×
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

Shop Drawing Review

Shop Drawing Review

Shop Drawing Review

(OP)
When doing shop drawing review, specifically steel shop drawings, do you guys check dimensions or leave that for the architect to verify? Or do you even expect the architect to look at the drawings? I have had some architect say that checking the structural shop drawings is my responsibility. When it comes to dimensions of I am finding that I may note the architect to verify dimensions (say around a stair or a slab opening) only to have the shop drawings come back a month later with the same questions in regards to dimensions I asked the architect to verify.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

For liability reasons, I may add a note for the contractor and architect to verify dimensions. In reality, I know that this won't happen. My butt is covered, but that doesn't keep me out of trouble.

Whoever said that architects are basically cake decorators is correct. The level of competence and effort that I have seen from architects over the last decade has dropped significantly.

You should provide clear dimensions to all beams and grids. If these are correct, then the shops should be easy. If my drawings are good, I'll spot check a few dimensions on the shops.

If there are specific areas that should be indicated by the architect - a slab opening or elevator size, I would direct that specific area to the architect (assuming they don't have it dimensioned).

RE: Shop Drawing Review

Read through AISC's Code of Standard practice - specifically sections 3.3. and Section 4.

From those sections the Designers (Owner's Designated Representative for Design) are responsible for providing to the contractor a set of documents that have sufficient information to build from. (section 3.3 and its commentary).

So if the contractor (i.e. the fabricator that creates the steel shop drawings) has a problem determining a dimension, or there is a discrepancy on the A/E plans, then it is up to the A/E "team" to help determine the answer.

I would see it as both the architect and structural engineer need to work together to determine the correct value.
Who specifically does this can be vague at times (thus your post) but sometimes the dimension can be based on architectural needs (i.e. a corridor minimum width) or structural needs (alignment of collectors, braces, etc.) and that can determine perhaps who figures it out.

However, AISC does suggest that the dimensional fit-up of the parts is solely the fabricator's responsibility.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Shop Drawing Review

I typically note for "ARCH TO VERIFY" on dimensions that are not specifically called out in arch drawings. I check slab edges and openings in the shop drawings compared to arch and structural, this is a good opportunity to ensure that all the slab edges are coordinated. If the fabricator asks for a dimension that is provided in the arch drawings,I note which sheet it is shown on. This helps when there is later a discrepancy because I can point to the exact sheet where I pulled the information from.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

Why not call the Architect or his project coordinator and work with him to provide the dimension? Tell him that you need more info to determine the required dimension for the contractor.

After all, you may need to add a tolerance dimension to the architectural dimension.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

We do, but our stamps still note that the contractor is ultimately responsible. The problem that has arisen over the years, is nobody seems to want to check them and when things go wrong we end up in the middle of a discussion about how or whom should fix something. Years ago i would see the site superintendent siting in his job shack checking dimensions and reviewing drawings, but now that same guy is running several jobs and does not seem to have time.

The arch review of structural steel shops borders on being pointless in my view. This type of job gets assigned to whatever tech they have on staff and his/her experience does not always add a lot to the process.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

I think that any dimension that CAN be figured out from the drawings is the responsibility of the contractor.
Overall dimensional fit-up (how the pieces fit together and have consistency in their dimension) also is the responsibility of the contractor.

But any dimension that cannot be figured out from the drawings is the design team's responsibility and should be coordinated.
As a structural engineer, there may be dimensions that I don't care about but others that are critical to our design.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Shop Drawing Review

(OP)
JAE, funny about the AISC COSP. I have seen many drawings from large well known engineering companies that show no dimensions on their drawings. Not one single dimension. They leave that up to the architect.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

Since we are an A/E firm, most dimensioning ends up in the E's lap, primarily because the architects are not particularly good at figuring out the sorts of details which the steel guy is intestested in. Especially in and around stairs. Slab edges and edge support always seem to need attention.

On shop drawings, I'm primarily looking for the proper understanding of concepts, not necessarily dimensional content. Where I know there are gaps in the drawing info, I'll make sure the steel guy's interpretation is correct. The best scenario is to have the detailer submit an RFI to the architect. Right now I'm dealing with a job where the detailer has just guessed rather than asked. Now I have a set of detail drawings I'm reviewing where I need to do the coordination and ask for some painful re-detailing. Detailers get crapped on so often I hate to make them make changes.

