survey summary - approval v2

AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval of 34

AISC Survey of Structural Engineers Shop Drawing Approval Methods

RESULTS

AISC’s Technology Integration Committee conducted a survey of engineers to ascertain their views regarding shop drawing review and approval using a 3D model, instead of traditional drawings. With the accelerating adoption of BIM within the general construction industry, it would seem reasonable to predict that models will be used increasingly for review/approval. Therefore it is important to understand any obstacles or perceptions that currently exist such that AISC can help overcome them. Nearly 500 engineers responded to the fourteen question survey and many were willing to contribute additional comments beyond the multiple choice questions which provided a great insight. A representative selection of those answers is provided.


Question 1: What percentage of your hours is consumed reviewing shop drawings?

What percentage of your hours (billable or otherise) are consumed reviewing shop drwings?

20

270

105

35

12

10

0

3

1

1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Question 2: Which of the following best describes how you review shop

drawings?

How engineers report revieweing drawings

108

260

32

45

4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Both shop andconstruction drawings are

reviewed on paper

Combination of electronic(PDF or similar) drawings

and paper drawings

Electronic drawings only

Combination of 3D modeland PDF of the shop

drawings

3D model only


Additional Comments for Question 2: There needs to be some revamping of contractual arrangements between

contractor/SEOR/Fab and detailer. Some fee redistribution may be required as the detailer becomes the last line of defense in the coordination process.

Most drawings are submitted electronically, reviewed on a printed copy, scanned,

and returned electronically. Though we work in 3D quite often, I find it difficult to review fabrication and

construction documents that are on a screen rather than on paper in front of me. I find that mistakes are picked up in both electronic and hard copy reviews. Both are

individually very important. Please note that shop drawing review does not relieve the fabricator from producing

a finished product that meets the contract requirements. Shop drawing review is a courtesy to the fabricator so that the engineer can get a general agreement the fabricator has interpreted drawings correctly.

We are moving to review of 3D shop drawings and have experimented with this on a

current job in CA. Contractually we reviewed PDF's (though these were often printed, then reviewed, and marks were completed/transferred [sic] in the PDF). We did experimentally review some steel shop drawings in 3D model, which was both easy and difficult for a variety of reasons.

It is easier to page thru and refer back when using paper drawings, especially on

larger projects. All of our shop drawings are submitted in Primavera in .pdf form. Sometimes I print

the drawings off so I can mark them up by hand I almost always get PDF's, but I print them out so that I can mark up the corrections

on paper and then scan them and send them back as a PDF. If shop drawings are submitted as pdf, they are printed/reviewed in printed form. Electronic (pdf) is preferred, but we still get some paper copies. Hard copy shop drawing review is the best option. Electronic model review is

supplementary or equally important to hardcopy review. More often, comments are much easier to do and send to other people than electronic copy review and comment.

Drawings will often be transmitted to and from us via .pdf, but we typically print,

review, and mark up paper copies of the drawings. Then, we scan the marked up drawings and transmit back - the contractor and fabricator can then print out as many copies of our markups as he needs. We do NOT prefer to review and markup on the screen. Sometimes it's helpful to be able to hand write comments or calculations on the drawings; also, sometimes we want [sic] to have multiple drawings spread out on the table during our review rather than switching between files on a screen.

Drawings received as pdf's. Review done on paper. Mark-ups put on pdf's, sent out.


For most of our work, we have 3D models of the design which we can utilize during shop drawings review for suspected conflict. We do a lot of the industrial/process work in which conflicts are costly; I do not see this as big of a deal in building type structures!

We have used 3D model review as a convenient supplement to reviewing PDF shop

drawings. We have not completely replaced the PDF review, due mostly to concerns of having an easily accessible format for future reference.

We use yellow highlighters to mark out items reviewed (sizes, dimensions, welds,

etc.) We find this virtually impossible to accomplish on screen. Looking at a model does not allow one to readily review, for example, hole sizes or welds. One of the biggest problems we see in steel shop drawings is incorrect weld sizes. And with electronic drawing, an error can be repeated many, many times by copying.

As long as we have to refer to plans and piece drawings, back and forth, on-screen

review is painful (based on modeling from 2-D construction docs.) In my opinion, in 5-10 years SE consultants will be providing shop drawings direct as

a rule rather than the exception. Shop drawing review will be primarily by fabricators checking for shop practices

We receive PDF drawings about 50% of the time; the other 50% is paper. For the

PDF version, we print enough copies to markup ourselves internally then we return either an electronic PDF marked up or a paper copy that the contractor scans when he gets his one copy from us.

Typically I print out paper copies of shop drawings which have been electronically

submitted (PDF format). I highlight things which I have checked as I go, write up my comments and corrections then transfer the comments to the PDF to return them electronically.

I find it almost impossible to do the review justice trying to coordinate all the

information that is necessary on a computer screen. There is too much risk of missing something or having a note not properly displayed on an electronic version of shop submittals.

I prefer paper documents so I can leave a record of what is being reviewed and the

changes or corrections. I still stamp and scan the paper copy of the drawing but I use the 3D model (BIMsight

or 3d PDF) as a reference for approval I prefer to review the drawings on paper hard copies. I find that I can do a better job

of review than on electronic files. We are currently moving towards BIM model reviews with the steel fabricators. We

review the connection drawings and cut sheets in conjunction with the Revit/Tekla model.

By contract we still require the contractor to submit a set of shop drawings but

typically this is after the model review, so we only have to check that modifications have been made as per the comments made at the model review.


We receive PDF files but find it easier to review hard copies. Markups are either scanned or added directly to the PDF file.

Many detailers do not 3D model their shop details, so most detailers would need to

migrate to this. The difficulty is that some older more experienced detailers do not know how to model and younger modelers do not know how to detail. BSCE degrees don't even provide basic drafting skill training in many instances, so this divide will continue to grow. I cannot ever see reviewing only a model, because how can I be sure the model information has been correctly represented in the drawings?

We do not review or approve electronic data or models. Electronic data and models

are seldom revision controlled or have a QA & QC process. My reviews are drawing (or hard copy) based, however if a model is provided with the

drawings, as is sometimes the case, I welcome the additional information and clarity the model provides.

