PEB Approval Drawing Process: A Practical Engineering Guide

Approval drawings are the PEB supplier’s first public statement of the steel building. They are not shop drawings, and they are not a calculation report. Their job is to let the owner’s consultant accept geometry, member intent, bracing, anchors and interfaces before anyone burns plate. When that job is unclear, consultants mark every bolt hole, fabricators wait, and the analysis model quietly diverges from the PDF that was stamped.

A useful PEB approval set answers a short list of questions. What is the envelope? Where are the frames and what marks do they carry? How is the building braced? Where do bases sit and what reactions were issued with this revision? Which openings, cranes and mezzanines are included? Everything else can wait for shop drawings. Padding the approval set with fabrication-level hole charts does not make it more professional; it invites comments on details that should still be allowed to change.

This guide walks through a practical PEB approval drawing process from first issue through comment close-out. It sits after the design workflow and beside design coordination. Where offices assemble repetitive cover sheets and frame elevations, StruTools MBS Approval Package is an example of reducing that repetition. The engineering content of the package still has to be right.

What a PEB approval package is trying to communicate

Consultants do not approve a software file. They approve a narrative of the building. That narrative has to be readable without opening MBS or STAAD. If a reviewer cannot find eave height, roof slope, bracing bays or the design-basis note, they will either reject the set or invent comments to slow it down. Write the package for a tired reviewer on a second monitor, not for the person who built the model.

The package should also state its own limits. If masonry walls, sprinklers or architectural steel are by others, say so on the cover notes. If reactions were issued under a named combination set, point to that table. Silence is read as inclusion. That is how PEB suppliers inherit foundation design they never priced.

A practical PEB approval sheet list

Sheet lists vary by company and by building complexity, but the same groups keep appearing. Cover and notes, plans, frame elevations, secondary layouts, bracing, anchors and any special systems such as cranes. Number them so a comment can point to a sheet, not to “the steel drawings.”

Issue sequence that keeps the set honest

Dumping twenty sheets on day one is not a process. Issue internally first, then to the consultant, then as a revision that answers comments. Each external issue should be a complete story at that revision, even if some sheets are unchanged. Unchanged sheets still belong in the transmittal so nobody works from Rev A while the office has moved to Rev C on three files only.

1. Internal red-line: engineer checks that elevations match the analysis member list.
2. Interface review: civil looks at anchors; architect looks at openings and eave.
3. First formal submission with transmittal, PDF naming and a comment log template.
4. Comment review meeting if the mark-up is heavy; do not guess intent from a vague cloud.
5. Revised issue with clouds, a revision letter and an updated reaction table if bases moved.
6. Approval or “approved as noted” with a written list of notes that detailing may proceed on.
7. Archive of the exact PDF set and the analysis file that matches it.

Comments, stamps and what “approved as noted” really allows

Consultants use different stamps. Approved, approved as noted, revise and resubmit, rejected. Your commercial documents should already define what each stamp allows the shop to do. Engineering still needs a local rule: notes that change member size or load path return to analysis; notes that change a note on a typical may be detailing only. Never let a stamp become oral folklore.

Log every comment against a sheet and a status

A spreadsheet with sheet number, comment text, response, and status (open, closed, deferred) is dull and indispensable. Comments that live only on a marked PDF will be missed on the next issue.

Response quality

“Will comply” is acceptable when you will. “See typical” is not a response if the typical does not address the comment. If the comment is wrong, say why with a reference to the design basis, not with irritation.

Deferred items

Some comments wait on owner equipment data. List them. A deferred crane beam is not an approved crane beam. Detailing that area is a risk the project must accept in writing.

Coordination items that stall PEB approval

Most delayed PEB approvals are not delayed by a missing dimension on a girt. They are delayed by interfaces nobody owned. Docks versus bases, overhead doors versus knee braces, rooftop units versus purlin spacing, fire walls versus expansion joints. Put those clashes on plans before the consultant finds them, or budget a revision cycle you already know is coming.

• Anchor bolts versus trenches, pits, joint layout and edge distances on the slab drawing.
• Overhead doors versus column flanges, girts and wind posts.
• Crane stop and maintenance-platform clearances versus endwall steel.
• Rooftop equipment curbs versus purlin lines and roof bracing.
• Masonry or architectural walls that were assumed as metal sheeting in the wind model.
• Future extension endwalls that are drawn as finished architectural walls.
• Downspouts, hoppers and process penetrations that cut girts without framed openings.

Revision hygiene for PEB approval sets

A revision is a controlled difference, not a new export from CAD. Cloud the change, describe it in the revision block, and reissue reactions if the change can affect foundations. If you use automation to rebuild the package, still read the cover index. StruTools MBS Approval Package can rebuild repetitive sheets; it cannot decide whether a moved column needed a new reaction table.

Keep superseded issues downloadable but marked. Site teams will print Rev B from email even after Rev D exists. File names should include the revision. If your office still uses “FINAL” in a file name, stop; the next comment cycle will create FINAL2.

Comment-to-revision loop

This is the loop after first issue. Skipping the log is how the same comment returns three times.

1. Receive mark-ups and file them against the issued revision, not against a working CAD copy.
2. Classify each comment: geometry, load, note, interface, or out of scope.
3. Send load or geometry comments back to the analysis model owner the same day.
4. Draft responses in the log before changing drawings, so the response matches the edit.
5. Update only affected sheets plus any index or reaction table that the change touches.
6. Internal check that clouds, revision blocks and transmittal list agree.
7. Issue the revision and confirm the consultant received the full set.
8. When stamps arrive, write on the log which areas detailing may start.

Engineering tips

• Put column marks on every plan and elevation; reviewers navigate by marks, not by your model node numbers.
• State units and sign convention on the reaction sheet that accompanies approval.
• If a sheet is issued “for information only,” say who owns the design of that item.
• Ask the consultant how they want PDFs named before Rev A, not after Rev C.
• Show future-extension steel as future, with a note, or omit it; ghosted steel gets priced and then deleted.
• Keep a clean architectural underlay dated on the PEB plans so everyone can see which arch revision you used.

Approval-process mistakes that create shop-drawing pain

Submitting fabrication-level details for approval

Hole charts and weld symbols invite comments that freeze shop decisions too early. Keep approval at building-definition level unless the contract demands more.

Changing a frame after approval without a revision

A “small” web-depth change for procurement is a new building for connections and deflections. It needs a revised approval or a documented engineer’s instruction.

Leaving design-basis notes on a calculation cover nobody issues

The consultant reviews drawings. If the loading assumption is only in a private PDF, the approval set is incomplete.

Responding to comments by hiding the disputed item

Deleting a crane walkway from the drawing because it drew comments does not delete it from the owner’s expectation. Resolve it or exclude it in writing.

PEB approval issue checklist

Read this against the PDF you are about to transmit, not against the CAD file you meant to plot.

• Cover index lists every sheet in this revision.
• Design-basis notes name the standards required by the project, not a previous job.
• Exclusions (foundations, masonry, process steel) are explicit.
• Column marks match the reaction table issued with this set.
• Eave height, width, slopes and bay spacing match the analysis model.
• Bracing bays are shown, not implied by a typical that is not cut on this building.
• Large openings are framed on wall elevations.
• Anchor-bolt plan matches civil grid and finish-floor notes.
• Cranes and mezzanines are either designed in or clearly by others.
• Revision clouds and descriptions match the transmittal letter.
• Previous comments are answered in the log.
• File names include project, package and revision.

Frequently asked questions

Are PEB approval drawings the same as shop drawings?

No. Approval drawings define the building for consultant acceptance and interface coordination. Shop drawings add piece-level fabrication information. Treating them as one set either delays approval or under-informs the shop.

Should column reactions be part of the approval package?

They should be issued with the same revision as the approval plans whenever foundations are being designed from the PEB frames. A reaction table from an older model is a coordination defect. See column reactions in PEB design.

How many revision cycles are normal?

There is no honest universal number. A well-frozen envelope can approve in one or two cycles. Open architectural docks and missing crane data can take more. Plan the commercial programme around interfaces, not around optimism.

Can detailing start on unclouded sheets while other sheets are still in comment?

Only if the remaining comments cannot change those sheets, and only if the contract and the responsible engineer allow it. Endwall comments often propagate into roof bracing and purlin layouts, so “untouched” is a claim that needs a check.

Approval is a freeze, not a ceremony

A PEB approval package earns its keep when the consultant, the civil engineer and the steel supplier can all point to the same envelope, the same marks and the same exclusions. That freeze is what lets fabrication drawings proceed without gambling. Pretty title blocks do not create the freeze; complete notes, matching reactions and a comment log do.

Read this together with the PEB design workflow and coordination between analysis, detailing and fabrication. Stamps, member design and legal responsibility still follow the project contract and the responsible engineer. StruTools documents processes for education; it does not approve buildings.