structural steel shop drawing review, the past and the future

7/29/2019 Structural Steel Shop Drawing Review, The Past and the Future

1/8

Structural Steel Shop Drawing Review:The Present the FutureStructural Steel

Shop Drawing Review:

The Present the FutureBy Michael Gustafson, P.E.

August 2008


2/82 PDH Professional Development Advertising Section TEKLA Inc.

The structural steel detailing industry has contin-

ued to expand its use of 3D modeling technology

in recent years; currently more than 50 percentof the structural steel detailing market in the

United States is using some form of 3D modeling soft-

ware (American Institute of Steel Construction, 2007). This

change has brought great efficiencies to the steel detailers

own productivity, in addition to improving upstream and

downstream processes. Structural engineers, on the other

hand, have not seen the same improvements in their own

productivity in reviewing and approving structural steel

shop drawings. In fact, some engineering firms may argue

that the average number of shop drawings to review per

project has increased over the years.

More recently, however, engineering firms are finding

new ways to increase their productivity in reviewing and

approving shop drawings using a range of emerging tech-

nologies. The transfer of shop drawing submittals electroni-

cally was the first step in using digital technology, but now

enhanced visualization methods of reviewing and approving

shop drawings are now being implemented.

Project requirements of the EORin shop drawing review

The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Code

of Standard Practice (COSP) outlines what is required of

the steel fabricator and of the engineer-of-record (EOR) in

submission and approval of shop drawings. Minimal infor-mation is provided regarding the content to be reviewed by

the EOR since this is typically outlined at the project level by

the EOR and defined in the project specifications.

The COSP states that the steel fabricator expects a

14-calendar-day turn around from the day it releases draw-

ings to the day the fabricator receives the approved shop

drawings back from the EOR. If modified in the contract

documents, the actual turn around time is governed by the

EORs project specifications. With the nature of todays accel-

erated project delivery schedules, a two-week turn around

time of shop drawings is not the norm, thereby putting

more stress on the review team to be more productive andturn around approved submittals in less time.

A signed set of calculation sheets from a professional

engineer for all connection designs not covered by the

design drawing contract documents is often stated in the

project specifications when the work of connection design is

delegated. Engineering firms require this because the COSP

states that the EOR shall review and approve structural

connections and details designed by others (see COSP

Section 4.4.1). The submittal of connection calculations and

verification of the calculations does impact the efficiency of

the shop drawing review process.

Standards for shop drawing reviewThe EOR has an obligation to verify that the structural

design intent is being properly communicated by the steelfabricator on its shop and field drawings. The steps and

Continuing EducationThe Professional Development Series is a unique

opportunity to earn continuing education credit

by reading specially focused, sponsored articles in

Structural Engineer. If you read the following arti-

cle, display your understanding of the stated learning

objectives, and follow the simple instructions, you can

fulfill a portion of your continuing education require-

ments at no cost to you. This article also is available

online at www.gostructural.com/pg.asp?id=20.

InstructionsFirst, review the learning objectives below, then

read the Professional Development Series article. Next,

complete the quiz and submit your answers to the

Professional Development Series sponsor. Submittal

instructions are provided on the Reporting Form

on page 6. Your quiz answers will be graded by the

Professional Development Series sponsor. If you answer

at least 80 percent of the questions correctly, you will

receive a certificate of completion from the ProfessionalDevelopment Series sponsor within 90 days and will be

awarded 1.0 professional development hour (equiva-

lent to 0.1 continuing education unit in most states).

Note: It is the responsibility of the licensee to determine

if this method of continuing education meets his or her

governing board(s) of registrations requirements.

Learning ObjectivesThe learning objectives of this paper are the following:

Understand current contractual and industry-

expected responsibilities of the engineer-of-record in

the shop drawing review process. Identify inefficiencies or redundancies in the current

review processes.

Learn how 3D visualization tools can be used to coor-

dinate, review, and approve shop drawing submittals

while still delivering a 2D submittal of shop drawings.

