Stamped Doesn’t Mean Safe: Lessons from the Hyatt Regency Collapse

[jar546]

Shop drawings aren't prepared by RDPs.

Some are, and the rest are signed off by the RDP or whatever expert engineer is appropriate.

Are truss drawings from the manufacturer considered shop drawings?

What about a rounded steel staircase used in an assembly building as part of the means of egress? No engineering?

 

[redeyedfly]

Some are, and the rest are signed off by the RDP or whatever expert engineer is appropriate.

Absolutely not!! No engineer on earth is going to sign shop drawings unless they are their own documents. A stamp indicating the shop drawings are reviewed has essentially no legal meaning, it certainly is not even close to an engineer's seal.

The steel staircase has design documents which are stamped, the shop drawings are not (unless delegated design). Trusses and other delegated design/deferred submittals are a combination of construction documents and shop drawings and have a stamp.

Rebar, structural steel, wood panels, etc. are never signed by the EOR; they CAN'T be because they were not prepared under their supervision.

 

[steveray]

Another example:
Here is a detail of a metal stair anchorage to foundation, as provided by the SEOR. (Stringer was called out on a different plan.)
View attachment 15411

This was approved on the original plan check. There was no listing of deferred approvals for steel, and the AHJ did not require later review of the steel shop drawings. In other words, the AHJ felt that the structural plans were already sufficient to verify code compliance.

Here's what came back on the shop drawing:
View attachment 15412
Do you feel that AHJ review of this shop drawing should have been required?

I’d be fine with that….we normally don’t get that level of detail upfront…

 

[Yikes]

When a building architect or engineer applies a stamp to shop drawings prepared by another engineer, they do not use their professional engineer's seal. They use a shop drawing stamp.
The shop drawing stamp itself is just a convenient way of applying many words. The stamp itself is not a legal seal, but it represents the fulfillment of a legal obligation by a DPOR to affirmatively approve building components with characteristics that were designed by other professionals - -the Truss Engineer of Record (call it TEOR).

In the case of trusses, the DPOR is checking the interface between the truss and the other building components. He checks the TEOR's calcs to see that they have the correct live loads, dead loads, point loads, etc. going into the trusses. At the truss ends, he checks the forces and reactions coming from the trusses into the rest of the DPOR's structure (the walls, columns, ledgers' etc.). They will check truss spacing to see that if conforms to the sheathing / diaphragm nailing. They will typically check truss depth to see that it matches the initial assumptions made by the rest of the team, and does not affect floor-to-floor height. There's also usually a set of instructions to the contractor about how to safely handle and install the trusses onsite, so as not to weaken their integrity; the DPOR doesn't closely review those, but just makes sure they are passed along.

The DPOR's stamp is not for taking professional responsibility for the design of the trusses, it taking responsibility solely for checking for conformance with the information already given by the DPOR in the original permit set of plans.

From the AIA docs - - I think paragraph 4.6.4.3 is describing a true "deferred" approval of a design-build component:

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

When a building architect or engineer applies a stamp to shop drawings prepared by another engineer, they do not use their professional engineer's seal. They use a shop drawing stamp.
The shop drawing stamp itself is just a convenient way of applying many words. The stamp itself is not a legal seal, but it represents the fulfillment of a legal obligation by a DPOR to affirmatively approve building components with characteristics that were designed by other professionals - -the Truss Engineer of Record (call it TEOR).

Except that design professionals shop drawing stamps haven't said "Approved" or "Approved as Noted" for decades. I think it was the late 1970s or the early 1980s when the language changed to "Reviewed - No Exceptions Taken" or "Make Corrections Noted" or "Revise and Resubmit." This change was dictated by the professional liability insurers. The stamp usually also includes weasel word language to the effect of, "Architect's review is only for general conformance with the design concept."

And it was (in my opinion) exactly the notion that a shop drawing approval was NOT an "approval" that led to the Hyatt Regency disaster.

The DPOR's stamp is not for taking professional responsibility for the design of the trusses, it taking responsibility solely for checking for conformance with the information already given by the DPOR in the original permit set of plans.

And this is exactly what the courts refuted in the Hyatt Regency case. The courts ruled that the engineer-of-record WAS ultimately responsible.

From the AIA docs - - I think paragraph 4.6.4.3 is describing a true "deferred" approval of a design-build component:
View attachment 15415

I agree. Section 4.6.4.3 addresses deferred submittals, and relieves the architect of responsibility for the design of such items.

 

[Yikes]

And this is exactly what the courts refuted in the Hyatt Regency case. The courts ruled that the engineer-of-record WAS ultimately responsible.

