Delays in high-rise construction projects mostly begin with incomplete or poorly coordinated steel shop drawing submissions.
When the Engineer of Record (EOR) receives structural steel shop drawings submittal packages without proper coordination, missing details, or internal quality control, approval cycles tend to become longer.
Accurate steel fabrication shop drawings matter even more as projects grow taller, more complex, and focused on sustainable, resilient building performance. The approval process should be viewed as a structured workflow that reduces risk, prevents fabrication errors, and avoids delays.
Why High-rise Steel Shop Drawings Approvals Take Longer Than They Should
Many approval delays come from preventable issues that surface well before the drawings ever reach the EOR.
Incomplete Coordination with IFC Structural Drawings
Misalignment between shop drawings and Issued for Construction (IFC) structural documents is a common problem, often because detailers are working from outdated revisions.
Extensive review comments may be triggered by minor discrepancies involving beam sizes, column locations, slab elevations, or framing configurations. It becomes EOR’s responsibility to verify whether the issue is a drafting error or a design flaw, prolonging the approval process.
For high-rise projects, every drawing should be linked to the latest IFC revision before submission.
Missing Connection Details at Transfer Levels and Moment Frames
Transfer levels and moment-resisting frames are among the most important parts of a high-rise building and receive extensive review and approval. Reviewers are forced to request clarification when connection details are incomplete, unclear, or inconsistent with design calculations.
Missing information may include weld specifications, stiffener locations, bolt requirements, or connection capacities. Since these areas carry substantial structural loads, any gaps here almost always mean delays.
Submittal Packages without internal QC Sign-off before EOR Review
Project teams may assume that the EOR review process is meant to identify errors. Packages submitted without documented internal quality checks are more likely to contain dimension inconsistencies, referencing errors, and coordination conflicts — all of which extend approval timelines.
An internal QC sign-off process is mandatory before structural shop drawing submissions.
What a First-round Approval Package Includes
S. No. | Approval Package Component | Purpose |
1 | General notes | Define standards, codes, and project assumptions |
2 | Connection details | Clarify fabrication and installation requirements |
3 | Revision references | Demonstrate alignment with latest IFC drawings |
4 | Erection notes | Support field sequencing and safety planning |
5 | Coordination callouts | Identify interfaces with other disciplines |
6 | QC documentation | Confirm internal review completion |
AISC References, Weld Symbols, and Erection Sequence Notes
Reviewers expect clear compliance with applicable standards, so drawings should incorporate appropriate AISC references, weld symbols, bolt specifications, and fabrication notes.
Equal importance should be given to erection sequence notes. Clear sequencing information allows reviewers to evaluate constructability and identify installation risks.
Connection Detail Cross-references Tied to IFC Drawing Revision
It’s essential that every connection detail references the specific IFC revision from which it originated. This allows reviewers to verify consistency between design intent and fabrication documentation. Cross-referencing can significantly reduce review comments.
Coordination Callouts for MEP Penetrations and Embed Locations
MEP openings, embeds, façade supports, and equipment attachments often need to pass through or connect to the structural framework. Missing coordination information here is what generates RFIs and forces field modifications later on.
Integrated design strategies align closely with the AIA 2026 focus on sustainable, resilient, and climate-responsive buildings, multidisciplinary coordination playing an important role in reducing waste, rework, and project inefficiencies.
How to Structure the Internal QC Review before submission
The Review Process From Detailer to Checker to Project Engineer
For the QC process to work efficiently, responsibilities need to be clearly defined.
The responsibility of the detailer is to verify drafting accuracy and drawing completeness, the checker should review dimensions, member references, connections, and coordination issues, and the project engineer must confirm compliance with design intent and applicable codes.
This helps identify issues before they reach external reviewers.
What the Checklist Should Cover before the Package Leaves Your Team
A comprehensive QC checklist should cover:
- Member sizes matching IFC documents
- Complete connection details
- Defined weld and bolt specifications
- Correct drawing references
- Erection notes included
- Coordination items identified
- Dimensions verified
- Clash issues resolved
- Complete approval signatures
This helps reduce review comments and speed up approvals.
Common EOR Rejection Reasons and How to Eliminate Them
Common rejection triggers include inconsistent dimensions between plans, elevations, and details; missing structural information at framing locations; and packages built on outdated IFC references.
Coordination conflicts with architectural and MEP systems are another major culprit — steel members detailed without accounting for nearby penetrations, equipment supports, or façade attachment points routinely get sent back.
Proactive coordination combined with documented quality control is the most effective solution. Verifying information before submission helps reduce review comments, shorten approval cycles, and minimize fabrication disruptions.
Constructability is another major concern. EORs consciously evaluate whether details can be fabricated and erected efficiently while ensuring long-term structural performance as high-rise projects pursue resilient and climate-responsive design goals.
Conclusion
Most delays in high-rise steel detailing approvals stem from incomplete coordination, missing connection information, and weak internal quality control.
Project teams can achieve faster approvals, reduce fabrication risks, and support more efficient project execution and delivery by implementing structured QC procedures, maintaining revision control, and submitting fully coordinated packages.
A disciplined approval workflow is a critical component of successful delivery for modern high-rise developments.
Work with Our Experts
A smooth approval process starts with accurate, well-coordinated shop drawings.
Our structural detailing team ensures quality through rigorous QC, constructability checks, and revision control for faster approvals.
Reach out to us to discuss your next high-rise steel detailing project.
Partner with The AEC Associates to streamline approvals and reduce project delays.
FAQ's
Steel fabrication shop drawings provide detailed information required for manufacturing and erecting structural steel components, including member sizes, connections, welds, bolts, and installation sequencing.
High-rise building projects involve complex framing systems, transfer levels, moment connections, and extensive coordination with architectural and MEP disciplines. This increases review complexity, making the approval cycles longer.
Usually, the Engineer of Records (EOR) reviews the submittal to verify consistency with design intent and project requirements before fabrication is undertaken.
Review comments can be significantly reduced using updated IFC drawings, conducting thorough internal quality control reviews, coordinating across disciplines, and submitting complete connection details. This helps shorten the approval cycles.