We are starting 3D model review using SDS/2 and Tekla review software (type of

software is selected based on the fabricator's detailing software) Just as the contract documents are 2-dimensional and notes and comments can be

easily noted in the 2-D environment, markups in a 3-D model may be missed if not tied to a planar, 2-D element.

We prefer to review shop drawings that will actually be used for fabrication. With a

3D model, how does the engineer know what members are to be reviewed? We use our 3D model (and especially the drawings we produced with it) to check pdf

submittals. The drawings were the deliverable in our contract, although the contractor has access to our model too.

We receive PDFs of the shop drawings, print them out and use the 3D model to

assist with review of the printed drawings. I prefer electronic submittals--it eliminates having to transferring red marks to five

sets of shop drawings (speed improves) and is easier to reference when questions come up months later (bookkeeping improves).

Except Combination of 3D model and PDF of shop drawing, construction drawings on

paper are always needed for comparing Many details are too big or removed from others to properly review on a computer

screen. Must be done on paper. Electronic drawings are hard printed, marked up as required during review, scanned

as pdf. Electronic drawings maybe reviewed electronically also depending on reviewer's preference for convenience. I prefer prints to minimize [sic] screen glare, then I scan the marked up sheets for electronic copy and filing/archive purpose.

We are reviewing shop drawings using a combination of 3d Model review and pdfs.

We have worked with the fabricator and detailers to make this happen. We have found a great benefit to viewing the model concurrently with the pieces. It fosters greater understanding of how the pieces fit. We believe it also speeds the process.


If a 3D model was created as part of the design process, it is used to supplement the review of the printed shop drawings. It has been our experience that the fabricator will create a separate model for generating shop drawings and has not chosen to share it for shop drawing review in the past.

Generally approve the model, provided major connections are designed. Shop

detailing is only done within a model - non negotiable Due to project size and type, I review shop drawings for a project about once per

year for several weeks - the next project I review will be in about 2 months and will be done exclusively with a 3D model because aside from being the EOR, my firm is also acting as the connection designer and detailer.

I need to see the paper drawings. We keep a highlighted/redline copy for records. Everything is received electronically. I then decide whether or not to print and review

paper or review on a screen. Having recently been set up with a second screen, I expect to print less than I did previously.

Probably 75% PDF submittals, 25% paper. No one has submitted a model for review.

Often get shop drawings electronically but I have printed them, made my comments,

scanned them and returned them electronically. I have used Bluebeam but it really requires two monitors to review effectively.

Review done using paper copies, comments typically returned as electronic dwgs.

We have received pdf sets but request at least the erection drawings on full size

paper to review with the pdf piece drawings. I prefer to receive electronic copies of shop drawings and review them on the

computer. If the shop drawing is too complicated to review on the computer, I print those sheets full size.

A majority of my shop drawings received are in PDF format for electronic review. For

some materials and constructions this has streamlined the process and removed the need to transfer comments to multiple sets. For steel we are still using a combination of paper and electronic .I have 2 monitors yet there still isn't enough screen space to view everything that needs to be open at one time. (erection plan, column sheet, beam/girder sheet, detail page) At minimum we still print out erection plans.

We review Tekla models with a fabricator, sometimes native files but mostly through

Tekla BIMSight or web viewer (the latter is sub-optimal). Because shop and erection drawings are the deliverables from detailers to fabricators

and Engineering firms, they must be printed and color coded (Red/Yellow/Blue/Green) and carry wet signatures.

We usually print one hard copy (or have one hard copy submitted) and transfer

required marks to electronic pdfs using Bluebeam. Check on Paper but return electronically.


The main reason we don't review models is because every reviewer (architect and contractor) in addition to us as the structural engineer would often need some form of the detailer's software to review and see the comments posted by us and others.

We are working towards using digital only where feasible. We require a hard copy to be submitted for our use and one copy to send to client.

The process of "marking up” pdf is difficult, at least in our office. While this [combination 3D model] is the preferred method, there are numerous small

fabricators/detailers who submit paper shops. My design drawings are hand drawn, no sharing of electronic files Electronic drawings are too small on a small screen and too time consuming to zoom

in and out - the process is easier on paper. Also, we can write any connection calculations on the drawings on our review set and have that information immediately available by the connection if ever needed.


Question 3: What could a Fabricator or detailer do to improve the current shop drawing review process? There should be an advanced method of connectivity concepts that are approved in

advance and simply input into the model making it only a cursory review to make sure the process was followed. It then becomes the responsibility of the detailer to follow the process and assume the model is doing its job. No different than checking copies from a copy machine! It is not generally done! It is assumed to be correct.

Better define the work batches so the set does not come as one big submittal Make it all electronic (pdf for starters - then 3D Tekla models or similar). Use PDFs Provide full complete packages to be reviewed, rather than separate submittals for

anchor bolts, then columns, then beams floor-by-floor, etc. Check the drawings before submitting them Submit 3D digital models as part of the review process. Check them internally before sending them out for approval Clearly indicate deviations/changes from the Design Contract Drawings. Provide 3d model with 3d connections modeled. Also would be nice if model

incorporated connection design load with easy link to calculation - I’m sure this is at least 10 years away...

Submit RFI's during the detailing process, rather than submitting shop drawings that

are incomplete or need significant verifications. Provide shop drawing submittals in numerical order of piece mark for ease of review. All disciplines should use a central data depository (BIM) to coordinate their

respective discipline's shop drawings. It would be great to have erection sheets and piece sheets hyperlinked and cross-

referenced in electronic files. One of the biggest issues with shop drawing review is planning and scheduling. If the fabricator could produce a schedule for submittals, communicate the schedule to the design team and stick to it that would be very helpful. Especially if submittals were broken into manageable portions instead of submitting the entire project at once.

Provide the shop drawings in an electronic pdf format. Reduce the number of cycles it takes to get shop drawings correct. Time - General contractor controlled but submitting with proper review time before

needing the drawings complete for fabrication is critical. A 200 page set of shop drawings cannot be properly reviewed in one day.