Comprehend industry trends moving toward a 3D

model-based shop drawing review process.

Professional Development Series SponsorTEKLA Inc.

Structural Steel Shop Drawing Review:The Present the Future By Michael Gustafson, P.E.


3/8Professional Development Advertising Section TEKLA Inc. PDH 3

Structural Steel Shop Drawing Review:The Present the Future

procedures of how this is conducted are determined by the

EOR or, more commonly, by a company standard. Typically,

structural engineers follow a checklist for reviewing and

approving the erection and assembly shop drawings.

Each engineering firm has its own standard for how much

detail needs to go into checking shop drawings. Typically,the structural assemblies comprised of primary framing

and connection parts are reviewed for compliance at

three levels: within the context of other building systems,

within the context of other structural assemblies and struc-

tural systems; and within their own structural assembly.

Furthermore, for each level of investigation, several design

parameters are typically reviewed, such as geometry, section

properties, and material properties.

Checking each of these parameters can be a tedious

process. In addition, the task of reviewing each checklist

item on the shop drawings and comparing that informa-

tion with the design drawings accumulates a fair amount of

inefficiency. The steel fabricators 3D model (also referred to

as the construction model) can help the EOR in many ways

better visualize and review the shop drawings, as well as

speed up the EORs time reviewing the shop drawings.

Workflows using the 3D construction modelFor more than 55 percent of the projects built in the

United States that detail structural steel (AISC, 2007), the

EOR may obtain access to the 3D construction model for

review of shop drawing submittals. Such a tool can be help-

ful in improving the EORs understanding of the proposed

fabricated product by the steel fabricator. Several work-

flows can be utilized to leverage different levels of the 3Dconstruction model in the review process. These workflows

range from using the 3D model as an enhanced visualiza-

tion tool which still requires 2D shop drawings as the

final, commented, and approved submittal to the fabricator

to the approval of the 3D construction model in lieu of

2D drawings.

In this paper, we refer to three workflows that use differ-

ent tools to review and approve the shop drawings: 2D

Review, 2D-3D Review, and 3D Review. Note that the first

workflow, 2D Review, basically represents the traditional

shop drawing approval process in which the structural engi-

neers paper design drawings are used along with the fabri-cators submitted paper shop drawing set. This workflows

use of the 3D model is limited to including colored markers

to make comments. The inefficiencies that exist in this typi-

cal workflow can be improved upon using either the 2D-3D

Review or the 3D Review approach, which are discussed

next.

2D-3D Review workflowThe 2D-3D Review workflow follows the traditional work-

flow of the EOR approving 2D paper drawings, but the

process incorporates the 3D model. To clarify again, this

workflow assumes that the 2D shop draw-

ings are still the final document containing the

approval comments by the EOR. In other words,

use of the 3D model makes the review process more

efficient and visual but does not replace the deliverable of

2D paper approval drawings. Key steps in the 2D-3D Reviewworkflow are discussed below.

Step 1. Coordination of building systems As a

first step, the EOR may wish to check for constructability

issues between the structural systems (such as structural

steel, cast-in-place concrete, precast, etc.) that have surfaced

during the shop drawing stage that ultimately could affect

the final design. In this context, constructability is not being

defined by means and methods (which is typically not part

of the EORs scope of work), but rather referring to the

quality of the final, in-place structure. Therefore, using the

3D construction model to aid in the review process can be

appropriate.

To coordinate interfaces of the structural steel frame with

other structural elements such as concrete foundations and

walls or roof joists, structural engineers can import their 2D

design drawings or 3D structural models, including building

information models (BIMs), into the construction model.

The overlaying reference can be used to verify the steel

structure geometry as well as clearances and tolerances (see

Figure 1).

The geometry of the model elements can be reviewed in

reports that can be created within the construction model,

or from the model elements themselves.

An obvious benefit of referencing the 2D design draw-

ings within the context of the construction model is that thecontents of both are superimposed together in one spot.

