How to Improve your Review

By Michael Gustafson, P.E.

April 2013 How to Improve your Shop Drawing Review By Michael Gustafson, P.E.

he structural steel detailing industry has contin- A signed set of calculation sheets from a professional engineer ued to expand its use of technology for all connection designs not covered by the design drawing contract in recent years; currently more than 80 percent of the structural steel detailing market in the the COSP states that the SEOR shall review and approve structural TUnited States is using some form of 3D/BIM modeling software (American Institute of Steel Construction, 2011). This change has brought great to the ’s Continuing Education own productivity, in addition to improving upstream and If you read the following article, display your downstream processes. The Structural engineer, however, understanding of the stated learning objectives, and has not adopted 3D models to improve their own productivity in reviewing and approving structural steel of your continuing education requirements at no cost shop drawings. According to the same fabricators using 3D to you. modeling above, less than 1% use these models in the Instructions review process with the structural engineer. Comparatively 70% First, review the learning objectives below, then of structural engineers have adopted 3D models/BIM for design read the Professional Development article. Next, coordination and drawing production. So why hasn’t this adoption complete the quiz and submit your answers to the of design review trickled into shop drawing review? Professional Development sponsor. Submittal AISC’s survey outlines several barriers that include perceived instructions are provided on the Reporting Form software learning and costs, liability issues reviewing the model, on page 6. Your quiz answers will be graded by the and paper-based contract requirements. Despite these barriers, the industry looks positive towards shop Professional Development sponsor. If you answer model review. AISC’s survey states that 60% structural engineers at least 80 percent of the questions correctly, you will of completion within 90 days and see model-based review of shop drawings being an industry will be awarded 1.0 professional development hour (equivalent to 0.1 continuing education unit in most drawings using a range of emerging technologies. The transfer of states). Note: It is the responsibility of the license to digital technology, but now enhanced methods of determine if this method of continuing education meets review have been implemented on several projects around his or her governing board(s) of registration requirements. the country. What is the SEOR’s scope for Learning Objectives sho p drawing review? The learning objectives of this paper are the following: • Understand current contractual and industry- Per AISC’s survey to structural engineers in 2011, structural expected responsibilities of the engineer-of-record in the shop drawing review process. project during the construction administration phase. In this phase, • Identify ine ciencies or redundancies in the current the tasks of reviewing and approving shop drawings still prove to be review processes. while the importance of the task remains as important as ever. • Learn how 3D visualization tools can be used to coor- The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Code of dinate, review, and approve shop drawing submittals Standard Practice (COSP) outlines what is required of the steel while still delivering a 2D submittal of shop drawings. fabricator and of the SEOR in the submission and approval of shop • Comprehend industry trends moving toward a 3D drawings. Minimal information is provided regarding the content to model-based shop drawing review process. be reviewed by the SEOR, since this is typically outlined at the Professional Development Sponsor Inc. 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 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 Step 1. Coordination of systems structural assemblies — comprised of primary framing and connection parts — are reviewed for compliance at three levels: between the structural systems (such as structural steel, cast-in-place concrete, within the context of other building systems, within the context- precast, etc.) that have surfaced during the shop drawing stage that ultimately of other structural assemblies and structural systems; and within their own structural assembly. Furthermore, for each level of by means and methods (which is typically not part of the SEOR’s scope of work), investigation, several design parameters are typically reviewed such as geometry, section properties, amnd aterial properties. the 3D construction model, which has a much higher level of detail, can be Checking each of these parameters can be a tedious process. appropriate. In addition, the task of reviewing each checklist item on the To coordinate interfaces of the structural steel frame with other structural shop drawings and comparing that information with the design elements such as concrete foundations and walls or roof joists, structural engineers can import their 2D design drawings or 3D structural models, fabricator’s 3D model (also referred to as the construction model) including building information models (BIMs), into the construction model. can help the SEOR better visualize and review the shop drawings The overlaying reference can be used to verify the steel structure geometry as as well as speed up the SEOR’s time reviewing the shop drawings. 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 For more than 80 percent of the projects built in the United States that detail structural steel (AISC, 2011), the SEOR may context of the construction model is that the contents of both are superimposed obtain access to the 3D construction model for review of together in one location. This eliminates the SEOR’s need to go back and forth shop drawing submittals. Such tools can be helpful in between design plans and the fabricator’s erection drawings. improving th e SEOR’s understanding of the proposed To coordinate the structural steel frame with non-structural elements such as fabricated product by the steel fabricator. Several overlay either 2D drawings or 3D reference models into the steel construction 3D construction model in the review process. These 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 During connection design approval process, the SEOR can also utilize the shop drawing to view the assembly as needed. Secondly, fabricator’s model to verify the connection design within the the actual review of the standard materials and parts on a context of the primary structure, as well as better visualize the load project is currently achieved by checking for those paths and constructability of the design. standards on each shop drawing, even though they are During review of the shop drawings or model, the SEOR repeated across similar assemblies. However, a fabricator’s can then verify that the design code is valid at each construction model allows the reviewer to view lists of such standard information in reports, allowing the SEOR to quickly connection location, or even viewed in conjunction with the review larger quantities of data and then to compare and provided submitted calculation sheets by the connection that data with other assemblies. engineer. For example, a report that lists each part in the model with its corresponding material grade. Therefore, all the material Model Review-Lite A992 in the list, while structural plate and miscellaneous The use of integrated-project delivery (IPD) methods, in conjunction with the use of BIM, is bringing forth new business the project. drawings. Today, numerous projects have been built where Step 3. Comment on assembly — The Hybrid Review the review process was compressed due to the use of a digital review of the 3D construction model by the EOR (McGraw-Hill the 3D model environment, which correspond to the 2D 2007). These 3D model-based review processes have been electronic shop drawings (see Figure 2). Thereviewer status of documented and are now migrating into the mainstream work each element or assembly in the model can be shown in leveraging BIM technology. drawing as a custom stamp. This linking of the 3D model to the Note that several entities in the building and construction 2D shop drawings in PDF format allows the SEOR to review the 3D model, the 2D shop drawings, or both; and simultaneously implemented to date, and are documenting how the industry could adopt such processes. Both the owners group Construction stamped 2D shop drawings in PDF format, the documents can Users Roundtable (CURT) and the American General Contractors be saved with restricted privileges or simply plotted out as a Association have documented recommendations of how the shop record set and submitted back to the fabricator as required.