Carefully check drawings before submitting to client for review. Send drawings that had been checked instead of the first thing to come "off the

board." Have all sheets combined into a single pdf and leave enough white space on the

sheet for everyone’s stamp. Verify document or model version that is being used. Have submittals complete and mark clearly where they deviate from the contract

documents. Provide the CAD Model with the PDF drawings. Provide all computer drawn shop drawings. We still work with several

fabricators/detailers that hand draw. The biggest thing I would say, with respect to electronic submittals, which should be

all jobs in my opinion, is to make sure that the electronic file that is submitted is of a reasonable size. They should be making sure that the file is compressed to a manageable size for both transmitting purposes and for ease/speed of review in terms of file size and response.

Most do this already, but most important is to clearly flag in some manner where

changes from the design drawings have been made. My best experiences have involved communication with detailer while working.

Unfortunately, this relationship is not always possible. Structural steel shop drawings are usually acceptable. However, difficulties

encountered on the reviewing end concern content more than method of preparation or submittal (electronic, paper, model). In particular, weld callouts and tying them to WPS's has been a problem.

Provide a Schedule of Submittals The biggest problem I have is that fabricators and detailers are often working off of

old drawing sets and so any recent changes are not taken into account. This is probably more the fault of the architects and contractors that we work with who don't provide the steel detailer with the most up to date drawings often enough or want to get them started before structural drawings are complete in order to speed up the process.

Plan ahead! Do not wait until late into critical path I would consider reviewing a model, but have never been presented with the option. Provide ortho views of model; particularly duct models, with reference to detail sheet

numbers for faster reference. The detailers have been resistant to use a 3D only submittal process. Getting them

on board will help everyone involved.


Nothing. It would be nice knowing they fit all their steel together in a 3d model to ensure it fits up (and possibly to be able to visualize how it fits together), but we'd still prefer paper sets of drawings for review of individual pieces.

Provide shop drawings in construction sequences. All too often, shop drawings are

received with a particular beam mark used throughout the building randomly. While it may make detailing the beam easier because it applies to all of those locations, it makes the review process more difficult. It becomes difficult to track an "Area" of the building when some beams show up in submittal 1, and other beams in the same area show up in submittal 5. The most efficient I was ever able to review shop drawings occurred when the fabricator broke the building into erection sequences, and then provided drawings based on those "Areas". Plus, it made the most sense from a scheduling perspective as well - they were fabricating steel in the order in which they needed it on the job site.

Understand when connections are to be designed by the fabricator.

Limit excessive clouding of issues. Stop sending multiple copies of paper drawings and expect that all copies will be

marked up. For electronic reviewing to be practical, there needs to be agreement on a standard

format for submittal and markings. I am familiar with one system that relies on Adobe Acrobat format for the "marking" function but just as a subset of a larger "drawing control" capability. Were it up to me, I'd tend to default to Adobe since it's easily available to view documents and the mark up functions are reasonably straightforward. However, there is not an obvious "layering" function that I'm aware of that would allow preservation of the interactive markings that invariably occur.

Understand what an Engineer actually does to review the shop drawings. Our group

did an in-house study and the electronic review was much more time consuming. The software did not provide methods with which the engineer could keep track of what was reviewed so that they could move quickly through the detailing sheets. When this was discussed, the software developer dismissed the concern in a face to face meeting.

I believe that 3D models are great. Some EOR or designers already have 3 D

models, so the detailer does not have to redo the modeling in these cases. They can ask and if available it will be significant saving for time and money. Again, I do not see this is necessary for 80 or even 90% of the engineering work

Submit RFI's during their preparation of shop drawings.This would create a more final

set for review. Make all pdf's searchable documents and not just scanned documents Ensure the location of each piece in the submittal is identified in that submittal

package, not a drawing in another submittal or by imprecise references to design drawings.

Look at our drawings : ) Provide drawings electronically, so that paper could be eliminated.


Do NOT submit shop drawings until all drawings for an area are complete and CHECKED.

Submit drawings that follow AISC Detailing practices. Basic information has been

missing on recent shop drawing submittals and there appears to be a lack of understanding of what information shop drawings should contain even though it is listed in the contract documents.

1) Submit shop standard connections prior to submitting fabrication piece drawings.

2) Clearly indicate any deviations to the contract drawings. 3) SUBMIT DRAWINGS EARLY ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE DESIGN PROFESSION TIME FOR REVIEW.

Take the time to create their own shop drawings instead of copying our details and

adding their own notes. We have been tempted many times to reject shop drawings that are copies of our drawings. The shop drawing process is another back check step. If we take the time to redline a drawing, than take the time to implement the change or ask for an explanation. There have been many times, when I go out to on a site visit and the fabricator has used their original detail that I marked up and changed.

Break down submittals between connections and piece drawings.

Send connections first before full drawings are prepared. Provide a complete submittal with all question clearly identified. Coordinate piece marks with locations. At least half the review time is spent finding

the pieces on the erection plans. This has been helped by ability to search pdf's for text if OCR capable.

Submit drawings that are more accurate We have been anxious to try the electronic approval process but none of the

fabricators we typically work with have opted to go down that road Follow the Structural Drawings. Establish the criteria for preparation of shop drawings

Submit the calculations sheets of the main connections

Submit erection drawings with the shop drawings Depends on who is doing the fabricating/detailing. Pre-award meeting needs to take

place to align the review process and system(s) being used top transfer data. Be more complete in the design of the drawings. Should clarify standard details

instead of assuming that everyone knows what the shop does. Make 11x17 drawings the standard, meaning the 11x17 sizes would be readable and

appropriate for reviewing Provide all pertinent information on the drawing.

Submit all building areas, erection plan and details in one package


Properly schedule engineering review time.

Understand fabricator's responsibility and engineer of record's responsibility. Provide 3D interactive models with drill down detail capability for electronic review. Print out paper copies in full size format for review. Likewise, send the entire set in

one package and not piecemeal the delivery of the submittal. Use same nomenclature for beams, etc. as original drawings Check work before submitting. Improved coordination of Design and Construction documents/models. Tekla

BIMsight is a great tool for this! Send the connection calculations before the drawings and cross reference them

better Electronically link the piece mark on the erection drawings to the piece mark drawing.

Click on the item in the erection drawing and it pulls up the piece mark drawing. Nothing, it is perfect the way it is. Fabricators do a terrific job.....general contractors don't coordinate anything.....they

are the biggest problem in reviewing shop drawings. Automatically provide the 3D model and not just upon request. Consolidate repetitive members/connections/conditions into a single item for review.