This eliminates the EORs need to go back and forth between

design plans and the fabricators erection drawings.

To coordinate the structural steel frame with non-struc-

tural elements such as exterior wall locations, floor open-

Figure 1: An example of 2D-3D Review workflow includes coordi-

nation of the 3D structural model, 2D design drawings, and the

3D steel construction model.




ings, and grade elevations, the reviewer can

overlay other 2D drawings or 3D reference

models into the steel construction model.

Step 2. Review and approval of assemblies

As described above, enhanced visualization tools exist to

help the EOR better understand how their design intent isbeing interpreted by the builders. With this in mind, there

are opportunities to improve the actual approval process

itself for the EOR, specifically with finding, commenting on,

and approving each assembly. Some structural engineering

firms have tried reviewing and approving 2D drawings in

electronic form using 2D redlining tools and have found

limited benefits. The 2D-3D Review workflow is different

because it can reduce inefficiencies of searching and coordi-

nating information between the design and shop drawings.

For example, the EOR can spend a fair amount of time

sifting through a stack of shop drawings trying to find the

assembly sheet that they wish to review. In contrast, the

3D model can be queried for a specific assembly in the

model, and then open the corresponding 2D electronic

shop drawing to view the assembly as needed. Secondly,

review of the standard materials and parts on a project is

currently achieved by checking for those standards on each

shop drawing, even though they are repeated across similar

assemblies. However, a fabricators construction model typi-

cally allows the user to view lists of such standard informa-

tion in reports, allowing the EOR to quickly review larger

quantities of data and then to compare and contrast that

data with other assemblies. For example, a report that lists

each part in the model with its corresponding material

grade. Therefore, all the material grades of structural fram-ing members can be verified as A992 in the list, while struc-

tural plate and miscellaneous steel can be verified as A36 or

A572/50 as specified for the project.

Step 3. Comment on assembly The 2D-3D work-

flow allows the user to review and make comments within

the 3D model environment that correspond to the 2D

electronic shop drawings (see Figure 2). The approval status

of each element or assembly in the model can be shown

in different colors and is also reflected on the 2D electronic

drawing as a custom stamp. This linking of the 3D model

to the 2D shop drawings in PDF format allows the EOR

to review the 3D model, the 2D shop drawings, or both;and simultaneously maintains the approval status linked

between them. With the final approved 2D shop drawings

in PDF format, the documents can be saved with restricted

privileges or simply plotted out as a record set and submit-

ted back to the fabricator as required.

Step 4. Connection design review It is recom-

mended that the fabricator and engineer agree on a pre-

approval process where the EOR pre-approves the design

calculations and associated connection parameters prior

to reviewing the shop drawings. This is already a common

practice with the current 2D Review workflow. Each type

of connection can be assigned an agreed upon connec-

tion grouping so that the connections can be easily identi-

fied in the model during the verification process and cross

referenced with the design calculations. During connection

design approval process, the EOR can also utilize the fabri-

cators model to verify the connection design within the

context of the primary structure, as well as better visualize

the load paths and constructability of the design.

During review of the shop drawings or model, the EOR

can then verify that the specified design code is valid at each

connection location, or even viewed in conjunction with theprovided submitted calculation sheets by the connection

engineer.

3D model-based shop drawing reviewThe use of integrated project delivery (IPD) methods,

in conjunction with the use of BIM, is bringing forth new

business models and workflows in reviewing and approving

structural steel shop drawings. Today, numerous projects

have been built where the review process was compressed

due to the use of a digital review of the 3D construction

model by the EOR (McGraw-Hill, 2007). These 3D model-

based review processes have been documented and arenow migrating into the mainstream work processes for

structural engineering firms, especially those leveraging BIM

technology.

