Establish which contract issue the shop drawings were prepared from, then compare marks, sizes, elevations, connections, and embeds against it. Record differences with both references. Reviewing shop drawings for conformance with the design concept is the engineer of record’s responsibility; a document review prepares that work rather than replacing it.
Assemble a reviewable package
Gather the erection plans, member details, connection details, and the anchor or embed drawings, alongside the contract structural drawings, general notes, and the steel specification section. Include the connection design criteria and the transmittal that states which contract issue the set was prepared from.
Agree which areas and which design milestone are being reviewed, and record any document you expected and did not receive. A review can only compare what it is given, so a missing sheet is a finding in its own right. The drawing register template gives you somewhere to record the governing issue before you start.
Twelve document checks
Use one worksheet row per condition rather than per sheet. Where a condition repeats, note the locations you sampled and any exception you found. The CSV adds blank fields for the project location, source issue, reviewer, decision, revised sources, and closure evidence.
| Review area | Sources to compare | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Contract basis | Structural drawings, general notes, specification section | Which issue of the contract documents is the shop drawing set prepared from, and is it the current one? |
| Member identity | Erection plan marks, contract framing plan, member schedule | Does each shop mark resolve to one contract member with the same size, grade, and location? |
| Connection design basis | General notes, connection details, delegated design scope | Is the connection designer identified, and are the reaction loads or criteria they were given stated on the drawings? |
| Camber and elevation | Erection plan, contract framing, top of steel notes | Are top-of-steel elevations and any camber stated, and do they agree with the contract levels? |
| Bolting and welding | Connection details, welding symbols, specification | Are joint types, weld sizes, and bolt grades shown consistently between shop details and the specification? |
| Openings and penetrations | Beam penetration details, MEP coordination drawings | Is each web penetration located, detailed, and traceable to an engineer-reviewed condition? |
| Embeds and anchors | Anchor plans, foundation drawings, embed schedules | Does every anchor and embed appear on both the steel and the concrete documents with the same location and projection? |
| Interface with other trades | Curtain wall, stair, canopy, and equipment support details | Are delegated interfaces identified with the party supplying each side of the connection? |
| Coatings and fire protection | Finish schedule, fireproofing notes, specification | Is the required coating and fire-resistive treatment stated for each member group, including surfaces left unprotected? |
| Erection sequence | Erection plan, temporary bracing notes | Is the assumed sequence and temporary stability responsibility stated, and does it reference the party responsible? |
| Submittal status | Transmittal, review stamps, revision clouds | Which sheets are for review, which are revised, and what changed since the previous submission? |
| Revision closure | Reviewer comments, revised shop drawings, contract documents | Does each comment have a response, and do the revised sheets reflect the accepted resolution? |
Record “needs clarification” when a reference is missing, and reserve “resolved” for a decision supported by documents you have read. If a row does not apply to this project, write why: a blank cell cannot tell a skipped check from a completed one.
Work one condition end to end
Take one transfer beam. Find its shop mark on the erection plan, follow it to its member detail, then find the same member on the contract framing plan. Compare size, grade, top-of-steel elevation, and camber. Then open both end connections and check that the reactions or criteria they were designed to are stated somewhere in the set. Finally, find its anchors or embeds on the concrete documents. A single member traced this way tests the whole interface.
Working one condition all the way through beats skimming every sheet, because it forces each document to answer the same question. When the answers differ, you have a finding with two references attached, which is what a designer needs in order to decide.
Close the loop
A response saying “coordinated” is the start of verification, not the end. Open the revised sheets, confirm the change, then follow it into the dependent documents: the schedule, the detail, the specification section, and the other discipline that relied on it. Record the sources you checked and the evidence that closed the question.
Where the answer is a decision rather than a correction, record the decision and who made it. The guide to prioritising findings covers how to sort what you have found once the list gets long.
Use AI for a source-linked first pass
Groundbook AI can run these comparisons across the whole set at once, returning each difference with both sheets highlighted and the supporting sources linked. It reads drawings, specifications, reports, checklists, and the building codes you upload, including scanned and hand-drawn sheets. Give the review a defined scope, then verify every cited location before turning a finding into a request.
The findings are questions for your team to settle. Design, engineering, and compliance decisions stay with the responsible professionals and the authority having jurisdiction.