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 How to Improve your Shop Drawing Review

Using a Model Review-Lite approach, the SEOR coordinates • — The order in which and reviews the model using procedures simliar to that of the the submittals are reviewed and passed on to the next Hybrid Review approach; however, how the EOR approves and review team member should be dsicussed. In-parallel or in- submittals. Instead of using paper drawings, the SEOR provides digital information. the steel fabricator the submittal review status electronically in • Pre-work by steel fabricator — Any set up by the steel fabricator’s detailer, such as plotting shop drawings in PDF submitted to the steel fabricator’s detailer who imports and format, shall be coordinated up front. Also, the scope of views the SEOR’s approval status and comments into his or her content included in the 3D model to be approved shall be own construction model. Note that the SEOR does not have to agreed upon. submit an actual model, but only submits comments to the • fabricator’s detailer. That way there is no concern with the Pre-approved connections — Having the SEOR pre- SEOR changing the fabricator’s model during the review approve as many connection designs and connection process. What can be used as a record-set of the approved groups as possible will make checking the model much easier. Establishing how the pre-approval process will work well as the construction model archived in its native format, or and what the S EOR’s expectations are for design calcula- tions can be discussed. the construction information per submittal, and which can be • Comments — How shop drawings comments are retrieved easily and with accuracy at a later date. orchestrated, either within the model or on the drawing itself, should be discussed. Also, a common library of standard does not require 2D shop drawings to be produced. The SEOR comments should be agreed upon. Review process above, with the exception of needing to • Stamping and approvals — The fabricator’s detailer stamp 2D electronic drawings as the submitted deliverable, can be asked to set up the electronic stamp template for the SEOR so that when the shop drawings are sent to using this approach are up to 50% faster than using any form the engineer, stamping the drawing does not require the of drawings because they can see, comment and stamp all SEOR’s stamp and signature. Electronic stamps could also informaton in one centralized location (Moor, 2012). be set up in advance so that during the redlining process, the approval can be performed on the 2D electronic draw- A new approach to shop drawing review ings within the format agreed upon, such as a PDF, and saved. If you are interested in incorporating either the 2D-3D • Review of approved shop drawings by the steel Review or 3D Review on your next structural fabricator — Depending on the wo ow used, the steel project, the step is communicating early in the fabricator’s detailer may wish to receive the approval status project with the project team, including the steel specialty information in a format, not just in PDF format, contractor. One way of facilitating this dialog is by host- to improve his or her management of received submittals. ing a pre-coordination meeting held between the owner’s • Managing resubmittals — Resubmittals or successive representative, steel contractor (detailer and/or fabricator), submittals must be clearly marked as to what information structural engineer, and general contractor involved in the is to be reviewed or re-reviewed by the S EOR. Traditional shop drawing submittal process to determine what type of methods use clouding of drawings to communicate such model-based review process can be realistically achieved. changes. However, a 3D model with status information Depending upon which ow is utilized, the project could be used so that the project team can better visualize team members may have to adjust certain aspects of their what his or her responsibility is to review. ow to accommodate a process. Suggested This example list of topics can be reviewed with the project items to discuss include the following: drawing review process. • Deliverable for submittals — The type of documentation required for submittal Conclusion process — whether paper, 2D electronic, or Building and construction industry experts anticipate 3D model-based — must be established since it of three industry trends: building-information-modeling, can other aspects of the review wo w. integrated project delivery methods (such as design-build) and • project roles and responsibilities — The sustainability (Cross 2008). The impact of the convergence could type of information that the SEOR wishes to review should be up front so that rights and privileges can be set projects are managed and delivered. Interestingly, the 3D up properly in the technologies being utilized. This may relate to both modeling software as well as PDF redlining with these three trends. First, BIM can help engineers better software. Also which project team members will be involved visualize not only their design intent, but the construction team’s in the review process is important to discuss. The , interpretation of the design intent during the shop drawing review general contractor and SEOR all can participate in the stage. Secondly, project delivery methods that capitalize on the- process if desired.