For example, an 11' W12 floor beam framing into a W18 girder may exist 20 times on 3 different framing plans. That used to constitute one piece drawing. Now I will see 60.

Never, ever, photocopy plans and details from the structural drawings and submit

them as part of shop drawings. If they are working in 3d, it would be nice to have 3d shops. That can even be a pdf

of the 3d model. Offer models up front. Full 3D model approval. This is limited by the technology. Model review - have the detailer, engineer and connection engineer present. I have no problem with current system but I am an old-timer. Format PDF's with bookmarks for ease of finding sheets and going back and forth

between sheets. Provide access to their software for a way to review the model. More up front coordination with the EOR.


Just make the drawings legible and conforming to industry standards The fabricator could provide all the 3D models along with the shop drawings, but also

include a review tool to comment on the model or drawings. Some detailing software has review tools that provide the ability for people to review, status and comment on the model or drawings electronically. (i.e. StruWalker by StruCAD). Other companies have similar tools.

Provide complete drawings as a total set for the project. This was more the standard

in the past, when owner and contractor schedules have not imposed time pressure on overall construction. It has been our increasing experience that Contractors now submit shop drawings partially as they are detailed. This method appears to increase possibility of interface problems between mating details, especially when those details are developed, reviewed, and approved in sequence, rather than together as one.

To select 3D detailing software that has review capability (for engineers to review,

comment and approve). Read the Spec and specials and think about the final product and where there piece

fits. The biggest stumbling block we face is when a contractor/fabricator requires more

than one set of "original" stamped and marked up drawings. This requires us to manually stamp and markup the drawings more than once which slows down and increases the cost of the process. We prefer to send back only one "original" set with markups. Some contractors are starting to accept electronically reviewed drawings so that helps a lot.

Include all t/stl elevations on drawings and note the "nominal. Include pdf files and

one hard copy with shop drawings. Provide a 3D model along with shop drawings for review. 3-D models are good for showing the overall scope of a project but difficult for

checking details, etc. Use Autodesk Design Review Draw the shop drawings correctly the first time. Cloud the area that needs additional info or verification. Add a hyperlink on the PDF

that jumps to the plan and elevation view of the piece mark highlighted. Produce their shop drawings with compatible 3D modeling that the engineer uses to

produce their contract documents. A 3D model for reference can certainly help clarify difficult areas Provide calculations substantiating any connection revisions. Provide the detailer's model at the time of review for shop drawings. Provide complete set of documents including the approved set of plans.


Share the design model with the SER, prepare the detailing model and submit to

SER for review of the critical elements in the structure. Color code members for ease of recognition. Once the model is reviewed and accepted, proceed with the fabrication. No shop drawing submittals for review of interface with other trades, the detailer model could be merged with the design model and areas of interface or concern could be virtually reviewed.

Develop their own drawings instead of just coping the structural drawings and details If in doubt, ask. Clarify issues before sending drawings for review/approval. All should be fully digital. If we ever get hand-drawn shop drawings it makes me

wince. If the automatic connection tools (rule driven)were shown to the engineer then the

engineer could check the rules then check (in the model) to which steel elements the typical connections were applied (circumventing having the check the paper shop drawings) only the non-typical would need paper review.

Do actual "shop" drawings which reflect fabrication. Add 3D models and make sections to check clashes and fit of parts/assemblies, only

for numerous parts or for structures of extraordinary geometry. Produce 2D drawings from 3D models.

We use in-house software application to improve shop drawing review of known

problems which is included at Detailers level. Hence most of the problems will be avoided at Detailer stage itself.

Clear communications, sending RFIs rather than making assumptions. Regular

interactions with the engineer. With the use of 3D models Better referencing between plan sheets and detail sheets, sometimes it is hard to find

specific beams on plan or sections. Shop detailing is preferably the fabricator's responsibility. Where the project

undertakes to provided shop details the fabricator would be required to accept and approve the detailer's model.

As noted above, the fabricator could hire a connection designer who also has

detailing capabilities. This significantly streamlines the process. RFI's are drastically reduced and detailing issues are solved during the detailing process rather than via approval.

Fabricators need to hire qualified domestic detailers. The outsourcing of detailing

has drastically affected the review process, in a negative way Provide Drawings that conform to the construction drawings, instead of using canned

software which he doesn't know how to properly use. It would be nice to have a primer on shop drawing styles vs. CAD/BIM styles.

("styles" meaning techniques and nuances not standards)


Do their own quality control before sending out drawings. Receiving submittals that are complete for a particular zone within a building is a

must for an efficient and complete review. Receiving connection submittals with time for review/approval/modification is also a must.

Make submittal via PDF format a priority over paper submittals. Follow AISC

guidelines for submittals. Send RFIs to clarify details or connections rather than making assumptions to be checked and verified on the shop drawings.

To me, it is easier to review on paper than on computer. Make them clearly readable and understandable. Improve sequencing of shop

drawings to sync with that of actual construction process. #1 Give us advanced notice of when to expect shop drawings for a large project.

Dumping shop drawings on us with no warning and demanding a quick turnaround is not acceptable.

Provide more specific information to the contractor on what part of the project is

being submitted. This helps to keep track of shop drawings for our record keeping. Provide their detailing model early for Navisworks coordination prior to adding

connections. Ensure that their drawings have been checked by a competent party, other than the

originating designer or technician, before submitting them to us, the Engineer of Record, for review. Submit their drawings sufficiently before the reviewed drawings are actually required. Shop drawings should be sent directly from the Detailer/Fabricator to the Engineer.. At the beginning of the job, the Engineer should be provided with not just a construction schedule, but also with a detailing & fabrication schedule. That way if the Engineer gets deluged with multiple shop drawing submittals he can decide which ones should be reviewed first, and not just rely on the First In = First Out rule.

As a minimum, provide E sheets and sections that correspond in kind to the

construction drawings. For model reviews, create views in the model that correspond to plans, sections and elevations in the drawings.

Submit in actual construction sequences - not large volume of steel pieces all over

building Promote and advocate for model based reviews because it works to expedite steel

delivery. A clickable link from the erection plan to the member being detailed. Provide one hard copy and electronic copy Realize that checking the shop drawings via the model software, SDS II or Tekla, is

the preferred method. Using the full capabilities of the program during modeling makes reviewing easier.


