structual plans vs steel placing plans 1

[bb29510]

If the steel shop drawings as been approved for field use, do they override the structual drawings?

 

[msquared48]

No. Although structural answers to RFI's could modify both.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[Lion06]

In my limited experience - the shops don't supercede the structural drawings, but if you approve something that doesn't work or needs to be changed someone is going to ask why.

I've had cases where the architect changed dimensions on me after I sent shops back to him and it caused some problems. It was
on him, not us, but the point is that they build from the shops so even though, technically, the CD's are the actual contract it's very important to make sure that the shops are complete and accurate.

I'm sure others have a similar note, but our shop drwawimg stamp has a note that says approval of the shops doesn't alleviate the contractor from his responsibility to follow the contract documents.

 

[DRC1]

Shop drawing once approved always supercede the structural plans, no matter what is on the approval stamp. This is because the steel is fabricated and erected in accordance with the approved shops, not the structural drawings.

 

[HSIII]

DRC,

I disagree. While shop drawings may be approved as per the engineering company, they should never, ever supercede the structural drawings, which have been reviewed and stamped by a PE. If there is a discrepancy between the two, then it is the responsibility of the EOR to alleviate the situation. Of course, then the question is why the shop drawings were approved by the EOR if there were any discrepancies to begin with, but that's a whole different battle in and of itself.

As an inspector, which if I'm reading correct is what brownbagg is, their job is to make sure that the project specifics conform to any and all construction documents, including shop drawings, structural drawings, specifications, and if it's referenced, codes (I have seen cases where on the reinforcing notes they state that the rebar laps must be in accordance with ACI 318, not stating an actual length of overlap). As such, if there is a discrepancy between any of those mentioned above, or if something is really unclear, a call should be made to the EOR for clarification.

 

[connectegr]

Fabrication shop drawings and erections drawings represent the final clarification of the structural drawings. On nearly every project the shop drawings will clarify connection details and actual dimensions. Clarification maybe communicated by field verifications, rfi's, etc. Rarely is this information updated on revised contract drawings. So ultimately the shop drawings represent the most correct information. The EOR must verify the accuracy of the information on the shop drawings and erection drawings and that changes remain structurally adequate. Ideally this should be clearly documented.

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

 

[hokie66]

The custom may vary with location, and certainly from country to country. My approach has always been to define this precedence in the project specifications. The approval of connection details would normally be considered final for capacity, provided proper fit is achieved. I suppose this may vary when the connection design is the responsibility of another engineer, but I have never worked in that environment. Dimensions are the responsibility of the fabricator, and normally receive only a cursory check by the EOR.

 

[hawkaz]

Shop drawings do not supercede structural plans. Shop drawing review is an aid to assist the contractor only. Shop drawings are reviewed by the EOR, not approved. There is no guarantee that everything will be caught during the review process.

Shop drawings are generally not part of the sealed construction document set. Any changes generated by the shop drawing review should be documented through an RFI or ASI and passed onto the inspectors. Any changes made in the detailing by the fabricator are not assumed to be approved if they were not caught during the review. Assuming approval is a good way to create serious problems (remember the Kansas City Hyatt).

With the exception of PT slabs, I would just as soon have it so the inspectors do not have access to the shop drawings in the field- they should review off the sealed plans, SKs, memos, RFIs...

 

[MiketheEngineer]

You might want to read up on the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse in Kansas City many years ago. Basically - it was some variation of what you are asking about that caused the problem.

Seems engineer specfied one design, shop changed it and said engineer approved it, yet engineer says he never really saw the change. Finger pointing galore...

 

[JLNJ]

As far as which fabricated piece goes where, yes, the field guy gets his info off the erection drawings.

Now, whose responsibility is it to make sure the erection drawings are correct? For the sake of his own liability the detailer must have a paper trail as to why there are differences from the engineering drawings to the detail drawings and that those changes are from the hand of the EOR.

We have had many discussions here at our office about where the liability would fall if there were an issue with something changed at the shop drawing review stage (but not actually issued in a bulletin) and there was some significant field issue.

 

[Gumpmaster]

This is the reason why some large west coast structural firms are now refusing to review shop drawings. They're afraid of gaining liability by "approving" shop drawings and aren't paid enough to fully review the drawings.