To be more precise, I think the building engineer was held responsible for failing to check that the bridge shop drawings conformed to his own original design intent shown in the city-approved drawings. Once the engineer decided to switch to a different support system (2 rods), the shop drawing was the wrong mechanism to formally document the change.

Under today's current AIA language 4.6.4.2, the Hyatt engineer checking the shop drawings should have checked that it still showed a single threaded rod.
When the building engineer verbally agreed in concept to switching to 2 separate rods, they now deviated from their own previously plan-checked and approved permit set of plans. At that point, they should have amended their plans and calcs and resubmitted them to the city for approval , under their own professional seal.

 

[jar546]

When a building architect or engineer applies a stamp to shop drawings prepared by another engineer, they do not use their professional engineer's seal. They use a shop drawing stamp.
The shop drawing stamp itself is just a convenient way of applying many words. The stamp itself is not a legal seal, but it represents the fulfillment of a legal obligation by a DPOR to affirmatively approve building components with characteristics that were designed by other professionals - -the Truss Engineer of Record (call it TEOR).

In the case of trusses, the DPOR is checking the interface between the truss and the other building components. He checks the TEOR's calcs to see that they have the correct live loads, dead loads, point loads, etc. going into the trusses. At the truss ends, he checks the forces and reactions coming from the trusses into the rest of the DPOR's structure (the walls, columns, ledgers' etc.). They will check truss spacing to see that if conforms to the sheathing / diaphragm nailing. They will typically check truss depth to see that it matches the initial assumptions made by the rest of the team, and does not affect floor-to-floor height. There's also usually a set of instructions to the contractor about how to safely handle and install the trusses onsite, so as not to weaken their integrity; the DPOR doesn't closely review those, but just makes sure they are passed along.

The DPOR's stamp is not for taking professional responsibility for the design of the trusses, it taking responsibility solely for checking for conformance with the information already given by the DPOR in the original permit set of plans.

From the AIA docs - - I think paragraph 4.6.4.3 is describing a true "deferred" approval of a design-build component:
View attachment 15415

I think I just accidentally pushed your button.

 

[Yikes]

Except that design professionals shop drawing stamps haven't said "Approved" or "Approved as Noted" for decades. I think it was the late 1970s or the early 1980s when the language changed to "Reviewed - No Exceptions Taken" or "Make Corrections Noted" or "Revise and Resubmit." This change was dictated by the professional liability insurers. The stamp usually also includes weasel word language to the effect of, "Architect's review is only for general conformance with the design concept."

Actually, there was a court case a while back where an architect was found liable for delay claims from the contractor because the phrase "no exceptions taken" meant that they had not fulfilled their contractual duty to either "approve" or to take "other appropriate action...".

Our professional liability insurance company tells use we MUST use the word "approved" (or "approved as noted") when we intend for the contractor to proceed with installation after our review.

 

[Yikes]

I think I just accidentally pushed your button.

I had been arguing this with a building official and a contractor last summer - -the wounds are still fresh.

 

[jar546]

I had been arguing this with a building official and a contractor last summer - -the wounds are still fresh.

Oh, I see. Well, you are the common denominator then. If two building officials and a contractor are arguing with you then you must concede as you are probably wrong. You do know that is just a joke, right? I like to pour salt every now and then.

 

[jar546]

I appreciate the robust discussion we've been having on this topic. It seems we're getting tangled in semantics, so let's refocus on the core issue. In many jurisdictions, truss manufacturers provide stamped shop drawings, even though the initial design originates from the project's engineer or architect. Similarly, when fabricators produce elements like metal staircases, their shop drawings often include engineering details that may differ from the original plans. These drawings are typically reviewed and stamped by the fabricator's engineer, not the Engineer of Record (EOR).

The crux of the matter is ensuring that any deviations introduced through shop drawings are properly reviewed and approved. While the EOR is responsible for the overall design, changes made during fabrication, especially those affecting structural integrity, must be communicated and coordinated effectively. Building Officials and inspectors rely on accurate, approved documents to verify compliance in the field. If shop drawings introduce changes without appropriate oversight, it can lead to significant issues during inspections and, more critically, in the building's safety.

Our shared goal is to maintain the safety and integrity of the structures we oversee. Clear communication and proper documentation are paramount, regardless of the terminology or specific processes in different regions. Let's continue to work together to ensure that all components, from design through fabrication to inspection, align with approved plans and uphold the standards our profession demands.

 

[Yikes]

there was a pretty decent discussion on shop drawings here: https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/threads/shop-drawings.32894/

 

[steveray]

there was a pretty decent discussion on shop drawings here: https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/threads/shop-drawings.32894/

Yep.. and we have come to almost the same place… The industry has gone so far off the reservation they don’t even know how the process is supposed to work and trying to correct it just gets us the standard “I’ve never had to do that before or in X jurisdiction”… instead of a rational argument or anything with a code or regulation attached to it.