PDH 5 How to Improve your Shop Drawing Review

expertise of structural steel specialty contractors, References as well as that of the structural engineer, will • American Council of Engineering Companies, 2007, further enable the use of 3D, model-based Design & Construction Industry Trends Survey review stage. • American Institute of Steel Construction, Feb. 2007, “2007 Structural Steel Detailer Listing,” For example, a recent hospitcal project in Oakland, CA Modern Steel Construction demonstrated a reduction of 10 weeks in the overall project s • Construction Users Roundtable, 2006, chedule when implementing a 3D, model-based review of the White Paper 1202, p.7 structural steel shop drawing submittals using an integrated • Cro ss, John, April 2008, “Hat Trick,” project delivery process (Moor, 2012). Third, the growing trend Design-Build Dateline, Vol. 15/No. 4 of sustainable design is giving structural engineers an opportunity • Ghafari & Associates, 2007, Breakthrough Results to better promote their capabilities in producing sustainable designs on General Motors Project Series for their clients. Using less paper during the structural steel • McGraw-Hill, 2007, Interoperability in the Construc- tion Industry, Smart Market Report, p. 24-25 estimates showed that over 50 million sheets of paper shop • Shop Drawing Review: The Past – The Future: , drawings were used to procure the structural steel shop drawing Gustafson 2007 review process for projects in the United States (Survey of 100,000 • Moor, Chris; American Institute of Steel Construction tons of projects delivered in the United States in 2007 (July 2012), ”A Model Approach,” Modern Steel - Construction recognized, the structural engineering industry will move • Quinn, Brian; American Institute of Steel Construction (Feb. 2010), “ I’ll Volunteer to Review the Shop Drawings!,,” construction team, while the structural engineer can use a Modern Steel Construction more productive, accurate, and even more enjoyable process • Shop Model Review and Approval presentation, in approving structural steel shop drawings. AISC roadshow (2013)

1075 Big Shanty Rd NW, Suite 175, Ke nnesaw , GA 30144 Phone: 770-426-5105 • Fax: 770-919-0574 • Email: [email protected] Web: www.tekla.com

Article Title: How to Impr ove your Shop Draw ing Revi ew Publication Date: April 20 13 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:

Certi cate 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 Michael Gustafson, P.E., is the Engineering Product Team Manager for North America at Tekla. Quiz He can be reached at [email protected].

1. Per AISC COSP Section 4.4.1, a signed set of calculation 6. sheets from a Professional Engineer is required by the project utilize a 3D construction model during the review and - approval of assemblies? steel design is delegated: a) Find all instances of assemblies in the model a) All connection designs not covered by the Design Drawing b) View reports of standard material lists of the assemblies contract documents b) Electrical and plumbing penetrations c) Comment and stamp 2D PDF shop drawings via the 3D model

c) Foundation elements d) All of the above d) Non-load bearing concrete-masonry walls

2. The COSP states an expected turn around time by the 7. Which topics are suggested to be discussed during a shop fabricator from when the steel fabricator releases to when he or drawing review pre-coordination meeting with she receives the approved shop drawings from the EOR. the project team? What is that time frame? a) How will steel special inspections for the project be handled a) 7 calendar days b) Reviewing the foundation rebar shop drawings b) 10 calendar days c) Managing resubmittals c) 14 calendar days d) Coordinating mechanical issues found that week d) none of the above

3. Based upon the example checklist provided, the SEOR will 8. Which structural steel industry document states that typically check all of the following on a shop drawing EXCEPT: the use of digital design and/or fabrication models can be used instead of design and/or structural steel shop drawings? a) Section and material properties of assembly b) Location of assembly on erection plan a) AISC Manual - 13th Edition

c) Temporary shoring requirements of the steel erector b) CURT – AGC – AIA 3XPT document

d) Number of bolts in connection per submitted connection design c) National Institute of Steel Detailers Guideline calculations d) AISC Code of Standard Practice – Appendix A 4. The estimated percentage of structural steel projects in the United States that use 3D modeling for structural steel detailing (as of 2011) is: 9. process in that following ways: a) More than 80 percent a) It uses a digitally reviewed 3D construction model as the reviewed b) More than 60 percent record set c) Less than 40 percent b) It uses electronic 2D drawings as the deliverable of submittals d) Less than 30 percent c) It uses paper drawings as the deliverable of submittals

5. d) Both a and b referencing structural design drawings, and other 3D design models, into the structural steel construction model? 10. a) To coordinate the structural steel frame with other structural elements a) A model is revewed and stamped instead of drawings b) To view assembly information and design drawing information superimposed together b) Drawings can only be reviewed electronically c) By reviewing the architect’s model, the SEOR relieves the architect of all c) Visualize complex framing in 3D responsibility in coordinating the accuracy of their design d) Faster analysis and design d) a and b -

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 , 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