Frankly PDF's work pretty well. Note that if models are reviewed by architects and contractors, they will expect to see every component (i.e. kickers that typically aren't modeled throughout the perimeter by the detailer).

Provide a miniature plan or 3D location reference for each piece so it is easy to

identify where it goes on the project. Fully check the shop drawings before submitting for review. Due to pressure of the

schedule, we know that shop drawings are many times submitted for review while the fabricator/detailer is conducting their final checking.

Provide 3d model and pdf shop drawings Link piece marks on the erection plan directly to the piece detail sheet.

Provide a search function on the erection plan to find a piece mark and have it

highlighted.

Provide a way to flag piece marks on an erection plan by review status (no exceptions, excepted as noted, revise as noted, resubmit, etc.)

Detailers need to send out partial shop drawings for the major part of the design. We

see they want every hole in floor, roof, roof frame before issuing anything. The majority of the tonnage waits while trivial and sometimes minor items not figured out delays the issuing of shop drawings (a penny delays a quarter). Roof slope to drain, overflow scupper should not delay the floor plates, although architects are told about these things they don't get it right in the same timing as the bulk of the steel tonnage.

The team needs to have the boundaries clearly defined before an agreement is made

for 3D review. Also, the detailer needs to list the contents/level of detail of the model before and EOR agrees to review.

Check Drawings Prior to submittal. We are not paid to check their work, but often

end up doing so to save field problems (and additional CA time we do not have in our budgets)

If they have built a 3D model, it would be nice to submit the model along with the

shops. Some items may be able to be noticed by reviewing the 3D model. No paper submittals. It is wasteful of time (to duplicate the comments), paper, and

unnecessary transportation costs and pollution. Do your best to understand the model. Use the RFI process to gain understanding

prior to submitting the drawings. Use more modern detailing software. Many are still doing drawings manually

(although mostly on cad, they are still manually created). Integrate miscellaneous metals (grating, railing, stairs, ladders, etc) into the same model with main framing.

Submit complete shop drawings. Submitting only columns and then later submitting

beams increases our work and chances of making an error. Highlight anything that is not per contract documents (we are in CA)

Don't use submittals as an RFI or Change Order vehicle


3D models would be nice. Not much, the procedure is laid out by the owner since we do work internationally so

the detailer practices vary. Always submit drawings as a PDF. 3D models would be great but standardization of

the process has not yet been established. No one trusts the software totally for the drawings In addition to a common 3D model platform, make sure the drawings (shop and

construction) are up-to-date during the approval process. Possibly have a 3D model review (compatibility with client 3D model) before drawings are generated.

Participate in final model reviews prior to start of 2D detail generation. In this

process, any unusual or difficult weld profiles can be identified and possibly revised. Check their work before they submit it.

I think that the detailing of structural steel is already very streamlined. There is not

much that we should be cutting out of the review process.


Question 4: Are you aware of any archiving requirements currently in place for the shop drawing review process? Scan to pdf or comment electronically on pdf. All our archives are electronic and in libraries for quick retrieval No (69) None. We dispose of at completion of project. Only company policy- retaining shop drawings for one year past completion of

construction in case of any warranty issues. Retain original PDFs in addition to marked-up PDFs. (Nothing more than a file back-

up.) We maintain hard copies of shop drawings for one year after building completion.

Now that they are mostly electronic, they are automatically archived with the rest of the server.

No, but we save our shop drawings by printing the pdf's. Company policy requires shops to be scanned and electronically stored No. Each firm has their own way of archiving. We scan all marked up hard copy

review sets with comments and return electronic copies. These "approved as noted" drawings become the archive set.

Yes, hard copies we generally keep a year after the project is open and electronic we

keep forever but we do remove electronic copies from our server and burn them to cd's for storage.

We archive all shop drawings as PDFS (paper copies are scanned into PDFs) for

several years and then disposed of at the proper time. Shop drawings are retained in the project files during the construction phase, but

discarded after the project is complete... with the exception of prefabricated metal buildings, which we archive a hard copy with the project files.

All shop drawings and comments are retained in Primavera. No, it seems that all project team members maintain their own copy of what they

reviewed. We do not necessarily receive or see the final "approved by all" set of shop drawings.

I am not aware of any at my place of employment No knowledge of legal requirements. We store copies of reviewed drawings electronically. Our electronic files are archived

regularly.


PDFs of submittals & reviewed submittals are retained in a submittal folder of the project folder.

We keep one paper copy of the marked up shop drawings until the job is built. An

electronic scan of the drawings that actually had red marks is kept in the archived job files after the job is built.

Currently keep shop drawings a couple of years after the project has been

completed. We archive all shop drawings by contract. Initial review through final accepted

drawing. Yes, we must provide owners with as-built drawings which are generally the final

shop drawings. In a 3D only review process, the detailer has provided 2d pdfs. No. We keep them until we are done with record drawings. Yes...all shop drawings and associated comments are scanned and placed on

company hard drive. No. We typically save copies of all markups we send back. It used to be paper

copies, but now it's often electronic versions when we scan them in. Yes; in some situations they are archived electronically for future reference. Retain a copy of the original file before mark-up. Archive all submittals for 10 years. All shop drawings gets archived, just like the drawings and specs. I believe all

engineering firms do this. Retain copy of shop drawings and review comments in project archives. We archive PDF copies and/or hard copies of all mark-ups for at least as long as

required by engineering statutes. Internally, we maintain pdf or paper copies of all shop drawing submissions reviewed

by our office. We archive each submission of shop drawings in our corporate on line document

management system. Save, copy, file, archive, backup hard and electronic copies of all shop drawings and

correspondence. Yes, all submittals are saved electronically to the project folder on the company

servers. Saved on Sharepoint electronically No. My firm is currently trying to develop a document retention policy, and shop

drawings are one of the main things we have been struggling with. Up to this point, we haven't disposed of shop drawings, but it has become a storage problem for our small firm.


Shop Drawings are reviewed by engineer and they are part of the documents when

the project is closed Reviewed shop drawings and corrected erection drawings are archived and become

part of the facility record drawings Project specific. As engineers we retain 1 year past occupancy then discard. Destroy reviewed drawings 3 years after completion of project My firm keeps a copy of all shop drawings for several years. Yes. Retain records for 5 years after construction is completed. Most clients do not want the shop drawing after construction is completed. We give the owner a set of the shop drawings at the end of the project. Fabrication models commonly replace design models as the BIM record. When we do the model reviews, we archive the marked up erection drawings and

any cut sheets along with the submitted shop drawings which incorporated the changes.