 

[Sifu]

Trusses are a great example of passing the buck. And a great example of most BCO's not giving a shlt. I would estimate that well over 50% of the wood frame buildings that come using wood trusses draw a few lines on the roof framing plan and say "pre-engineered truss drawings by others". I ask for the truss package, and once we get past the "deferred" argument I get the truss drawings (sealed by the TEOR). I then get to go back and ask the EOR where the structural supports are that have been designed for the reaction provided by the TEOR. Usually they say they are designed by the TEOR, but that has never been the case. It takes 2 or three reviews to finally get the truss drawings to align with the structural drawings. And I get told the ever present "nobody else makes us do that", and I can vouch for that as many AHJ's don't even glance at that. A similar scenario lays out on most PEMB projects.

More and more I receive incomplete plans that are "deferring" more and more elements of the design. More and more I just hit them with an incomplete submittal correction. More and more they run to the CBO. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Actually, there was a court case a while back where an architect was found liable for delay claims from the contractor because the phrase "no exceptions taken" meant that they had not fulfilled their contractual duty to either "approve" or to take "other appropriate action...".

Apparently the language of A201 (General Conditions) has changed -- again. The 2017 version reads (under "Architect"):

§4.2.7 The Architect will review and approve, or take other appropriate action upon, the Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, Product data, and Samples, but only forthe limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. ...

Our professional liability insurance company tells use we MUST use the word "approved" (or "approved as noted") when we intend for the contractor to proceed with installation after our review.

Interesting. I haven't worked in an architecture office for 20 years, so it seems things have reverted. When I started as an intern, our shop drawing stamp said "Approved," "Approved As Noted," "Revise & Resubmit," and "Rejected." And then one day we (and all architecture and engineering firms) had to get new shop drawing stamps that didn't use the word "approved." That was when the "Reviewed - No Exceptions Taken" and "Reviewed - Note Corrections" came into being.

 

[Sifu]

I have seen equivocation on the "reviewed" vs. "approved" debate for a long time. Some AHJ's tell plans examiners not to use the word "approved" in any stamp because it carries too much weight, yet I see many AHJ's use "approved" . Some say to use "reviewed" which is what the IBC says, although the IBC seems to basically say when you use "reviewed" you are "approving" them. This event and court proceeding highlights how (much more) important it is for you DP's to pay particular attention the meaning behind the words.

Yankee, I still see both variations of those comments.

 

[redeyedfly]

Trusses are a great example of passing the buck.

It's not passing the buck, it's efficient design. It makes zero sense for the SEOR to design wood trusses. I've lost count of how many wood buildings I've built and never saw any substantial load path issues that weren't coordinated before or during the shop drawing review process. No chance plan review is going to catch these errors anyway.

Delegated design is great and makes sense.

 

[redeyedfly]

I have seen equivocation on the "reviewed" vs. "approved" debate for a long time. Some AHJ's tell plans examiners not to use the word "approved" in any stamp because it carries too much weight, yet I see many AHJ's use "approved" . Some say to use "reviewed" which is what the IBC says, although the IBC seems to basically say when you use "reviewed" you are "approving" them. This event and court proceeding highlights how (much more) important it is for you DP's to pay particular attention the meaning behind the words.

Yankee, I still see both variations of those comments.

There have been many court cases regarding these stamps and it makes no difference what the stamp says. "Reviewed" and "Approved" mean the same thing in case law.

 

[Sifu]

It's not passing the buck, it's efficient design. It makes zero sense for the SEOR to design wood trusses. I've lost count of how many wood buildings I've built and never saw any substantial load path issues that weren't coordinated before or during the shop drawing review process. No chance plan review is going to catch these errors anyway.

Delegated design is great and makes sense.

Not claiming the EOR would ever design trusses. Passing the buck refers the EOR claiming the TEOR is going to provide the structural design of the supports for the truss reactions. I have not ever seen one do that, and the truss documents usually (if not always) say that. What normally happens is I get a girder truss with a large uplift, and/or large gravity load. The structural plans have no provisions for either. So then, if everyone is paying attention, a revised structural drawing has to be submitted to add the required structural support. Or, they could submit both at the same time, then they either do the job the first time, or get specific comments about what is missing. Instead, they submit structural drawings with a deferred submittal for the trusses, then submit the truss drawings (six weeks later....or the day before they want a C of O, or worse yet, never) which are compared to the structural drawings and get comments back because they have no structural support. That is when they say "that is provided by the truss manufacturer" and I say "no, its not". In these cases, it seems the truss design should inform the the structural design just as a PEMB should inform the foundation, so how does the structural design get informed if they haven't even been dreamed up yet?