You also have to know your audience. A really good set of contractors will coordinate bewteen trades and sort things out among themselves. The bigger the job, the more likely you are to get this sort of contractor coordination. Smaller jobs, with lowest-cost local guys, tend to have fewer people to sift through the design drawings for opening sizes and locations, edge of slab dimensions, etc.

In the end, someone has to to it, and good luck getting the architect to sharpen his pencil and give direction to a steel fabricator.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

When I used to work in the US, we'd basically dimension our drawings anticipating what the steel fabricator would care about. Plan locations, axis rotations, top of elevations... you know the drill. We considered our drawings to be uncoordinated util we sorted those things out. Obviously, they all matter somewhat structurally. When shop drawings came in, they would be almost fun to check.

When I returned to Canada, I discovered that we do things differently. For fear of liability, we leave everything up to the architect which often means that things don't get dimensioned at all. I'm now the EOR that annoys folks like SteelPE. From what I've seen of this system, the consequence are these:

1) We still ultimately have to figure everything out. We just do it during construction when it's 1000% more annoying.

2) Sometimes, when we figure out the final dimensions, we discover that we're not so happy with them from an engineering standpoint. Unfortunately, because we don't coordinate our drawings properly, we don't have much leverage to ask for changes.

3) This is merely a suspicion that I harbour but I suspect that error / delay claims resulting from non-existent coordination result in much more liability exposure than imperfect coordination ever did.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

Interesting discussion....In general I agree with JAE. I have an architect that I've worked with who considers that all dimensions are under the architect's purview. Certainly in the event of a discrepancy, the architects dimensions should prevail as he/she has overall responsibility for things fitting together. ALL dimensions are a subset of the architectural design.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

How the heck do you design things without dimensions on the drawings?

I don't do work with architects, but I don't know how I'd stamp something lacking critical dimensions. I would think it would mean putting my design's safety in the hands of drawings I don't have control over.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

Structural engineers always exclude layout dimensions from their scope. Its kind of basic!

RE: Shop Drawing Review

With the advent of BIM the arch/struct relationship is changing in relation to the x, y, z geometry of the building or structure.

The models (architectural and structural) are essentially built off one another and are periodically updated on each other's computer. Thus the model itself
contains all the geometry needed. The 2D drawings that result still might have missing or mis-labeled dimensions but the physical "shape" is there and true.

More and more contractors are requesting the models to assist in their steel (and concrete, etc.) fabrication drawings. So this whole discussion we've been having here may be slowly becoming moot.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Shop Drawing Review

JAE: Good point about BIM, but the discussion then changes to "who's fault is it that the layout geometry is wrong".

RE: Shop Drawing Review

(OP)
I don't agree with JAE in regards to the BIM making the issue moot. Wasn't email suppose to eliminate paper? I have so much paper around here it's probably a fire hazard.

Recently I worked with a high profile architect on a project who refused to send anyone CAD information w/o signing a consent form stating that the CAD files are for reference only and the architect has no responsibility if the information contained withing the files is even correct. There was a discussion about it here:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=362937

I refused to sign the document and I never received the CAD files. So I'm sure as BIM expands there will be more and more of these agreements going out. Especially after the first lawsuit where the architect gives the drawings to the GC and the GC in turn sues the design team because something was incorrect in the model.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

Well I did say "slowly" becoming moot.

The discussion was on the issue of the contractor determining dimensions from 2D plans where dimensions are not shown, or are shown in a random way (some on arch and some or none on struct plans)

With BIM you still will have 2D drawings (at least for the time being) with some or incomplete dimensions shown.

The contractor then asks for and sometimes gets a BIM model and the dimensional framework is there for them.

SteelPE is on target with the concern of lawsuits over models and such. That I think is the biggest challenge to the use of BIM - working out how the information is passed from designer to builder.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Shop Drawing Review

Pretty eyewash can make one miss deficiencies. Often BIM models contain conflicts that would not have occurred with well-thought-out 2D drawings. (Please note the caveat, “well-thought-out”.) Just my experience.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

Back to the original topic (although I find the whole conversation interesting), I was talking with a lawyer client on a case and said the engineer specifically notes his submittal review does not include things like dimensions. His response was that he knew that, and he had also never had that argument work in court. So we are on the hook one way or the other. I think you did your due diligence noting "Arch Verify" so long as you also told him it was coming and he needed to provide the information. I find you have to tell them that since they don't really look at them. I would pass the submittal along to the architect again.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

Structural drawings without dimensions are not complete in my opinion. The correct answer is for structural drawings to have dimensions that are double checked against the architect. In my experience, this is frequently not done.