Our company saves a set of the marked up approved shop drawings but it would be

nice to get an electronic copy of the final field use drawings. PDF versions and paper copies are kept on archive after the project is complete. All shop drawings and markups are archived indefinitely. Yes, contractor to supply a paper set of shop drawing after review and approval We currently store scanned copies of marked up shop drawings and electronic

copies of comments in additions to the markups. We scan all incoming fab and erection drawings as well as all outgoing markups of

same. These electronic scans of hard copy markups are permanently archived in project files.

Our policy is to archive them for 1 year following completion. We keep paper review stamped and certified drawings until the project is complete

then they are scanned and stored electronically. I am not aware of any industry standard archiving requirements. We have our own in

house policy. Reviewed shop drawings are marked up in electronic format and saved to our

company's local server. We keep copies of all returned documents including all review comments


Our shop drawings are submitted electronically and stored online in a SharePoint server. So we always have a record copy of the shop drawings.

Yes; unless it is a signature project that might require future analysis or assessment,

we retain shop drawings for brief period of time ( ~1 year after occupancy) after the project is complete. If it is a significant project, we retain them indefinitely.

We scan and store on our server Our clients typically require a hard copy or electronic copy of all shop drawings at the

completion of the project. Yes we keep all shop drawings for one year after project completion. Yes. They are quite old. The shop drawings become a part of the project files the

engineer keeps on record with the design drawings. These are documents used in field inspections. Was that approved actually built?

All drawings must be archived per project in the office, electronically is more

convenient. Paper prints are also archived after a few months or years they are considered fit for archiving following the office quality assurance procedure.

No, we do not archive shops after we close out a project Not beyond the archiving of reviewed submittals in a project database such as

SharePoint or Constructware. No universal requirements. As a firm, we only keep PDFs and then discard in 7

years or so. Yes, our firm permanently archives both the incoming and outgoing shop drawings

for all projects as part of our QMS process. Yes, we have our in-house system where the process of review and re-review is

tracked and scanned copies of reviewed documents archived. Yes, shop drawings needs to be archived and kept at least 3 years after completion

of project. In our company, we maintain shop details until construction is complete and all

issues resolved. We store returned shop drawings electronically. This is typically a company issued directive and is just a good practice We typically keep hard copies of shop drawings until the end of construction.

Electronic copies of pdf's would get archived with other data via routine backups and periodic archive and removal of data from the system.

We have an in-house policy, but generally shop drawings don't appear to fall within

various states’ archiving requirements. Yes, we archive electronic shop drawing files.


No. We archive shop drawings in our office till one year of building occupancy. Yes store one hard copy. Yes, usually designer and engineer go through a set of red marked drawings in pdf

format for in-house archiving purpose Yes, using BIM within the 3-D model data base Temporary archiving at current firm during the construction life of the project. Once

project has been closed-out, they are discarded (unless electronic versions are available).

Yes, we keep records internally of all the drawings we review. Everything is saved electronically. Old days they were thrown out the plant was built. Our current is a PDF of the shop drawing sheet as the record copy. The model is

only stored by the engineer in the structural files and is not relied on as a record because changes in software may make the model obsolete in 5 years.

We use Newforma to log in and respond to all submittals, RFIs, etc. Everything is automatically archived.

We download and store pdf's. Assuming that mode of storage will still be available in the future and not obsolete.

The reviewed office copy is filed in the stick room for 1 year after project closure

before being placed in off-site storage. After a designated period unless the project is considered a special archive, the shop drawings are destroyed. Electronic copies if provided or scanned in house are filed with the project information and archived on electronic media that will be kept indefinitely following project closure.

I have paper copy in my attic. Yes. We currently make a model archive with all the detailing based shop drawing

for each review. Then submit an IFC model of the comments / approved model for record.

Yes, a record copy is kept until project completion. We keep all copies of our review and return as part of our standard record files. Our firm has a record in and a record out of all shop drawings. Paper files for paper

shops, and electronic archives for electronic shops. We generally print out particularly important shop drawings (main structural steel,

etc.) and keep them on hand for a year or so. We archive all electronic files of cds. Binders and in-house data management system We have set-up our own filing standards We electronically archive all of our submittals.


Question 5: In the future do you believe models will be reviewed for fabrication instead of drawings? How long before this is prevalent?

In the future do you believe models will be reviewed for fabrication instead of drawings? If so when?

20%

36%

20%

24%

0-4 Years

Between 5-9 years

More than 10 Years

Never-Drawings willAlways be Needed


The questions in following section (6-13) are based on respondent’s agreement or disagreement with a given statement

83

107

120

81

57

1-StronglyDisagree

2 3 4 5-StronglyAgree

I fully understand the process of reviewing models over drawings

40

79

158

108

64

1-Stronglydisagree

2 3 4 5-Strongly

agree

The Cost of Software is Prohibitively Expensive


58

82 88

119

102

1-StronglyDisagree


I have the skills, or we have staff in-house that have the skills to perfrom model review

71

96

169

66

31

1-StronglyDisagree


The Software Tools Have Sufficient Tools for Tracking, Archiving, "Stamping" and Keeping

Records


36

76

180

90

46

1-Stronglydisagree

2 3 4 5-Stronglyagree

Fabricators and detailers share models when asked

146

110

94

55

35

1-StronglyDisagree


Reviewing a Model does not Incur Additional Liability


30

53

140

112 106

1-StronglyDisagree


My Fee Would Need to be Higher to Review Models Instead of Drawings

92

111

132

70

40

1-Stronglydisagree

2 3 4 5-Strongly

agree

I would save time if I reviewed models instead of drawings


Question 14: What can AISC or the software vendors do to help overcome the obstacles mentioned above? Come up with good software backed by AISC ACI or ASCE. Show that legacy issues

will not be a problem. Easy to use and intuitive GUI. Offer training courses, informational sessions, or webinars. If models are to be reviewed the procedures to review the models need to be

specifically defined. I think the use of large electronic documents becomes very difficult between users.

