How to Improve your

Shop Drawing Review

By Michael Gustafson, P.E.

April 2013
 How to Improve your Shop Drawing Review
T
he structural steel detailing industry has contin-
ued to expand its use of 3D modeling technology
in recent years; currently more than 80 percent
of the structural steel detailing market in the
United States is using some form of 3D/BIM modeling
software (American Institute of Steel Construction, 2011). This
change has brought great to the steel detailer’s
own productivity, in addition to improving upstream and
downstream processes. The Structural engineer, however,
has not adopted 3D models to improve their own
productivity in reviewing and approving structural steel
shop drawings. According to the same fabricators using 3D
modeling above, less than 1% use these models in the
review process with the structural engineer. Comparatively 70%
of structural engineers have adopted 3D models/BIM for design
coordination and drawing production. So why hasn’t this adoption
of design review trickled into shop drawing review?
AISC’s survey outlines several barriers that include perceived
software learning and costs, liability issues reviewing the model,
and paper-based contract requirements. Despite these barriers,
the structural engineering industry looks positive towards shop
model review. AISC’s survey states that 60% structural engineers
see model-based review of shop drawings being an industry
drawings using a range of emerging technologies. The transfer of
digital technology, but now enhanced visualization methods of
review have been implemented on several projects around
the country.
What is the SEOR’s scope for
shop drawing review?
Per AISC’s survey to structural engineers in 2011, structural
project during the construction administration phase. In this phase,
the tasks of reviewing and approving shop drawings still prove to be
while the importance of the task remains as important as ever.
The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Code of
Standard Practice (COSP) outlines what is required of the steel
fabricator and of the SEOR in the submission and approval of shop
drawings. Minimal information is provided regarding the content to
be reviewed by the SEOR, since this is typically outlined at the
The COSP states that a steel fabricator expects a 14 calendar-day
turn around from the day it releases drawings to the day the
fabricator receives the approved shop drawings back from the
With the nature of today’s accelerated 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 and turn around approved submittals in less time.
2 PDH
By Michael Gustafson, P.E.
A signed set of calculation sheets from a professional engineer
for all connection designs not covered by the design drawing contract
the COSP states that the SEOR shall review and approve structural
Continuing Education
If you read the following article, display your
understanding of the stated learning objectives, and
of your continuing education requirements at no cost
to you.
Instructions
First, review the learning objectives below, then
read the Professional Development article. Next,
complete the quiz and submit your answers to the
Professional Development sponsor. Submittal
instructions are provided on the Reporting Form
on page 6. Your quiz answers will be graded by the
Professional Development sponsor. If you answer
at least 80 percent of the questions correctly, you will
of completion within 90 days and
will be awarded 1.0 professional development hour
(equivalent to 0.1 continuing education unit in most
states). Note: It is the responsibility of the license to
determine if this method of continuing education meets
his or her governing board(s) of registration requirements.
Learning Objectives
The 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 Sponsor
TEKLA Inc.
 How to Improve your
Shop Drawing Review
connections and details designed by others drawings. All the industry leading steel detailing
-
(see COSP – Section 4.4.1). The submittal of connection software packages provide some type of free viewer

Standards for shop drawing review

The SEOR has an obligation to verify that the structural design of the SEOR approving 2D paper drawings, but the process
intent is being properly communicated by the steel fabricator

how this is conducted are determined by the SEOR or, more containing the approval comments by the EOR. In other words,
commonly, by a company standard. Typically, structural the use of the 3D model is to make the review process more
engineers will follow a checklist for reviewing and approving
the erection and assembly shop drawings. 2D paper approval drawings. Key steps the steps in the