Note that several entities in the building and construc-

tion industry have taken note of the benefits of model-

based review workflows used to date and are documenting

how the industry could adopt such processes. For example,

the owners group, Construction Users Roundtable (CURT),

produced a white paper in 2006 that recognized the inef-

ficiency in current business models that do not compensate

design firms for using digital design information exchanges

Figure 2: An example of an approved assembly shown in both the

3D model and on the 2D electronic drawings in PDF format.




to expedite the shop drawing and fabrication processes.

Also, the American General Contractors Associations Guide

to BIM (2006) states, Shop drawings could be developed

simultaneously as the design unfoldseliminating the need

for approvals and submittal turn arounds, as that process

will already have been accomplished during the designperiod. Such statements imply the use of an IPD process.

Furthermore, the structural steel industrys AISC has modi-

fied its COSP by adding Appendix A to accommodate the

use of digital design and/or fabrication models to be used

instead of design and/or shop drawings given the project

requirements (see COSP, Appendix A, 16.3-65).

Using a 3D Review approach, the EOR coordinates and

reviews the model using procedures similar to that of the

2D-3D Review approach; however, howthe EOR approves

and communicates their approval is different than using 2D

drawing submittals. Instead of using paper drawings, the

EOR provides the steel fabricator, depending upon the tech-

nology being used, the submittal comments and approval

status in electronic form as a file exported from the model.

This file is then submitted to the steel fabricators detailer who

imports and views the EORs approval status and comments

into his or her own construction model. Note that the EOR

does not have to submit an actual model, but only submits

comments to the fabricators detailer. That way there is

no concern with the EOR changing the fabricators model

during the review process. What can be used as a record-set

of the approved submittal is the approval file of each assem-

bly reviewed, as well as the construction model archived in

a neutral file format (such as CIS2, XML, etc.) that maintains

all the construction information per submittal, and whichcan be retrieved easily and with accuracy at a later date.

The benefits of the 3D Review approach are that it does

not require 2D shop drawings to be produced. The EOR

can still recognize the same benefits outlined in the 2D-3D

Review process above, with the exception of needing to

stamp 2D electronic drawings as the submitted deliverable,

which is eliminated in this process.

A new approach to shop drawing reviewIf you are interested in incorporating either the 2D-3D

Review or 3D Review workflows on your next structural

steel project, the first step is communicating early in theproject with the project team, including the steel specialty

contractor. One way of facilitating this dialog is by host-

ing a pre-coordination meeting held between the owners

representative, steel contractor (detailer and/or fabricator),

structural engineer, and general contractor involved in the

shop drawing submittal process to determine what type of

model-based review process can be realistically achieved.

Depending upon which workflow is utilized, the project

team members may have to adjust certain aspects of their

workflow to accommodate a different process. Suggested

items to discuss include the following:

Deliverable of submittals The type

of documentation required for submittal

process whether paper, 2D electronic, or

3D model-based must be established first since it

can affect other aspects of the review workflow.

Defining project roles and responsibilities Thetype of information that the EOR wishes to review should

be defined up front so that rights and privileges can be set

up properly in the technologies being utilized. This may

relate to both modeling software as well as PDF redlining

software.

Pre-work by steel fabricator Any set up by the steel

fabricators detailer, such as plotting shop drawings in PDF

format, shall be coordinated up front. Also, the scope of

content included in the 3D model to be approved shall be

agreed upon.

Pre-approved connections Having the EOR pre-

approve as many connection designs and connection

groups as possible will make checking the model much

easier. Establishing how the pre-approval process will work

and what the EORs expectations are for design calcula-

tions can be discussed.

Stamping and approvals The fabricators detailer

can be asked to set up the electronic stamp template

for the EOR so that when the shop drawings are sent to

the engineer, stamping the drawing does not require the

EORs stamp and signature. Electronic stamps could also

be set up in advance so that during the redlining process,

the approval can be performed on the 2D electronic draw-

ings within the file format agreed upon, such as a PDF, and

saved.Review of approved shop drawings by the steel

fabricator Depending on the workflow used, the

fabricators detailer may wish to receive the approval status

information in a specific file format, not just in PDF format,

to improve his or her management of received submittals.

