Approval Drawings
How to Respond to Comments on Structural Steel Approval Drawings
How to log, answer and back-check comments on steel approval drawings without losing changes across sheets or inventing silent design edits.
Comments are the point of approval. Treating them as an insult, or as chat messages that expire, is how the same note returns on the next cycle. A comment log turns a pile of PDFs into a closed list.
This article covers statuses, how to disagree without a fight, and how to back-check so a change on a plan also hits the elevation, typical and BOM. It follows revision control.
Do not change the design to make a comment easy unless the assigned engineer agrees. Detailing is not a silent redesign service.
Build the log before you argue
Number every comment. Record sheet, reviewer, date, the comment text (quoted), and your response. If comments arrived as clouds, snapshots, and an email, put them in one table anyway. Duplicate comments get one number with two sources, not two half-fixes.
Statuses that mean something
| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Accepted | Drawing will change as requested |
| Accepted as noted | Change made, with a documented variation |
| Rejected | No drawing change; reason given; may become an RFI |
| Information | No change required; clarification given |
| Open | Waiting on someone named |
When to reject a comment
Reject when the comment contradicts the specification, the design drawing, or physics that will not fit. Write the reason with references (sheet of the design, clause of the spec). “We prefer our typical” is not a reason if the contract gave the reviewer authority over that typical.
Back-check related sheets
A brace that moves on the plan also moves on the elevation, the 3D model, the erection drawing, the BOM if the mark changes, and sometimes the reaction table. The comment log should list related sheets, not only the sheet the cloud was on.
- Search the mark across the set
- Update typicals if the typical no longer applies
- Update holds if the comment unfreezes or freezes work
- Issue a revision description that a shop can understand
Resubmittal
Send the log with the next issue. Cloud only new deltas. Tell the reviewer which comments you believe are closed. If you need a meeting, still write the outcome into the log afterwards.
A practical workflow
- Collect all comment sources into one numbered log.
- Assign an owner and status to each item.
- Change drawings for accepted items.
- Back-check related sheets and lists.
- Resubmit with the log and a clear revision description.
Engineering tips
- Do not close a comment with “done” and no sheet reference.
- If a comment is unclear, ask once, in writing, rather than guessing twice.
- Keep screenshots of portal comments; they disappear when the next upload happens.
Common mistakes
Fixing the CAD but not the PDF that was issued
The reviewer comments on the PDF. Issue a new one.
Accepting a comment that changes design without telling the engineer of record
That is a scope and liability problem, not a CAD problem.
Closing the log when the shop still has the old file
Distribution is part of closure.
Checklist
- Every comment numbered
- Statuses assigned
- Rejected items have reasons
- Related sheets listed
- Revision issued
- Log attached to resubmittal
- Shop/purchasing have the new letter
Frequently asked questions
What if comments arrive after we mill-ordered?
Stop the affected pieces if the comment changes them. Tell the reviewer what is already in fabrication. Do not hide it.
Should we mark up their mark-up?
Better to respond in the log and on the next drawing. Nested rainbows of clouds become unreadable.
Who owns the log?
One named person. Shared ownership is how items fall out.
Can we automate comment tracking?
Yes for numbering and sheet links. Someone still writes the engineering response.
Where this leaves the work
A closed comment is a drawing change (or a written reason) plus distribution. Anything less is still open, however cheerful the meeting was.
If comments keep returning to the same typical, the typical — not the reviewer — is the problem. Fix the standard.
This article provides general educational information. Project-specific structural design, calculations and drawings should be reviewed by appropriately qualified engineering professionals and checked against applicable project requirements and standards. StruTools does not replace engineering judgement or professional design review.