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 structural 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 information with the design
fabricator’s 3D model (also referred to as the construction model)
can help the SEOR better visualize and review the shop drawings
as well as speed up the SEOR’s time reviewing the shop drawings.
For more than 80 percent of the projects built in the United
States that detail structural steel (AISC, 2011), the SEOR may
obtain access to the 3D construction model for review of
shop drawing submittals. Such tools can be helpful in
improving the SEOR’s understanding of the proposed
fabricated product by the steel fabricator. Several
3D construction model in the review process. These
Step 1. Coordination of building systems
between the structural systems (such as structural steel, cast-in-place concrete,
precast, etc.) that have surfaced during the shop drawing stage that ultimately
by means and methods (which is typically not part of the SEOR’s scope of work),
the 3D construction model, which has a much higher level of detail, 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 interactive reports
that can be created within the construction model, or from the model elements
context of the construction model is that the contents of both are superimposed
together in one location. This eliminates the SEOR’s need to go back and forth
between design plans and the fabricator’s erection drawings.
To coordinate the structural steel frame with non-structural elements such as
overlay either 2D drawings or 3D reference models into the steel construction
model.

visualization tool — which still requires 2D shop drawings

fabricator — to the approval of the 3D construction model

in lieu of 2D drawings.
of 2D design drawings and the 3D steel construction model.
that utilize everything from 2D paper to 100% model review
(Gustafson 2007; Quinn 2009; Moor 2012). In this paper,

Model-Assist, Hybrid Review, and Model Review Lite.

Model-Assist
Model-Assist basically represents the traditional shop drawing
approval process in which the structural engineer’s design
drawings are used along with the fabricator’s submitted shop
drawing set but with the aid of the fabricator’s 3D model.
Especially for complex framing conditions, the ability to
visualize the shop assemblies in 3D is a great asset to the
structural engineer and can greatly improve the quality of review,
even if the formality of the review is still done with traditional

PDH 3
 How to Improve your
Shop Drawing Review

Step 2. Review and approval of assemblies

— As described above, enhanced visualization tools exist to
help the EOR better understand how their design intent is
being interpreted by the builders. With this in mind, there
are opportunities to improve the actual review process itself

are successfully reviewing 2D drawings electronically using

coordinating of information between the design and shop

drawings.

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

An example of an reviewed and stamped assembly shown in both
assembly sheet that they wish to review. In contrast, the the 3D model and 2D electronic drawings in PDF format.

model, and then open the corresponding, 2D electronic
shop drawing to view the assembly as needed. Secondly,
the actual 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 fabricator’s
construction model allows the reviewer to view lists of such
standard information in reports, allowing the SEOR to quickly
review larger quantities of data and then to compare and
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
A992 in the list, while structural plate and miscellaneous
the project.
Step 3. Comment on assembly — The Hybrid Review
the 3D model environment, which correspond to the 2D
electronic shop drawings (see Figure 2). Thereviewer status of
each element or assembly in the model can be shown in
drawing as a custom stamp. This linking of the 3D model to the
2D shop drawings in PDF format allows the SEOR to review the
3D model, the 2D shop drawings, or both; and simultaneously
stamped 2D shop drawings in PDF format, the documents can
be saved with restricted privileges or simply plotted out as a
record set and submitted back to the fabricator as required.
During connection design approval process, the SEOR can also utilize the
fabricator’s 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 SEOR
can then verify that the design code is valid at each
connection location, or even viewed in conjunction with the
provided submitted calculation sheets by the connection
engineer.
Model Review-Lite
The use of integrated-project delivery (IPD) methods, in
conjunction with the use of BIM, is bringing forth new business
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 are now migrating into the mainstream work
leveraging BIM technology.
Note that several entities in the building and construction
implemented to date, and are documenting how the industry
could adopt such processes. Both the owners group Construction
Users Roundtable (CURT) and the American General Contractors
Association have documented recommendations of how the shop

Step 4. Connection design review — It is recom- by adding Appendix A to accommodate the use of digital design
mended that the fabricator and engineer agree on a pre- and/or fabrication models to be used instead of design and/or shop
approval process where the EOR pre-approves the design drawings given the project requirements (see COSP, Appendix A,
16.3-65). AISC is now moving ahead with a goal to increase the
calculations and associated connection parameters prior
to reviewing the shop drawings. This is already a common
from its current 10% to 18% by 2015.
practice with the current 2D Review w. Each type of
connection can be assigned an agreed upon connection

with the design calculations.