Managing resubmittals Resubmittals or successive

submittals must be clearly marked as to what information

is to be reviewed or re-reviewed by the EOR. Traditional

methods use clouding of drawings to communicate such

changes. However, a 3D model with status information

could be used so that the project team can better visualize

what his or her responsibility is to review.

ConclusionBuilding and construction industry experts anticipate

significant changes to their industry because of the conver-

gence of three industry trends: BIM, IPD methods (such as

design-build), and sustainability (Cross, 2008). The impact

of the convergence could offer big benefits toward project

productivity and also for how projects are managed and

delivered. The 3D model-based review workflows discussed

above find synergies with these three trends.

First, BIM can help engineers better visualize not only their




design intent, but the construction teams

interpretation of the design intent during the

shop drawing review stage.

Secondly, project delivery methods that capitalize

on the expertise of structural steel specialty contractors, as

well as that of the structural engineer, will further enable

the use of 3D model-based review workflows during the

shop drawing review stage. For example, a recent domes-

tic project demonstrated a reduction of 25 percent in the

overall project schedule when implementing a 3D model-based review of the structural steel shop drawing submit-

tals using an integrated project delivery process (Ghafari &

Associates 2007).

Third, the growing trend of sustainable design is giving

structural engineers an opportunity to better promote their

capabilities in producing sustainable designs for clients.

Using less paper during the structural steel shop drawing

review process could in effect help create a more sustain-

able project delivery method. Rough estimates show that

more than 65 million sheets of paper shop drawings were

used to procure the structural steel shop drawing review

process for projects in the United States in 2007 (Survey

of 100,000 tons of projects delivered in the United States

in 2007).

With such benefits being recognized, the structural

engineering industry will move ahead with more effective

Professional Development Series Sponsor:114 Town Park Dr., Suite 500, Kennesaw, GA 30144

Phone: 770-426-5105 Fax: 770-919-0574 Email: [email protected]

Web: www.tekla.com

Structural EngineerProfessional Development Series Reporting Form

Article Title: Structural Steel Shop Drawing Review: The Present the FuturePublication Date:August 2008

Sponsor: TEKLA Inc. Valid for credit until: August 2010

Instructions: Select one answer for each quiz question and clearly circle the appropriate letter. Provide all of the requested contact infor-mation. Fax this Reporting Form to 770-919-0574. (You do not need to send the Quiz; only this Reporting Form is necessary to be

submitted.)

1) a b c d 6) a b c d

2) a b c d 7) a b c d

3) a b c d 8) a b c d

4) a b c d 9) a b c d

5) a b c d 10) a b c d

Required contact informationLast Name: First Name: Middle Initial:

Title: Firm Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Telephone: Fax: E-mail:

Certification of ethical completion: I certify that I read the article, understood the learning objectives, and completed the quizquestions to the best of my ability. Additionally, the contact information provided above is true and accurate.

Signature: Date:

References American Council of Engineering Companies, 2007,

Design & Construction Industry Trends Survey

American Institute of Steel Construction, Feb. 2007,

2007 Structural Steel Detailer Listing,

Modern Steel Construction

Construction Users Roundtable, 2006,

White Paper 1202, p.7

Cross, John, April 2008, Hat Trick,

Design-Build Dateline, Vol. 15/No. 4

Ghafari & Associates, 2007, Breakthrough Results

on General Motors Project Series

McGraw-Hill, 2007, Interoperability in the Construc-

tion Industry, Smart Market Report, p. 24-25



collaboration methods with the construction team, while

the structural engineer can use a more productive, accu-

rate, and even more enjoyable process in approving struc-

tural steel shop drawings.

Professional Development Series Quiz

1. Per AISC COSP Section 4.4.1, a signed set of calculation

sheets from a Professional Engineer is required by the

project specifications when what scope of the struc-

tural steel design is delegated:

a) Foundation elements

b) Mechanical ductwork

c) All connection designs not covered by the Design Drawing

contract documents

d) Architectural concrete-masonry

2. The COSP states a turn-around time the steel fabricator

expects from when it releases to when the fabricator

receives the approved shop drawings from the EOR.