I have seen structural foundation plans or steel plans without any dimensions at all. At first I'm jealous that they didn't have to do all the dimensions, then I wonder how they will build it.

Everyone is trying to cover their butts, no one wants to take the reins.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

IBC 2012 (and earlier versions) section 1603.1 requires that "Construction documents shall show the size, section, and relative locations of structural members with floor levels, column centers, and offsets dimensioned" (emphasis added). So unless the architectural drawings show every structural member and dimension them, I don't see how a set of structural drawings with NO dimensions satisfies IBC. Even if it did satisfy IBC, it is not how I document a design. I am not leaving the dimensioning of major structural members up to an architect who is, most likely, clueless about the concept of proper dimensioning.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

glass99: "Structural engineers always exclude layout dimensions from their scope. Its kind of basic!"

I can't imagine sealing a drawing that did not include such a basic thing as plan dimensions. In fact, in my world, that might be considered negligence, since such dimensions determine flexural capacity of beams and load on columns. We always dimension things like how far the edge of slab is from a supporting member, elevations of slabs, and, usually, slab openings. Are these "layout dimensions", or am I missing something?

In fact, I have a presentation I have done across the country discussing the need for engineers to coordinate and provide dimensions, because it is critical to an efficient construction process and to assure the design intent is provided in the CDs.

As far as checking shops goes, the current practice of not actually checking them, and passing the responsibility to others, goes back to the collapse of the walkway at the Hyatt in KC. The series of unfortunate events included a failure by the engineering team to identify two critical but seemingly minor changes, between the engineering drawings and the shops, that were the physical cause of the collapse. The change was made for constructability reasons and the contractor did not realize the change interrupted the load path. A rushed shop drawing check by a junior engineer who was not familiar with the design of that element missed the change. Since that time, the industry has chosen to avoid liability by doing less to avoid a mistake. There are engineering firms that take this very seriously. They detail carefully, check shops thoroughly, and they inspect during construction. Unfortunately, owners seldom want to pay for that level of engineering service.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

TXStructural: I agree that structural engineers should have dimensions on their drawings. The point is that the conveyed by the dimensions is that the structural member will work at that span, or that the slab opening at that scale is acceptable. It does not mean that it is the last word on the dimensional layout because that is the architect's job. It can't be the structural engineer's job because its coordination between the various other movable pieces like finishes and mechanical are done by the architect.

Also agreed that checking shops is underrated.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

As the structural engineer-of-record, I feel it is my responsibility to coordinate my drawings with the architectural drawings, including providing all necessary structural dimensions. When I check shop drawings, I check the overall grid-to-grid dimensions, beam spacing, etc.. This is my last chance to catch any errors on my own drawings. I also spot check the detailed component dimensions enough to establish a level of comfort that the detailer knows what he's doing. The more errors I find, the more I check. If it gets too bad, I ask that they "revise and resubmit". This is especially true if it's obvious that the drawings were not peer checked by the steel detailer prior to submittal. I know it is not my responsibility to do this, but I've learned from experience that a little checking can potentially avoid a lot of headaches later on. I know we've all been put in the position of having to come up with a field fix for an error that we somehow never get paid for doing. Nobody wants to be put in the position of having to ask the client for more money to fix stuff that was never properly checked. Finger pointing is something to be avoided.

Your structural stuff will get built first, long before any architectural-only stuff, so it must be right. What structural shows is what gets built. I've also seen in a lot of instances that the GC does not even send the architectural drawings to the steel shop, let alone the written specifications.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

Interesting to note:

- In Canada: Like Kootk, I have found that Canadian firms frequently do not dimension but instead refer to a specific dated release of the Architectural drawings. I hate this, disagree with this passionately, and refuse to do this in our own practice.

