The American Institute of Steel Construction has written directly about where shop drawing review breaks down — and why the responsibility for accuracy never leaves the fabricator’s desk.
Shop drawing review exists to catch the gap between what was designed and what a fabricator plans to build. The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) — the industry association that sets standards for structural steel design, fabrication, and construction in the U.S. — has published directly on how this process is supposed to work, and where it commonly runs into trouble.
What shop drawing review is actually checking for
AISC’s own Code of Standard Practice defines the purpose of shop drawing review as confirming that the fabricator has correctly interpreted the contract documents[1] — not redesigning the connection or re-checking every dimension from scratch. AISC’s published material also references the AIA’s standard contract language, which states that an architect’s or engineer’s review of submittals doesn’t relieve the contractor of responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of dimensions and quantities shown.[1]
Treating a reviewer’s approval as a guarantee of accuracy
Because review responsibility and drawing-accuracy responsibility are legally distinct — per the contract language AISC cites — a shop drawing that passes review isn’t a substitute for the fabricator’s own dimensional checks against the current structural set.[1]
Detailing errors that fall outside a structural engineer’s typical review scope
AISC’s own trade publication has discussed this gap directly: most structural engineers don’t review shop drawings for detailing-specific errors, because they generally aren’t trained in detailing practice, or their contract doesn’t include that scope of review.[2] That means detailing errors — as opposed to dimensional or design-intent errors — often depend on the fabricator’s own detailer catching them before submission.
Inconsistent detailing practices between fabricators
The same AISC discussion notes that different fabricators follow different detailing conventions, which can make it harder for a reviewing engineer to get familiar with any one fabricator’s drawing style — a friction point that shows up as more review cycles, not fewer.[2]
What this means for turnaround
Since AISC’s own trade discussion acknowledges that many structural engineers aren’t contracted or trained to catch detailing-specific errors,[2] the fastest path through review is a submittal that’s already been checked by the fabricator’s own detailer against the current issued structural drawings — not one that relies on the reviewing engineer to find every issue.
If shop drawing turnaround is slowing down a project, a clear submission and review process upfront usually saves more time than it costs.
Sources
- American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), “Shop Drawings,” Modern Steel Construction archive, March 2003 — aisc.org (PDF)
- American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Modern Steel Construction letters/discussion archive, January 2004 — aisc.org (PDF)