 

[cvg]

as the EOR you will be blamed for any failure regardless if you reviewed the shops or not. Lawyers will blame everybody and let the judge sort it out. That guarantees that the guilty party will be summoned and that the attorneys will get maximum fees. In court it will be your responsibility to defend yourself either way. Might as well just review them to help the process along...

The fact is that most construction plans have significantly more information provided than the shops - which are really done to provide fabrication level details only. The entire collection of plans, shops, RFI's, field orders, construction meeting minutes etc. should be used as a whole and it is up to the construction manager / resident engineer to make sure that it all fits together properly.

 

[Brad805]

I don't suppose it is appropriate or relevant to the OP's q, but after reading Gumps comments and having seen some similar instances I have to ask, when did we (EOR's)get this way? Site superintendents are stretched to the absolute limit these days, and I am not convinced they check fit, let alone any dimensions. I also doubt the GC's project manager is checking things closely until there is a problem and then the first question is, "who's fault or who's paying?" All of our EOR stamps clearly state that we are not responsible for dimensional problems and now some engineers don't even want to review shop drawings for fear of liability. Building Inspectors don't review shop drawings, because they always have the deepest pockets of anyone in any building project. Who's checking what?

I always thought engineering was not just the design, but also included assisting our clients to put all the parts together. What happened? Is it us or just the law? I do think we are partly to blame. We claim, "I am not getting paid enough," charge more and do the job correctly. If you lose a bid to the guy that does 50% of the job, that might not be a bad thing. Maybe someday those owners seeking the lowball prices will figure out the reality of those bids, I do have my doubts, but maybe. Risk and legal problems are proportional to the amout of effort put forth into our projects.

Brad

 

[ron9876]

In my opinion the structural drawings always govern unless modified in writing. How would the inspector know if the last set of comments were incorporated in the field set of shop drawings? How many times have you marked up a set of shop drawings and asked for a resubmittal only to find that the detailer didn't fix the last set of comments?

Worst problem that I have ever seen on a job was a transfer beam that was designed for 3#5 hoops at some spacing. The shop drawings only had 1#5. The review of the shop drawings in the office missed it. The inspector used the shop drawings to inspect the beam. Beam cracked but didn't collapse. Very costly repair. Then came the lawyers. Ugly and dangerous situation.

GC's don't verify anything on most jobs. They hire subs and sit in the trailer and shuffle paper. If something goes wrong the lawyers come in and make lots of money and everyone else involved gets hosed. Brad805 I guess I am getting too old but I think this is capitalism gone wild. Anything for money and damn the commitment to quality. If you want to go old school you simply won't get any work. And on that happy note Merry Christmas to all.

 

[apsix]

Our shop drawing stamp notes;
'The endorsement of our examinations (of the drawing) does not in any way constitute an engineering instruction under contract'.

Whether that would stand up in court is another thing.

 

[a2mfk]

WOW apsix, that is some legal speak mumbo jumbo if I have ever heard it. Not your fault or anything, probably a lawyer or your E and O insurance company told you to put up with it. I translate that as, "We looked at these drawings, but not really that much... Uhhmmmm, looks pretty good though. Proceed with caution."

I was "raised" to never say INSPECT but say OBSERVE when on site, and shop drawing stamps should say REVIEWED not APPROVED. In my continuing ed literature from my E and O insurance company they state this, and they give an example of a shop drawing stamp that is pretty similar to ones I have seen throughout my career. If any of you have E and O insurance I encourage you to ask them about liability education, mine gives discounts for doing home study that is well worth the time and really makes you think about all of the legal aspects.

FWIW- this is a similar good thread:
thread507-235146


A little old but still pretty good:

http://www.mgwelbel.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=M4lEkchRCYo=&tabid=83

From that article:
Shopping For A Stamp: There is a wide variety of opinion and practice on the shop drawing stamp text. Some firms have repeated the AIA language from A201, ¶ 4.2.7. This makes the stamp a bit cumbersome. If your contract is clear, you should not need to restate the A201 language. Your shop drawing stamp should reflect your limited role ("reviewed in accordance with General Conditions ¶ 4.2.7," or "revise and resubmit"). You should avoid words like "approved" or "accepted" (not to mention "blessed" or "guaranteed").