I have seen structural designs that clearly have the truss design incorporated into them already or at least detail the likely loads cases, even if the truss package hasn't been submitted. But that is not the norm.

I do catch these errors frequently, because there is no coordination or shop drawing review process other than what I do. Mostly I see this in residential or VB commercial with the less than competent players. I suspect your experience is a on a larger, more professional scale.

 

[Joe.B]

[A] 107.3.4 Design professional in responsible charge.
Where it is required that documents be prepared by a
registered design professional, the building official shall
be authorized to require the owner or the owner's authorized
agent to engage and designate on the building permit
application a registered design professional who shall act
as the registered design professional in responsible charge.
If the circumstances require, the owner or the owner's
authorized agent shall designate a substitute registered
design professional in responsible charge who shall
perform the duties required of the original registered
design professional in responsible charge. The building
official shall be notified in writing by the owner or the
owner's authorized agent if the registered design professional
in responsible charge is changed or is unable to
continue to perform the duties.

The registered design professional in responsible
charge shall be responsible for reviewing and coordinating
submittal documents prepared by others, including phased
and deferred submittal items, for compatibility with the
design of the building.


[A] 107.3.4.1 Deferred submittals. Deferral of any
submittal items shall have the prior approval of the
building official. The registered design professional in
responsible charge shall list the deferred submittals on
the construction documents for review by the building
official.

Documents for deferred submittal items shall be
submitted to the registered design professional in
responsible charge who shall review them and forward
them to the building official with a notation indicating
that the deferred submittal documents have been
reviewed and found to be in general conformance to the
design of the building. The deferred submittal items
shall not be installed until the deferred submittal documents
have been approved by the building official.
[OSHPD 1, 1R, 2, 4 & 5] Deferred submittals shall be in
accordance with the California Administrative Code,
Chapter 7, Section 7-126.

 

[redeyedfly]

Passing the buck refers the EOR claiming the TEOR is going to provide the structural design of the supports for the truss reactions. ... That is when they say "that is provided by the truss manufacturer" and I say "no, its not".

I do catch these errors frequently, because there is no coordination or shop drawing review process other than what I do. Mostly I see this in residential or VB commercial with the less than competent players. I suspect your experience is a on a larger, more professional scale.

Yeah, that's ridiculous. SEOR ultimately owns all of it. Typically the SEOR will lay out the girder truss locations with some informal design assist from the truss mfg in the original construction docs. But the SEOR absolutely owns the support load path for truss bearing locations to the rest of the structure.

Correct, most of my wood experience is in 5 overs and, in a prior century, very large (8000+sf) single family. Definitely a different type of engineer even between those two.

 

[Sifu]

I have several stock comments/notes saved in my toolbox. This is one of them that goes with any plans that have listed deferred submittals that have been accepted as deferred. Does this happen? Sometimes I see them, most of the time I don't. Could they be reviewed by someone else? Maybe, but doubtful with any scrutiny if that happens at all. I have no control over what is sent to me for review, and no way track it. I usually find out on some subsequent problem that they were never submitted. I assume the first submittals are the only chance I'll get a crack at it, which is why I don't just rubber stamp every requested deferred submittal. This is straight outta the book, but so many tell me they have never heard of such a thing.

FWIW, many AHJ's I have worked for don't require the wood truss drawings to be submitted at all, especially residential. They simply require them to be on site at framing inspection. That's a bad time to find out they were designed with the wrong design criteria, but frankly I think very few get checked beyond their mere presence.

 

[Yikes]

Los Angeles Building and Safety goes a step further - - they've turned deferred approvals into a profit center.
They got 107.3.4.1 ("deferred submittals") removed from their adoption of the California Building Code, so that deferred submittals are no longer part of regular code compliance. Instead, for each deferred submittal, LADBS requires the applicant to submit a "modification request" per 104.10 for even considering the use of a deferred submittal. They charge several hundred dollars for this, in addition to the separate plan check fees that occur later for the deferred submittal review itself.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Trusses are a great example of passing the buck. And a great example of most BCO's not giving a shlt. I would estimate that well over 50% of the wood frame buildings that come using wood trusses draw a few lines on the roof framing plan and say "pre-engineered truss drawings by others". I ask for the truss package, and once we get past the "deferred" argument I get the truss drawings (sealed by the TEOR).

I run it on a case-by-case basis. For some simple buildings (a garage with a gable roof) there's really no need to delay the application. However, once there are complicated rooflines, or fire-blocking questions, then we require the design beforehand. Anything more than 300m2 requires a truss plan prior to permit issuance.