- In New Zealand: The Architectural drawings frequently do not show dimensions and overall layouts. These are found on the Structural drawings. The Arch shows egress lengths, specific little detail dimensions, etc. Nothing affecting spans and overall room dimensions. This has the huge advantage of the person who's work is affected by wall positions, lintel lengths, etc, being in command of these dimensions.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

What is interesting to me is that the practice varies so much from country to country. Australia is like Canada, apparently, with none or very few dimensions on the structural drawings.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

Second significant difference between NZ & AUS I've heard in one day... Being such close cousins, that surprises me more than practice differences between CAN & US.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

I work entirely in Canada and dimension everything required to erect the building on my drawings. I feel the contractor should be able to provide a structurally sound building shell from only the structural drawings.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

I thought that way also, when I worked in the US. But the system here seems to work just as well...or just as poorly in some cases.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

jayrod: Do you reference a specific Architectural set with the date? Otherwise I think you're going to eventually miss something and wear it... Architect change their minds more often than clients. If they change the dims after everything you've done has gone out, and (as usual) fail to inform you, this could be disastrous.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

CEL,
I think that is why the Aussie system developed the way it has. I still have memories, in the US, of late nights spent checking and changing dimensions due to last minute architectural revisions just before the last addendum. And with Australian architects tending more toward sculpture than practicality, I wonder often how the detailers work it all out so well.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

I suspect the reality is late and last minute changes happen less for any system where the engineer does not show dimensions. No way of knowing, but it is what my gut tells me after working in both...

Likely goes like this: Detailers work for the Contractor, who just says it will cost more. More often than not detailers, shop workers, and the contractor's plethora of staff in general have more power to say "No" to a change than we do...

RE: Shop Drawing Review

CEL, yes. I reference the architectural drawings that were used for the creation of the drawings in one of the first notes on the first page. That also includes the same note that the contractor must report all discrepancies between drawings to the engineer immediately.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

If I were a contractor I would hate having to flip back and forth between the structural and architectural drawings during the framing process. That seems ridiculous to me. Especially if it is only for dimensions, what a waste of his time.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

jayrod12: Yes its ridiculous but its all about liability. We live in a world where our firm's profit on a project is multiple orders of magnitude less than the construction cost.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

I understand liability. I have the countless professional development hours at boring seminars to prove it.

I think it is lazy if you cannot provide dimensions and some CYA statements saying which architectural drawings it is based off of and that the contractor and architect are responsible for confirming the dimensional accuracy.

When I go to peer review another engineer's work I don't want to be flipping back and forth between drawing sets either. I should be able to redesign the building from the structural drawings alone and should not have to go hunting for a dimension I need for design. If during the course of your design of the building you needed to hunt for a dimension then you should be including that dimension on your drawing. Passing the buck onto the contractor to successfully figure out is a cop out and is just asking for mistakes.

From my own experience more mistakes happen when the contractor is expected to hunt down a dimension.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

Your practice, your choice. In my opinion the duplication of any information is a mistake and a predictable source of error.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

Both arguments are valid. I agree that by not duplicating the information you remove that predictable source of error. The key word there is predictable, when you don't show the dimensions you open up the possibilities to unpredictable errors in translation between drawings.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

jayrod: yes hunting for dimensions causes mistakes, as do conflicting dimensions. You would have to agree a too many cooks in the kitchen problem does exist.

Layout dimensions are the bane of my existence. If you are building a rectangular ground up big box store with column lines exactly 30ft O.C. both north and south I assume its easy, but if you are doing a retail renovation in an 1920's NYC building, noone, not even the architect has complete control of the layout. You are working from a hodge podge of site measurements and smudged low-res scan of original drawings, plus you have an owner and architect who are designing as they build.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

I guess it also does depend on the project. I took a peek at the structural drawings for a new arena they built here in town that our firm did. There are next to no dimensions on it at all. There's also a few hundred drawings for structural alone, I can see how dimensioning that on more than one set of plans could be mistake prone.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

However to get back to the original topic at hand (we got off course.... who would've thought that)

I rarely check dimensions on shop drawings. I am checking for general conformance not every detail. If the sizes and locations match the drawings then I leave the dimensions alone unless specifically requested to review them.

RE: Shop Drawing Review

One aspect of this is not to say NO - never check dimensions or YES always check.

I think my own goal on shop drawing review is to verify communication - not necessarily accuracy. I think spot checking difficult areas, unique areas, etc. - both with dimensions and connections is key.

This is sort of like the analogy of site-visits and the observations vs. inspections issue.
With inspections - you are looking at most everything back-checking the contractor's actual work.
With observations you are spot checking unique areas and perhaps some standard areas to determine whether, in general, the contractor is (and is capable of) understanding your documents.
Two completely different goals and I view shop drawing review as more like verifying communication rather than comprehensive accuracy.

Over the years I've tended toward showing more dimensions on my plans but still adding the caveat that cross-checking between all disciplines is still the job of the contractor.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Shop Drawing Review

I think its fair to say that the caveats that we all have on our shop drawing stamp really do mean something.

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