Common Conflict Types
The most frequent conflicts between architectural and structural drawings involve:
- Column locations — structural grid differs from architectural partition layout by 2–6 inches
- Beam depths — structural framing depth exceeds the ceiling-to-floor depth the architect planned
- Slab edge locations — architectural slab edge differs from structural framing plan
- Opening locations — architectural openings in floors or walls not reflected on structural drawings
- Facade attachment — architectural cladding system has no structural attachment shown on structural drawings
Who Resolves the Conflict
Conflicts between disciplines are resolved by the design team — not by the detailer. The detailer's role is to identify the conflict, document it clearly in an RFI with a marked-up drawing, and submit it through the GC to the design team for resolution. The detailer should not arbitrarily follow one drawing over the other. When both cannot be simultaneously satisfied, the design team must decide which governs and issue a formal clarification or addendum.
How to Document and Track Conflicts
Each conflict should generate a dedicated RFI with both the structural and architectural drawing references, a description of the specific conflict, a plan-view sketch showing both conditions, and the fabrication impact if not resolved within X days. A project with multiple unresolved conflicts should have a dedicated coordination issue log, separate from the structural RFI log, so the GC can see all outstanding design coordination issues in one place.
Using the 3D Model as a Conflict Detection Tool
The most powerful method for identifying architectural-structural conflicts before they become schedule problems is overlaying the structural steel model against the architectural model in a common BIM coordination environment. In Navisworks or Trimble Connect, the Tekla Structures IFC export can be overlaid against the architectural Revit IFC export and clash rules run to identify hard and clearance conflicts automatically. A beam that exceeds the plenum depth appears as a hard clash; a column that shifts two inches from the architectural location appears as a clearance clash. Running this coordination check during the first week of detailing — before any connections are designed — allows the detailer to submit a consolidated conflict RFI covering the full scope of discrepancies rather than discovering them one at a time during connection detailing.
Governing Document Hierarchy and Its Limits
Construction contracts typically include a document hierarchy clause stating which document governs in case of conflict — usually in the order: addenda, specifications, drawings, and then noting that the more stringent requirement governs for code compliance items. However, this hierarchy rarely resolves specific architectural-structural conflicts cleanly. A specification clause that says 'structural drawings govern over architectural drawings for structural members' does not resolve a situation where moving a column to the structural location makes the architectural plan non-functional. In practice, conflicts of material design consequence require a joint decision by the architect and EOR — the document hierarchy clause is a fallback for minor discrepancies, not a substitute for professional coordination. Detailers who invoke the hierarchy clause unilaterally to resolve conflicts they should have submitted as RFIs expose themselves and their clients to liability.
Facade Attachment Conflicts: A Frequently Missed Category
One of the most common and costly architectural-structural conflicts involves facade attachment: the architectural drawings show a cladding system, curtain wall, or brick ledger angle whose structural attachment is not shown on the structural drawings. The steel detailer may not model attachments that are not shown on structural drawings — and if the cladding contractor later requires weld plates, embed angles, or penetrations through the steel, those are costly field additions. Preventing this requires the detailer to actively cross-reference the architectural wall sections against the structural member elevations at the start of detailing and submit RFIs for every attachment whose structural support is undefined. AISC Code of Standard Practice Section 2 places responsibility for providing complete structural information with the owner and EOR — but the detailer who catches these gaps proactively protects the fabricator from late scope additions.
Resolving Conflicts During Fast-Track Projects
On fast-track projects where architectural and structural design are still evolving during detailing, conflicts are inevitable and the resolution workflow must be accelerated. Best practice is a weekly coordination call with the EOR, architect, and detailing PM specifically to review new conflicts identified that week. Each conflict is assigned an owner, a target resolution date, and a detailing hold date — the date after which the detailer will need to make a working assumption or fall behind schedule. Working assumptions made without formal resolution should be documented in a log and shared with the GC as 'detailer's assumption pending design team confirmation.' This creates a record of the assumption and ensures the design team cannot later disclaim knowledge of it.