Software must be affordable to all parties, and must be easy to learn. Provide thorough "beta" testing. Provide appropriate training.

Quit trying to push "innovation" such as 3-D modeling and BIM just for the sake of

selling software. Owners have been sold on the idea by software vendors and an artificial "need" has been created.

Training and standards Training on model review vs drawing review.

Maybe a design guide on how to review models. Make input in BIM as quick & easy as (or, better, uniform with) the structural analysis

software, so there is no need to keep 2 separate models.

I would say help with education. The biggest obstacle to new things is people unwilling because they are not used to it or that is not how they have done it. I think it would be important to show them how it is done, how it works, who has done it, and to show that there is not any additional risk to performing a review this way.

Unify the software. There are various software packages that are available but are

not compatible. Various clients demand certain software packages. If you do not have it, one must incur cost. Double whammy is software developers constantly requiring A/E to pay for annual renewal fees. Some of these fees are high and the return short of getting an updated version within one year is not that impressive.

Training. Standardizing communication between software used. Vendors wanting Structural Engineers to review their models should provide free

software for reviewers. AISC should publish a review guideline stating what review of the model entails.

Educate us

This sounds like something that would benefit from industry standard and support.

AISC is the leader in such matters. Really, the issues are in the Contracts' terms and conditions - so that's where real

change would come from.


Education and cooperation. Standard software for the industry will expedite understanding & use.

All software vendors, customers and fabricators should be on the same page when

embracing the model/hardcopy shop drawing review. Software vendors should offer low cost versions of the program to allow reviews. All

programs should have the ability to lock the model after a review to assure changes are not made to approved models.

Educate fabs, detailers how to share models and how to streamline the review

process. Surprisingly, one 3 past jobs it was the detailer who didn't want to share their model. I think that some work is still done in Acad (like adding welds) and that may be a part of the resistance.

Anything AISC can do to promote 3D review - I am all for. I have not gone through the model review process before so education regarding the

process and any potential problems would be appreciated. You cannot eliminate all obstacles--reduce them would be to have a meeting by all

stake holders and agree on the approach that would suite your "Specific" situation/project.

Pay attention to "terminology" as different stake holder can interpret the same term

differently. Forget about submitting models for shop drawing review If not already in place, establish a framework of minimum requirements for

preservation and archiving features; encourage use of a particular standard file format for electronic files being submitted; establish accepted "action" or "status" stamps and definitions regarding the action's significance, need for resubmittal, etc. that are considered "default" in the absence of further definition.

Software Vendors need to realize that there are more audiences involved in the

model than just the fabricator and detailer if they want an electronic review to occur. Engineers need time-saving methods for an electronic model review to be useful. Past experiences with two of the leading detailing software packages were not useful for electronic review and found to be more time-consuming than the standard paper practice. I believe that software vendors should develop a standalone package (separate from the detailing package) that helps Engineer complete their review. Easy to use functions for commenting and tracking approved pieces should be provided. Finally a method for archiving the approved model with the Engineer's Comments is needed.

Come down with the price of the software, offer ample training, sell more of it, do the

job faster, everybody is happy then. I believe that most fabricators have the software that is already linked to their shop equipment and can produce 3D models without much added cost. The engineering firms are the ones lagging behind for the most part.

Affordable seminars and training aids.


Liability is always the main issue. We always struggle with reviewing more than would be typically or contractually required based on a desire to avoid the risk. AISC could help create some clarity. There are decent lists from many of the structural engineering associations, but they leave all of the tricky parts in grey zones

Develop and publish model work processes for exchanging model files and recording

the reviews in the files.

Provide training in model review.

Develop and publish model contract language addressing the sharing of responsibility and liability

Not sure if software is already available to do this, but I think the ideal platform would

be a 3D model review that captures review comments automatically in the 2D PDF format. This can then be the official review document for archiving.

White papers, articles, seminars, including legal aspects. AISC needs to start educating everyone about the costs associated with models and

up keeping models along with the benefits of using a model. Other disciplines and industries have done a good job of selling their "updated" technology along with the associated costs.

Systematize the process; offer training If the detailing software people want to provide reviewing software, that would be

fine. But it would need to be no more time consuming than paper review (which varies from simple to onerous, depending mainly on the detailer. Bad detailers repeat the same errors over and over.).

Develop a standard program or software for all models so familiarity with the software

and its measurements/tools/comments/archiving is standardized Make the ability to add review comments better. Educate/inform the process how 3D review works Don’t try and force a modeling system that is not on equal planes with all in the

industry for use as a substitute for reviewing of the design and details of shop submittals.

Provide much needed training in the review of models in lieu of drawings. Building

codes, technical institutes and trade associations need to provide guidance and regulations on reviewing models.

By developing standard practice that can help keeping track of the review Provide free seminars on how to use model review software to check a "shop

drawing" model. More educational tools on the subject. Software discounts.


AISC can drive the industry to a common

Educate us on how model review would work. We haven't tried it yet. Provide free on-site orientation and training. I have performed some model review as

supplement to more traditional paper review, but this model review did not entail need for engineer to stamp, annotate, annotate, supplement, revise, or otherwise affect the furnished model in any way.

If model review is to completely supplant traditional paper review, then all aspects of

the operation need to be known and understood. Work towards a common platform for models both fabrication and design so that they

can be easily shared. AISC: to promote 3D model review

Software vendor: To provide standalone 3D model review software with built in tools

for markups, comments, status stamps, etc. (to avoid using additional software such as Adobe, Bluebeam, etc.).

Hands on seminars, and trial versions of software, tutorials, etc. Provide model guidelines for shop drawing submission and review Develop recommendations for tracking, archiving, stamping, and record keeping that

would standardize the industry. Then educate the construction industry. The models that I have reviewed did not have a method for indicating which

components had been reviewed. This would be helpful Standardize the electronic redlines. It is difficult to tell where the redline originated,

the fabricator or engineer Standardization of file formats. An integrated "review" function in the software, such

that say a beam turns green if engineer has indicated it has been reviewed. More training in the usage of the software tools AISC should take the lead; form an industry coalition of designer, connection

designers, fabricators and erectors to develop standards of delivery for shop drawings and erection drawings. In addition, develop standard model notations with compatibility of modeling and detailing software allowing full and complete interoperability as well as providing the necessary information for design, review and approval of structural elements. These tools could then be used for true collaborative design.

