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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 1 of 34
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?
90%
1
80%
1
70%
3
60%
0
50%
10
40%
12
30%
35
20%
105
10%
270
0%
20
0
50
Question 2:
100
150
200
250
300
Which of the following best describes how you review shop
drawings?
How engineers report revieweing drawings
4
3D model only
Combination of 3D model
and PDF of the shop
drawings
45
32
Electronic drawings only
Combination of electronic
(PDF or similar) drawings
and paper drawings
260
Both shop and
construction drawings are
reviewed on paper
108
0
50
100
150
200
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 2 of 34
250
300
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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 3 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 4 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 5 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 6 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 7 of 34
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 crossreferenced 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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 8 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 9 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 10 of 34

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
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 11 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 12 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 13 of 34

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)
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 14 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 15 of 34

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
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 16 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 17 of 34
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 backup.)

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 18 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 19 of 34

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
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 20 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 21 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 22 of 34
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?
24%
20%
0-4 Years
Between 5-9 years
More than 10 Years
Never-Drawings will
Always be Needed
20%
36%
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 23 of 34
The questions in following section (6-13) are based on respondent’s
agreement or disagreement with a given statement
I fully understand the process of reviewing models
over drawings
120
107
83
81
57
1-Strongly
Disagree
2
3
4
5-Strongly
Agree
The Cost of Software is Prohibitively Expensive
158
108
79
64
40
1Strongly
disagree
2
3
4
5Strongly
agree
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 24 of 34
I have the skills, or we have staff in-house that have
the skills to perfrom model review
119
102
88
82
58
1-Strongly
Disagree
2
3
4
5-Strongly
Agree
The Software Tools Have Sufficient Tools for
Tracking, Archiving, "Stamping" and Keeping
Records
169
96
71
66
31
1-Strongly
Disagree
2
3
4
5-Strongly
Agree
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 25 of 34
Fabricators and detailers share models when asked
180
90
76
46
36
1-Strongly
disagree
2
3
4
5-Strongly
agree
Reviewing a Model does not Incur Additional Liability
146
110
94
55
35
1-Strongly
Disagree
2
3
4
5-Strongly
Agree
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 26 of 34
My Fee Would Need to be Higher to Review Models
Instead of Drawings
140
112
106
53
30
1-Strongly
Disagree
2
3
4
5-Strongly
Agree
I would save time if I reviewed models instead of
drawings
132
111
92
70
40
1Strongly
disagree
2
3
4
5Strongly
agree
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 27 of 34
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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 28 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 29 of 34

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 Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 30 of 34

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
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 31 of 34

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
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 32 of 34
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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 33 of 34

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.
AISC Survey Results – Shop Drawing v Model Review/Approval
Page 34 of 34