 

[a2mfk]

LEGAL CASES: I have known good firms, through seemingly no fault of their own, that have been drawn into lawsuits, and their E and O company settled, for reasons so far out of their control it was ridiculous. I have always lived under the assumption that any project with my name on it is a potential liability. This should be considered in your decision of which architects, owners, contractors, fabricators, even other MEP engineers to get involved with. They can all drag you into a mess!

So if you have a new fabricator you have never heard of or worked with, you have to be that much more vigilant during your review. The good ones will help you catch your mistakes before it gets built. Mistakes on paper that are caught are so much better than after steel is cut or worse already erected!

 

[apsix]

The wording on our stamp, if we have no comment, is;

'Review complete'

It implies we have nothing to comment on, but we haven't approved it as such.

 

[JAE]

Here's some text from AISC's Code of Standard Practice. Note the highlighted text in blue below:

4.4. Approval
Except as provided in Section 4.5, the Shop and Erection Drawings shall be
submitted to the Owner’s Designated Representatives for Design and
Construction for review and approval. These drawings shall be returned to the
Fabricator within 14 calendar days. Approved Shop and Erection Drawings
shall be individually annotated by the Owner’s Designated Representatives for
Design and Construction as either approved or approved subject to corrections
noted. When so required, the Fabricator shall subsequently make the corrections
noted and furnish corrected Shop and Erection Drawings to the Owner’s
Designated Representatives for Design and Construction.

[red]Commentary:
As used in this Code, the 14-day allotment for the return of Shop and Erection
Drawings is intended to represent the Fabricator’s portal-to-portal time. The
intent in this Code is that, in the absence of information to the contrary in the
Contract Documents, 14 days may be assumed for the purposes of bidding,
contracting and scheduling. A submittal schedule is commonly used to facilitate
the approval process.
If a Shop or Erection Drawing is approved subject to corrections noted,
the Owner’s Designated Representative for Design may or may not require that
it be re-submitted for record purposes following correction. If a Shop or
Erection Drawing is not approved, revisions must be made and the drawing resubmitted
until approval is achieved.[/red]

4.4.1. Approval of the Shop and Erection Drawings, approval subject to corrections
noted and similar approvals shall constitute the following:
(a) Confirmation that the Fabricator has correctly interpreted the Contract
Documents in the preparation of those submittals;
(b) Confirmation that the Owner’s Designated Representative for Design has
reviewed and approved the Connection details shown on the Shop and
Erection Drawings and submitted in accordance with Section 3.1.2, if
applicable; and,
(c) Release by the Owner’s Designated Representatives for Design and
Construction for the Fabricator to begin fabrication using the approved
submittals.

[blue]Such approval shall not relieve the Fabricator of the responsibility for either the
accuracy of the detailed dimensions in the Shop and Erection Drawings or the
general fit-up of parts that are to be assembled in the field.

The Fabricator shall determine the fabrication schedule that is necessary to meet the requirements of the contract. [/blue]

[red]Commentary:
When considering the current language in this Section, the Committee sought
language that would parallel the practices of CASE. In CASE Document 962,
CASE indicates that when the design of some element of the primary structural
system is left to someone other than the Structural Engineer of Record, “…such
elements, including connections designed by others, should be reviewed by the
Structural Engineer of Record. He [or she] should review such designs and
details, accept or reject them and be responsible for their effects on the primary
structural system.” Historically, this Code has embraced this same concept.
From the inception of this Code, AISC and the industry in general have
recognized that only the Owner’s Designated Representative for Design has all
the information necessary to evaluate the total impact of Connection details on
the overall structural design of the project. This authority has traditionally been
exercised during the approval process for Shop and Erection Drawings. The
Owner’s Designated Representative for Design has thus retained responsibility
for the adequacy and safety of the entire structure since at least the 1927 edition
of this Code.[/red]

 

[BAretired]

The onus is on the Structural Engineer of Record to ensure that the shop drawings achieve what is required for a safe and functioning structure. The responsibility cannot be passed on to others.

Unfortunately, this may lead to arguments between the EOR and the fabricator's engineer about what is acceptable and what is not. It is best that the EOR make his requirements abundantly clear in the contract documents prior to tender so that this type of confrontation can be avoided.

In the final analysis, it is the EOR who takes responsibility for design.

BA