Develop a procedure for the equivalent of a sealed drawing, including tracking of

"documents" and preventing changes to an approved model. Educate and promote ideas dealing with risk associated with model review and

various software available. Seminars and webinars


There must be an obvious and significant benefit to the design engineer to review a model instead of drawings. Schedule catered presentations for the engineering community in all the major cities to demonstrate the ease and superiority of 3D model review- and if it is better it will catch on.

Companies like Tekla need to create custom versions of their fabrication tools only

for shop drawing review at a much lower price. Currently you need to buy a full engineering license ($10,000) to use their review tool. This cost is prohibitively high for most engineering offices especially considering we will not use Tekla for BIM work (we use Revit). The other problem is there several different steel fabrication software used by detailers so having to have more than one reviewer software (& training) is pretty expensive.

Standardizing Software, reviewing methods and modes, checklists etc. so all affected

parties can efficiently and effectively negotiate any project Reducing the cost of the software. Standardized formats and organization for the model components and presentation

of details By using compatible 3D models between Engineers, detailers and fabricator while

AISC continue to educate more on need for model review Software vendors need recognize the market opportunity they have with this

functionality that their software can offer - they can improve on the process. Collaboration between the interested parties will help significantly.

Show how this works in practice, pros and cons of doing model review over pdf or

paper review, etc. Make the necessary software freely available. Have one common software, easy to

use and powerful. Possibly hold webinars that would provide more information about model review:

what is it, how it’s done, and that are some of the ramifications of going "drawingless"?

Price and standardization between software companies Have more discussions on the topic through webinars and on the AISC Magazine Software vendors can ease the transition for reviewers by making the interface for

model review as similar to the paper review process that we are used to as possible Provide a methodical way for tracking all members to ensure each member is

completely reviewed for connections and for conflicts along the length of each member.

Make it easy to use, give the software to A/Es, train the detailers in one standard of

presentation. My limited understanding is that the detailing/review software is proprietary and

expensive. We cannot afford to carry these licenses. We would need the fabricator to


provide us with a limited license to use the review software on their project or something to that effect.

Develop standards on what is needed to be shown in the models. Develop language

to cover the transfer of the model from the architect to the fabricator against model errors and omissions. The fabricator would need to take responsibility for the model geometry.

I think the engineering community would help itself by gradually experimenting with

the electronic process instead of a "cold turkey" approach (i.e. start with a small project see how it goes, etc). This will obviously require a time investment that will need to be reflected on the engineering fees. The software vendors will help the process by giving realistic time-frames to do become proficient in the program instead of the apparent "buy our software, attend a 2 hr seminar and you're now an expert" pitch line.

Provide case studies that explain the process and share the advantages and

disadvantages of a 3D model review. Navisworks is an expensive solution, but if one person on the project team has it, anyone can view the federated model with Navisworks Freedom.

Free software. Pay for me to learn the software. In theory it saves time/money to the

project but we never share in the savings. Our contract through the design side is negotiated and signed months if not years before the steel is detailed. Later in construction, the lure of savings usually gets the owner's ear. There is value in this service and maybe the GC or sub should contract directly with the engineer, paying us a percentage to make it happen

Buy in from AEC community has to include Revit interoperability. Instead of creating

a separate software package for model review, create add-ons or extensions for Revit that will accomplish the same thing in the Revit environment. The structural engineer may reluctantly move to a third party software review tool, but there's little chance an architect will. Bring in the model to be reviewed as a link, make comments on that link, pass on to the next reviewer and be able to see those comments and approval status(es) of each member. Instead, everyone is competing to create separate tools

Making people familiar with the software and model checking process. Most of the

people I know have never heard of this digital modeling process Discover a way to reduce liabilities First, drawings are needed for erection by the contractor in the field, and therefore, I

do not believe that models will replace drawings anytime soon. For many structural analysis programs, the structure model is now by-product of the design process and enhances the review process by showing potential errors prior to fabrication. To increase efficiency, the designer, fabricator, and contractor should all be able to share the same model from concept through construction. A standard model sharing format similar to a DXF for CAD drawing could help improve the sharing of one model. I realize there are potential liability issues associated with sharing models and the lawyers will need to develop documents that set responsibility limits for each firm the can be agreed upon.


I see model review supplementing shop drawing review long before model replaces electronic drawings. There is a lot of convenient and quickly accessed information in an annotated shop drawing. Review software needs to allow for quick annotation of connections in the 3D model (i.e. quickly hover over a weld to get the type, size, and length). Pulling up dialogs of connections to retrieve information or having to measure every item of interest will prohibit acceptance of review.

Work with software manufacturers to incorporate electronic documentation methods

for review and piece approval, commenting, etc Mainly, the vendors need to make sure the model can display all the same

information the drawings would show i.e. welds, materials, shapes etc. This is probably the biggest current hurdle.

A liability policy needs to be accepted industry wide regarding use of other people's

models. For example, we currently require anyone we provide models or electronic drawings to, must sign an Electronic Document Transfer Agreement that waives any liability on our part for use of the document.

Encourage software manufacturers to develop a free version of their software for

model review and develop tools to allow electronic shop drawing approval of the projects.

I believe the risk and liability along with contact issues is preventing this process from

being fully implemented. A webinar regarding the legal issues would be helpful Educate project managers on the concerns related to model review including: liability,

difficulty, accessibility, etc. Educate fabricators and engineers on low-cost methods to review models.

Continue to develop consistent transfer protocol between software packages.

Influence the software vendors to support the transfer protocol. It is going to be a long process, but I believe that eventually the software tools will

allow electronic checking of shop drawings, marking them up, recording them and returning them to the vendor without any paper.

I think learning how to use the software required to review models is the biggest

obstacle. It will take longer for us to review models initially, but over time, I can see it taking less time.

Provide standards or specifications Software developers need to work closely with industry, including fabricators,

erectors, contractors, engineers, and detailers and incorporate the input from this practitioners-take it seriously.

Establish standards or recommended processes for 3D model review and make them

known to the engineering community. By demonstrating and trying the review process. We have found that reviewing the

3D model and associated pdfs to be a very efficient tool.

survey summary - approval v2

Documents