What is that time frame?

a) 7 calendar days

b) 14 calendar days

c) 21 calendar days

d) none of the above

3. The EOR will typically check the following design

parameters on a shop drawing EXCEPT:

a) Temporary shoring requirements of the steel erectorb) Geometry of assembly

c) Section properties of assembly

d) Material properties of assembly

4. The estimated percentage of structural steel projects in

the United States that use 3D modeling for structural

steel detailing is:

a) More than 90 percent

b) More than 50 percent

c) Less than 40 percent

d) Less than 30 percent

5. When using the 2D-3D Review workflow, what are the

benefits of referencing structural design drawings

and other 3D design models into the structural steel

construction model?

a) To coordinate the structural steel frame with other structural

elements

b) By reviewing the architectural model, the EOR relieves the

architect of all responsibility in coordinating the accuracy of

their design

c) To view assembly information and design drawing informa-

tion at the same time during the approval process

d) a and c

6. When using the 2D-3D Review workflow, how can the

EOR utilize a 3D construction model during the review

and approval of assemblies?

a) Search for assemblies in the model

b) View reports of standard material lists of the assemblies

c) Comment and stamp 2D PDF shop drawings through the

3D model

d) All of the above

7. Which topics are suggested to be discussed during a

shop drawing review pre-coordination meeting with

the project team?

a) Deliverable type of submittals

b) Pre-approved connections

c) Managing resubmittals

d) All of the above

8. Which structural steel industry document states that

the use of digital design and/or fabrication models can

be used instead of design and/or structural steel shop

drawings?

a) AISC Code of Standard Practice Appendix A

b) CURT AGC AIA 3XPT document

c) BIM Addendum to the Consensus Docs

d) PCI Handbook

9. A 3D Review method differs from a 2D-3D Review

process in what following way(s)?

a) It uses paper drawings as the deliverable of submittals

b) It uses electronic 2D drawings as the deliverable of submittals

c) It uses a digital 3D construction model, in conjunction with

EOR approval comments to the model, as a deliverable of

submittals

d) Both a and b

10. What is the estimated number of drawing sheets

used to create structural steel shop drawings for all

U.S. projects in 2007?

a) 2.5 million

b) 10 million

c) 65 million

d) 500 million

Michael Gustafson, P.E., is the engineering

product manager for North America at Tekla Inc.

He can be reached at [email protected].


8/8

Tekla Welcomes you to

Atlanta

Tekla welcomes you to Atlanta for the 2008 Structural Engineers Building Conference. We also welcome you to earn yourprofessional development hours with our free course designed to maintain, improve and expand your skills and knowledgeof the structural steel shop drawing review process. To learn more about how you can earn professional developmenthours through Tekla visit www.tekla.com/pdh

Tekla Structures is Building Information Modeling (BIM) software that streamlines the delivery process of design, detailing,fabrication, and construction organizations. The software easily integrates with other systems such as architectural, MEPprocess layouts as well as analysis and design solutions. Use the same model to save time and ensure quality projects. Notonly have Tekla Structures Users delivered BIM-based projects in Atlanta, but also thousands of users have successfullydelivered BIM-based projects in more than 80 countries around the world.

Proud Sponsor of the 2008 Structural EngineersBuilding Conference and Expo,October 2-3, Hyatt Regency Atlanta, GA

Gwinnett Arena

Georgia

AquariumCobb Energy

Centre

The above structures fabricated

by SteelFab, Inc. and detailed

by Hutchins & Associates, Inc.

Gwinnett picture courtesy of Rosser International, Inc.

www.tekla.com/pdh1.877.TEKLA.OK

Enter #154 at gostructural.com/infodirect

structural steel shop drawing review, the past and the future

Documents