4 PDH

Using a Model Review-Lite approach, the SEOR coordinates
and reviews the model using procedures simliar to that of the
Hybrid Review approach; however, how the EOR approves and
submittals. Instead of using paper drawings, the SEOR provides
the steel fabricator the submittal review status electronically in
submitted to the steel fabricator’s detailer who imports and
views the SEOR’s approval status and comments into his or her
own construction model. Note that the SEOR does not have to
submit an actual model, but only submits comments to the
fabricator’s detailer. That way there is no concern with the
SEOR changing the fabricator’s model during the review
process. What can be used as a record-set of the approved
well as the construction model archived in its native format, or
the construction information per submittal, and which can be
retrieved easily and with accuracy at a later date.
does not require 2D shop drawings to be produced. The SEOR
Review process above, with the exception of needing to
stamp 2D electronic drawings as the submitted deliverable,
using this approach are up to 50% faster than using any form
of drawings because they can see, comment and stamp all
informaton in one centralized location (Moor, 2012).
A new approach to shop drawing review
If you are interested in incorporating either the 2D-3D
Review or 3D Review on your next structural
steel project, the step is communicating early in the
project 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 owner’s
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 ow is utilized, the project
team members may have to adjust certain aspects of their
ow to accommodate a process. Suggested
items to discuss include the following:
• Deliverable for submittals — The type
of documentation required for submittal
process — whether paper, 2D electronic, or
3D model-based — must be established since it
can other aspects of the review wo w.
• project roles and responsibilities — The
type of information that the SEOR wishes to review should
be 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. Also which project team members will be involved
in the review process is important to discuss. The architect,
general contractor and SEOR all can participate in the
process if desired.
How to Improve your
Shop Drawing Review
• — The order in which
the submittals are reviewed and passed on to the next
review team member should be dsicussed. In-parallel or in-
digital information.
• Pre-work by steel fabricator — Any set up by the steel
fabricator’s 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 SEOR 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 S EOR’s expectations are for design calcula-
tions can be discussed.
• Comments — How shop drawings comments are
orchestrated, either within the model or on the drawing
itself, should be discussed. Also, a common library of standard
comments should be agreed upon.
• Stamping and approvals — The fabricator’s detailer
can be asked to set up the electronic stamp template
for the S E O R so that when the shop drawings are sent to
the engineer, stamping the drawing does not require the
SEOR’s 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 format agreed upon, such as a PDF, and
saved.
• Review of approved shop drawings by the steel
fabricator — Depending on the wo ow used, the
fabricator’s detailer may wish to receive the approval status
information in a 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 S 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.
This example list of topics can be reviewed with the project
drawing review process.
Conclusion
Building and construction industry experts anticipate
of three industry trends: building-information-modeling,
integrated project delivery methods (such as design-build) and
sustainability (Cross 2008). The impact of the convergence could
projects are managed and delivered. Interestingly, the 3D
with these three trends. First, BIM can help engineers better
visualize not only their design intent, but the construction team’s
interpretation of the design intent during the shop drawing review
stage. Secondly, project delivery methods that capitalize on the-
PDH 5
 How to Improve your
Shop Drawing Review
expertise of structural steel specialty contractors,
as well as that of the structural engineer, will
further enable the use of 3D, model-based
review stage.
For example, a recent hospitcal project in Oakland, CA
demonstrated a reduction of 10 weeks in the overall project s
chedule when implementing a 3D, model-based review of the
structural steel shop drawing submittals using an integrated
project delivery process (Moor, 2012). Third, the growing trend
of sustainable design is giving structural engineers an opportunity
to better promote their capabilities in producing sustainable designs
for their clients. Using less paper during the structural steel
estimates showed that over 50 million sheets of paper shop
drawings were used to procure the structural steel shop drawing
review process for projects in the United States (Survey of 100,000
tons of projects delivered in the United States in 2007
- Construction
recognized, the structural engineering industry will move
construction team, while the structural engineer can use a
more productive, accurate, and even more enjoyable process
in approving structural steel shop drawings.
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
• Shop Drawing Review: The Past – The Future: ,
Gustafson 2007
• Moor, Chris; American Institute of Steel Construction
(July 2012), ”A Model Approach,” Modern Steel
• Quinn, Brian; American Institute of Steel Construction
(Feb. 2010), “ I’ll Volunteer to Review the Shop Drawings!,,”
Modern Steel Construction
• Shop Model Review and Approval presentation,
AISC roadshow (2013)

1075 Big Shanty Rd NW, Suite 175, Kennesaw, GA 30144

Phone: 770-426-5105 • Fax: 770-919-0574 • Email: info.us@tekla.com
Web: www.tekla.com

Article Title: How to Improve your Shop Drawing Review

Publication Date: April 2013
Sponsor: TEKLA Inc.
Valid for credit until: April 2015

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 information

Last Name: First Name: Middle Initial:
Title: Firm Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Telephone: Fax: E-mail:

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

6 PDH
Professional Development
Quiz
1. Per AISC COSP Section 4.4.1, a signed set of calculation
sheets from a Professional Engineer is required by the project
steel design is delegated:
a) All connection designs not covered by the Design Drawing
contract documents
b) Electrical and plumbing penetrations
c) Foundation elements
d) Non-load bearing concrete-masonry walls
2. The COSP states an expected turn around time by the
fabricator from when the steel fabricator releases to when he or
she receives the approved shop drawings from the EOR.
What is that time frame?
a) 7 calendar days
b) 10 calendar days
c) 14 calendar days
d) none of the above
3. Based upon the example checklist provided, the SEOR will
typically check all of the following on a shop drawing EXCEPT:
a) Section and material properties of assembly
b) Location of assembly on erection plan
c) Temporary shoring requirements of the steel erector
d) Number of bolts in connection per submitted connection design
calculations
4. The estimated percentage of structural steel projects in the
United States that use 3D modeling for structural steel detailing
(as of 2011) is:
a) More than 80 percent
b) More than 60 percent
c) Less than 40 percent
d) Less than 30 percent
5.
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) To view assembly information and design drawing
information superimposed together
c) By reviewing the architect’s model, the SEOR relieves the architect of all
responsibility in coordinating the accuracy of their design
d) a and b
Michael Gustafson, P.E., is the Engineering
Product Team Manager for North America at Tekla.
He can be reached at Michael.Gustafson@tekla.com.
6.
utilize a 3D construction model during the review and
- approval of assemblies?
a) Find all instances of assemblies in the model
b) View reports of standard material lists of the assemblies
c) Comment and stamp 2D PDF shop drawings via 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) How will steel special inspections for the project be handled
b) Reviewing the foundation rebar shop drawings
c) Managing resubmittals
d) Coordinating mechanical issues found that week
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 Manual - 13th Edition
b) CURT – AGC – AIA 3XPT document
c) National Institute of Steel Detailers Guideline
d) AISC Code of Standard Practice – Appendix A
9.
process in that following ways:
a) It uses a digitally reviewed 3D construction model as the reviewed
record set
b) It uses electronic 2D drawings as the deliverable of submittals
c) It uses paper drawings as the deliverable of submittals
d) Both a and b
10.
a) A model is revewed and stamped instead of drawings
b) Drawings can only be reviewed electronically
c) Visualize complex framing in 3D
d) Faster analysis and design
-
PDH 7
 Build Better with BIM
Bring your project information together, in one place, in a 3D context with Tekla’s BIM
solutions. The software uniquely enables streamlined communication and decision making
throughout all phases of the construction process from design, detailing, construction and
project handover.

Contact us and see how Tekla:

> Provides a comprehensive set of tools for structural modeling
> Integrates with existing analysis tools
> Produces drawings that are always current
> Shares models with architects, fabricators and contractors

Tekla BIM (Building Information Modeling) software solutions provide a data-rich 3D environment
that can be shared by contractors, structural engineers, steel detailers and fabricators, and
concrete detailers and manufacturers. Choose Tekla for the highest level of detail, accuracy,
constructability and integration in project management and delivery. Visit our website to learn
more about Tekla solutions and references.
> www.tekla.com