Should Working Drawings Be Standalone?

4/11/2025

Hi, I am asking a follow up question to the post, "What's Required to be in a Shop Drawing?"

Having completed working drawings for contractors in NYC in the past, everything on the NFPA 13 Chapter 23 list was required. I've even been asked to resubmit for lack of a graphic scale, "jerks!"

Ever since then, it has been my opinion that the Working drawings should be able to be used as a standalone reference, meaning no other document retrieval should be required to completely understand the system layout and duplicate the calculations. I'm currently reviewing shop drawings prepared by an extremely reputable FP engineering firm, and many of the required items from the checklist are missing.

Of the applicable items, the explanation is that the information such as compass point, building sections, water service line, etc., are part of the CD set and therefore not required. Pipe elevations are included in the calcs, so they are not required on the drawings. Fire sprinkler and major valve manufacturer and model numbers are included in the product data, which, by the way, was not submitted by the contractor with the drawings and calcs as specified and is not this engineer's fault.

Having said that, when sealing working drawings for contractors, we would require that information on the drawings so that it was clear to other entities that the equipment being provided matched the calcs. They also said that cut lengths are not required because these are not fabrication drawings. They said the quantity of sprinklers doesn't matter because there is only 1 riser and they are all the same temperature.

I have complete confidence in this engineer, I'm just wanting to check myself for future reviews. For the record, I'm of the opinion that this should be returned and resubmitted with the product data.

Other than that, things like graphic scales, compass points and other minor missing line items I would say minor correction to be included in the Owner's Record Copy. I don't know how many times I've asked for FP information for a building and the only information available is the working drawing.

Am I wrong in thinking it should be as easy as possible to duplicate the calcs with only the working drawing available?

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

13 Comments

Pete H

4/11/2025 06:29:10 am

In regards to calcs, I would say absolutely not wrong. That would be why NFPA 13 has all those requirements under "working drawings".

In regards to being standalone for every aspect of the job, I can't agree. Sometimes "coordinate in field" is necessary due to field conditions. Sometimes you may want to reference that the elevator has no fuel fired equipment and is built to ASME A17 requirements that allow the omission, but you don't want to put the entire elevator plan on your drawing so you may say "Reference drawing ELEV-2" (or whatever the elevator guy called his set).

But, for the initial submission, I agree on calcs, I should be able to see every relevant node of your calc and if I need to re-enter your calc in my software I should more or less be able to do it.

Glenn Berger

4/11/2025 08:10:46 am

The NFPA requirement (and most client's requirements) have not matured over time. With electronic submissions and electronic recordkeeping, adjustments need to be addressed.

I am still all for that a complete set of sprinkler system submittals shall be "delivered" to the client.

BTW I have rejected submittals for lack of a graphic scale. Scales were not shown, column dimensions not shown, general dimensions were not provided, and just a lot of verifiable stuff was just missing.

Casey Milhorn

4/11/2025 08:39:49 am

Funny enough, I just had lunch with a young FPE yesterday. Recently he had a project where full shop drawings were required to be submitted by the EOR during initial submittal of the full plans and specs. This is not the norm for most areas across the US. Luckily, this FPE started his career with a fire sprinkler contractor and knew how to develop shop drawings that meet the NFPA 13 criteria. I'm personally not a fan of FPEs or PEs developing shop drawings, unless they have someone like this on their staff. Even then, the EOR isn't always looking for the safest and most economical method of layout and installation, which can lead to a full redesign by the awarded fire sprinkler contractor (if allowed). It can also lead to lots of friction and change orders between GC and awarded fire sprinkler sub. To answer your question, I would say if your drawings will be the actual installation shop drawings, and no other shop drawings will be developed and submitted, then yes, all of these items should be on there. If these drawings are serving more as "design intent" drawings, then no, the NFPA 13 checklist shouldn't apply. But enough information should be on there to meet your jurisdictions standard of care. If that standard of care happens to require full NFPA 13, shop drawing compliance, then you will have to provide everything stated. My two cents anyway.

David D. Dexter, PE

5/26/2025 11:37:07 am

Just a comment, the EOR (Engineer Of Record) holds the ethical, moral and legal liability for the design. The EOR may be a PE or an FPE, but their design is what has been approved in the permit process. It is not up to anyone else to change or alter that design without the EOR's approval. To do so is basically committing a fraud against the Owner.

Mike Morey

4/11/2025 09:01:05 am

Working at (and reviewing all outbound submissions for) a large contractor I can say that we absolutely require every item on the NFPA checklist. When I review a drawing that is intended to be submitted I expect it to tell a complete story. Down to the design criteria, head types etc. I always try and put my "lowest common denominator" hat on and expect not to have to know ANYTHING about sprinklers to be taught how our designer came up with this design. We cite tables, modifiers etc as well. We have a very low rate of rejections, obviously a lot of the plans are being rubber stamped out there anyway, but doing it right cuts down on mistakes on our end, and cuts down on questions/rejections on the other end and the extra time designing is made up for by the lower instance of errors and rejections. I will say for standard valves that have an NFPA friction loss we normally don't submit or call out a model #. that was the only thing I noted in the OP I might not agree with.

Jose Figueroa

4/11/2025 10:49:54 am

This question is extremely important to me. Coming from an older generation, I remember that detailed working drawings or standalone drawings were essential for performing hydraulic calculations using a slide rule.

Even with advancements in graphic technologies and calculations today, I believe it is crucial to identify every node from the working drawings and to strictly adhere to NFPA 13 standards. Additionally, reverse calculations from the working drawings should be performed to ensure that water demand meets water supply, including necessary safety factors.

QUESTION FOR THE USA COMMUNITY: Is it necessary to hold a Professional Engineer (PE) license to validate and stamp working drawings, as well as to conduct an as-installed field audit?

Brett

4/11/2025 03:27:49 pm

Jose,

Usually working drawings (or shop drawings) are not required to be sealed by an engineer. I'm sure it's required somewhere but in most of the U.S. it is not required. Oftentimes the working drawings are sent to the engineer who did the "performance spec" engineering drawings or design document for review and that engineer will approve or deny. Sometimes that doesn't happen.

Different states have their own requirements. For example, South Carolina requires an engineer to do an upfront engineering analysis including water supply, applicable codes and standards, storage arrangements, among other things. The shop drawings are then prepared by a licensed contractor who is not required to be an engineer. The engineer reviews the shop drawings. Then the shop drawings are submitted to be reviewed by the AHJ.

danefre

4/11/2025 01:50:51 pm

Coming from the contracting world, I realize that a lot of overzealous reviewers don't understand the impact that their "Revise and Resubmit" has to the project.

Sprinkler contracts are often the last ones to be awarded and the submittals are already overdue. Noone is going to come after you if you approve a plan without a graphical scale and rejecting a plan for that reason and delaying installation is not prudent.

Especially if the shop drawings are stamped by a licensed FPE..

The calculation nodes, criteria, head selection, water flow data and installability of the system needs to be 100% on the shop drawings. Everything else can be "approved as noted" and "revised for record". You can withold final sign-offs until the plans are satisfactory, but delaying the initial permit submission is not doing anyone any favors.

Everyone has a different toleranace to how much they're willing to deviate from chapter 23. I often find that the PEs that produce the worst contract drawings are the most stringent with their reviews.

Jack G

4/11/2025 05:37:13 pm

I ve been arguing for 50 years, there is too much on the drawings. Light fixtures, tiles, pipe centers/ cuts, elevations notes yada,yada.
There should be phases. Subimittal plan— pretty much like NFPA-13 with calc points cuts and dimensions.
If you were to compare an installation drawing with all the notes cuts, and all the 13 notes , you’d be unable to read it— especially the AHJ.
A lot of twps require the approved drawing to be on the job, and you use it to install.
With the advent of cad, if things are done in layers, you can turn of everything but sprinkler, structure cuts and notes for installation. Trying to look thru a light fixture for the pipe cut is horrible.
NFPA wants too much on the plans.

4/13/2025 02:08:32 am

The industry has lost “common sense”
The rejection on plans has to do more of how a detail looks than the actual sprinkler system.

Jesse

4/13/2025 04:51:18 pm

I'm a couple days late to this party, but my 2-cents.....

This is one of those things where many AHJs differ substantially. In Texas, AS plans are required to be sealed by the person providing oversight for the AS design. This is the technical director person working for the sprinkler contractor - either an FPE or an RME-G, and an FPE only if licensed by our state fire marshal.

Most of our AHJs don't want overly cluttered plans and don't care about things like a compass rose, etc. I've actually had a plans rejected on two occasions for the "yellow hexagonal numbers" all over the place. Imagine the reviewer's confusion upon explaining those are indeed the hydraulic nodes......

I have a checklist I make my designers complete before submitting to me for review that pretty much duplicates the items in the Working Plans section of 13

But yeah, admittedly the working plans section should really be brought kicking and screaming into 2025

Todd E Wyatt

4/14/2025 02:41:39 am

Contract Documents (CD) or Construction Documents (CD) included both DRAWINGS (DWG) and SPECIFICATIONS (SPECs).

The submittal requirements are typically included in the following SPECs (see https://www.constructionindustrycenter.com/public/downloads/Masterformat%20List.pdf for all sections) ...

00 62 11 Submittal Transmittal Form
01 32 19 Submittals Schedule

01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES
01 33 13 Certificates
01 33 16 Design Data
01 33 19 Field Test Reporting
01 33 23 SHOP DRAWINGS, PRODUCT DATA, AND SAMPLES
01 33 26 Source Quality Control Reporting
01 33 29 Sustainable Design Reporting
01 33 29.01 Material Cost Summary Form
01 33 29.02 Wood-Containing Product List
01 33 29.03 Metal-Containing Product List
01 33 29.04 Material Content Form
01 33 29.05 New Product Source Form
01 33 29.06 Reused Product Form
01 33 29.07 Prohibited Content Installer Certification

The SHOP DRAWING requirements are included in 01 33 23 SHOP DRAWINGS, PRODUCT DATA, AND SAMPLES although individual SPEC sections (e.g. 21 13 00 Fire-Suppression Sprinkler Systems & 21 20 00 Fire-Extinguishing Systems) may have additional trade-specific Submittal (and Shop Dwg) requirements.

The Design Professional (DP ... e.g. Architect or Engineer) will typically edit the applicable SPEC sections to be project-specific including reasons WHY a submittal is rejected for not being "complete" as per the CD - SPECs.

The lack of a required scale may not be seem to be important to the CONTRACTO / SUBCONTRACTOR but it may be to the DP who is responsible for considering all systems' interactions.

I have initially reviewed "partial" submittals only to find that the approved model in the initial submittal was not available in the size or color that was specified requiring a resubmittal. This wastes the DP's time by having to re-review a new submittal.

Ricardo Gonzales Jr

4/14/2025 10:14:57 am

I'm in agreement that the drawings with equipment data sheets should stand alone. As a former AHJ, (Tech prior & FPE) I expect the drawings to provide all the information needed to properly build and test the system. The drawings and calculations should match and indicate where there is elevation differences. NFPA 13 is a fantastic guide. The only assumption I've ever made with reviewing drawings is that the designer has already done the coordination with any lights or diffusers or other obstructions in the ceilings or high on the walls. The inspections will be proof of the pudding.

As a high level engineer I now send back submittals frequently since it's impossible to tell if the equipment submitted matches the drawings or if the drawings match the submittals or calculations. The equipment submittals may satisfy the specifications, but unknown if the installer plans to use that equipment as shown on the not yet submitted drawings. Drives the GC nuts, but the installers understand, and the GC needs to get thier acts together. This is where I see the failure lies. 'Get something turned in' attitude and not practical.

Should Working Drawings Be Standalone?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES