit-up condition.  The Fabricator/contractor is still responsible for doing what the EOR drawings require no matter what the "approval" or "reviewed" reponse is given.

And no matter what you put on your stamp, as EOR, you are responsible for the design as you detailed it

AND

you are responsible for the adequacy of the connections even if the fabricator designs them.

Per the Hyatt Regency court decision, the EOR can delegate tasks but the EOR cannot delegate final responsibility.

 

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

JAE,
I'm west coast- We design all of the connections ourselves. I'm jealous of east coasters- they do half the work, but get the same fees as us :)




I agree that the contractor/fabricator is still responsible as you noted above- That is the point of this issue. How is the inspector going to identify items that are in conflict between the shops and plans if he is only looking at the shop drawings during the inspection process?

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

hawkaz,

I agree with your point about checking to the structural plans rather than the shop drawings though this doesnt help if there are no connections shown.

In the end, if something does not match the structural drawings I would take a note of it and take it back to the office to check if it was previously agreed or adequate. If I really need to issue a report on site then I will state that it does not match the drawings and will be investigated.

I try to make note of any agreed changes that may have been made to the design from RFIs e.t.c. so I can be prepared for them on site.

A difficult one for which the best solution will be the one which you find works for you.

 

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

csd, AMEN!  

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

Hawkaz- I take offense, I've never delegated the connections. Why should someone else have the fun, and those are MY connections! But having been a specialty engineer a few times on connection design, it is done in Florida some, I don't know the percentage. It can be a pain if the EOR does not give you all of the info you need, and for simple shear connections I think it is lazy- just provide a connection schedule and detail the few unique ones.

Great thread though.

End of the day, its your project in the minds of a lay person (mediator, judge,jury). If we don't all 100% agree on the subject, and its not clear to us, imagine them!!

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

RFI > Structural Plans > Shop Drawings.  End of story.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto:  KISS
Motivation:  Don't ask

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

how about (RFI + design plans + shop drawings / EOR review) x (QC inspection + QA inspection) = end of story

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

cvg,

I think there should be a square root in there somewhere.

a2mfk,

I find it takes just as much of your time to have someone else check the connections anyhow. As the building designer you can get a good feel for where the critical connections are and how varied the results are so you can determine what to design and how many types to design.

I think designing ten different connections where one will do is false economy anyway. You either pay for design and checking time or for labour in the shop.

Anyway, time to log off. Have a merry christmas everyone.

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

The question of delegating connection design has come up before.  My experience is that each shop has it's own preference for shear connections.  You could go through and design all of the connections as end plates, or knife plates and the fabricator will inevitably come back and ask if they can use double angles.  At that point you will become the unreasonable engineer for not allowing a change on simple connections, OR you'll end up designing the double angles (designing the connections twice), or you'll ask the fabricator to submit calcs and end up checking them.  In my mind, the best solution is provide reactions and let the fabricator choose whatever type of connection he wants.

The above is for simple shear connections and braced frame connections. We document all unique connections.  The reason we do this for braced frame connections is similar to the shear connections - there are multiple ways to achieve the connection, why not let the shop do what is easiest and most economical for them.  

 

RE: structual plans vs steel placing plans

EIT- depends on the area of the country I guess, because many shops don't have this capability in-house and they have to hire a specialty engineer. Sometimes I am that guy and I trust me doing it (for the most part;) ), but if I am the EOR I don't know who this may put me in bed with if I delegate it. And like CSD said, I find it can be more work delegating it and then having to check calcs and drawings, sometimes more than once, than if I had just done a schedule and details myself.

But you are right on not knowing what a fabricator will want to do. Having worked for fabricators for a while now, we get some odd requests from time to time on connection design changes that you would have assumed were not economical. Depends on the shop's equipment, set up, labor, current work load, etc....

Another option which we have used to varying success, if its not too much work for us and we can schedule it, we will give them some welding/bolting options and leave it up to them....

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources