I've seen detail sheets number 1,2,3... for each page they're one. I've also seen details numbered 123... for page one and then continue 456... on page two, 789... on page three.
Any thoughts on the pros/cons to continue the count past each page or not. Seems like you would have a unique number for each detail, but revisions could be a pain if adding/subtracting detail numbers was not accounted for.
1,2,3 each page, starting at the bottom right corner, increasing up, then left in a grid, skipping numbers where a drawing takes up more than one grid space.
That's how I was taught to do it and how I've always done it. The idea being that sheets which aren't completely full have most of their information to the right-hand side of the page, and the numbering starts by the page number.
detail numbers should start back at 1 for each sheet... and as much as possible, be placed in the same clock or counterclock fashion throughout the entire project.
I see only cons with detail numbering that spans multiple drawings.
We start with detail 1 on each new sheet. We also use a numbering system so A5.1.1 means "5" (details) point "1" (1st sheet) point 1 (1st sheet in series). It's also as much as possible it corresponds to the location. Think chapter and page references.
Example A4.1 would have a few wall sections. A5.1.X ("x" being whatever page in the series) would have the details from those wall sections found on the 4.1.
Also works from right to left/top to bottom in a stacked fashion. So you might have 5 wall sections on that A4.1. Wall section 1 would be on the right; And the first sheet in the series would have the details associated with it.
I put them in a grid, labeled by letter and number. Upper left is A1/A7.0. Bottom right is D4/A7.0. This is for a 24x36 sheet. Some people can fit 5 columns & rows on a 24x36 but I do 4. The grid really helps lay out sheets fast.
Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but I was just going to start one on this myself.
I've seen and heard multiple ways on numbering details on Architectural sheets as well as the reasoning behind it. (i.e. top to bottom, left to right; bottom to top, right to left; clockwise, starting at top right corner; grid coordinate system such as A2, D4, C1, etc…)
The firm I work for uses the left to right, top to bottom method, because that is how you read. Fair enough reason, I guess.
If I were starting an office standard, I would go with gwharton's method, starting at the bottom right and working bottom to top, right to left, except that I would not skip numbers. That may be confusing if the numbers are out of sequence. We've all seen the detail tag with "NOT USED" before...
Probably best just to start at 1 on each new sheet, starting on the right hand side by the titleblock. Hard enough keeping track of detail tags just on one sheet.
I'm also a huge fan of right hand sheet orientation although the residential architect I work with the most insists I work left-right, starting at the gutter.
START POINT = LOWER RIGHT - CONTRACTOR FRIENDLY FOR PRINTED SETS IN FIELD
START POINT = UPPER LEFT - ARCHITECT FRIENDLY WITHIN THE CONDITIONED GRADE SCHOOL TAUGHT PRACTICE OF READING A BOOK
THE IDEA IS TO GET THE CORRECT INFORMATION TO THE END USER AS FAST AND EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE. THE END USER WHO MOST OFTEN WORKS WITH PRINTED SET IS THE CONTRACTOR IN THE FIELD. WORKING WITH SAY 36X48 SETS ARE CUMBERSOME, AND THE FIRST POINT OF REFERENCE IS THE PAGE NUMBER LOCATED MOST OFTEN AT THE LOWER LEFT. THIS SETS THE BASIS OF THE LOGIC IN WORKING WITHIN A GENERAL TO SPECIFIC (LOD) LEVEL OF DETAIL DATA SEARCH.
TO HAVE THE UPPER RIGHT BEGIN WITH DRAWING ONE IS COUNTER INTUITIVE WORKING OFF THE AFOREMENTIONED BASIS
NEXT TIME AN ARCHITECT IS IN THE FIELD OPEN UP A DRAWING SET AN ONE WILL DISCOVER THE UTILITY OF THE MANUAL THEY HAVE CREATED. IT'S AN OPERATION THAT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE KINESTHETIC ACTIONS OF THE END USER IN INTERACTING WITH THE MANUAL ITSELF.
JJ
Mar 30, 20 3:15 pm ·
·
atelier nobody
Calm down, man, it's not worth giving yourself an aneurysm over...
apropos of nothing & in diverting a necro-thread unnecessarily, we work on 22"x34" now (11x17 half size)
not all projects fit it perfectly, the odd ones can go larger or smaller as needed, but the convenience and cheaper cost of half size printing has mainly been the driver
(and sometimes specific clients or jurisdictions require different...)
Mar 30, 20 4:24 pm ·
·
jeffreyjohnson
LOTHROP
Mar 30, 20 4:29 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
I absolutely loathe standards that ignore the needs of the project in favor of arbitrary printing sizes. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS we say and then require drawings to be of a scale or division to force the building to fit on a paper size that only matters IF YOU SCALE THE DRAWINGS.
Scale to fit means a 24x36 prints just fine on 11x17, and most printers I've used that can print on 11x17 can also take 12x18.
Mar 30, 20 4:39 pm ·
·
atelier nobody
While I agree the contractor is not supposed to scale the drawings, we all know they do it all the time and if they bid a job wrong because they scaled the drawings and they weren't to scale, "do not scale the drawings" might or might not stand up in arbitration.
Mar 30, 20 5:04 pm ·
·
tduds
'"do not scale the drawings" might or might not stand up in arbitration.'
It will if its in your General Notes
Mar 30, 20 5:51 pm ·
·
atelier nobody
tduds - I haven't personally been involved in arbitration on this issue, but I've read about cases going both ways.
I've heard roughly the same as atelier nobody, but haven't read or been involved in anything specifically. The way I remember hearing it ... which is probably flawed ... is why do we produce drawings to scale, including stating that scale on each drawing, if they aren't intended to be scaled?
I'm not advocating for this, but rather just asking the question ... instead of "do not scale drawings," should we be stating something like, "written dimensions govern over scaled dimensions in all cases and contractor is responsible for confirming scaled dimensions with architect where written dimensions are missing or otherwise not provided," or something along those lines? Of course, that means our CA fee gets blown answering all the RFIs this would cause.
Mar 30, 20 6:58 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
This is a question for the lawyers. If adults acted like adults and not like children playing hot potato we could agree in a solution that would benefit both Architects AND Contractors. Instead we have this fucking game of GOTCHA.
Sneaky, I agree with the hot potato situation we always find ourselves in ... but I'm not sure the lawyers are going to help get us out. It's their job to protect their client and if they can pass the potato to someone else, they'll do it in a heartbeat.
What I'm attempting to get at with my proposed statement is that we all know that contractors scale the drawings, so let them. However, at the same time, make it clear that they are doing so at their own risk unless they can confirm their scaled dimensions with something written.
Mar 31, 20 11:28 am ·
·
SneakyPete
I would see that as a valid approach. My two sentences were meant as discrete statements, should have put a line break between.
Mar 31, 20 11:40 am ·
·
atelier nobody
Despite what I said above, I actually have no dog in the fight about contractors scaling drawings. My real perspective is as "the QA/QC guy" - if I see a dimension on a drawing then I'd better be able to drop my scale on it and confirm (or scale the PDF in Bluebeam these days) or it's wrong purely as a matter of drafting practice.
Mar 31, 20 4:58 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
At the 11th hour someone wants a different length and you haven't the fee left to recombobulate the revit model. What do you do?
Mar 31, 20 5:18 pm ·
·
atelier nobody
@SneakyPete - In my particular situation, we have a very formalized system for comments and responses (complete with 2 different systems of color-coding), so the PA could respond to my comment with "It was an 11th hour change" and I would sign off on it.
On the other hand, I've experienced many situations where the last-minute change got picked up on one view, but didn't follow the falling dominoes, and now there's a bust during construction (e.g. arch moved a wall but now the mech equip doesn't fit), so there's a lot to be said for doing it right even if it is the 11th hour.
In a perfect world, I'd like to work with a PM that is able to manage a project where 11th hour changes aren't necessary unless it's coming from the client. If that happens, the PM hands the client a proposal for additional services extending the clock and adding fee so there is time and money to make the change properly.
Mar 31, 20 6:21 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Detail Sheet Numbering System
I've seen detail sheets number 1,2,3... for each page they're one. I've also seen details numbered 123... for page one and then continue 456... on page two, 789... on page three.
Any thoughts on the pros/cons to continue the count past each page or not. Seems like you would have a unique number for each detail, but revisions could be a pain if adding/subtracting detail numbers was not accounted for.
1,2,3 each page, starting at the bottom right corner, increasing up, then left in a grid, skipping numbers where a drawing takes up more than one grid space.
That's how I was taught to do it and how I've always done it. The idea being that sheets which aren't completely full have most of their information to the right-hand side of the page, and the numbering starts by the page number.
detail numbers should start back at 1 for each sheet... and as much as possible, be placed in the same clock or counterclock fashion throughout the entire project.
I see only cons with detail numbering that spans multiple drawings.
We start with detail 1 on each new sheet. We also use a numbering system so A5.1.1 means "5" (details) point "1" (1st sheet) point 1 (1st sheet in series). It's also as much as possible it corresponds to the location. Think chapter and page references.
Example A4.1 would have a few wall sections. A5.1.X ("x" being whatever page in the series) would have the details from those wall sections found on the 4.1.
Also works from right to left/top to bottom in a stacked fashion. So you might have 5 wall sections on that A4.1. Wall section 1 would be on the right; And the first sheet in the series would have the details associated with it.
Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but I was just going to start one on this myself.
I've seen and heard multiple ways on numbering details on Architectural sheets as well as the reasoning behind it. (i.e. top to bottom, left to right; bottom to top, right to left; clockwise, starting at top right corner; grid coordinate system such as A2, D4, C1, etc…)
The firm I work for uses the left to right, top to bottom method, because that is how you read. Fair enough reason, I guess.
If I were starting an office standard, I would go with gwharton's method, starting at the bottom right and working bottom to top, right to left, except that I would not skip numbers. That may be confusing if the numbers are out of sequence. We've all seen the detail tag with "NOT USED" before...
1: the sheet lays out fast. The grid is on a no plot layer.
2: you always know what number a drawing gets.
Mostly, because its fast.
Probably best just to start at 1 on each new sheet, starting on the right hand side by the titleblock. Hard enough keeping track of detail tags just on one sheet.
I'm also a huge fan of right hand sheet orientation although the residential architect I work with the most insists I work left-right, starting at the gutter.
START POINT = LOWER RIGHT - CONTRACTOR FRIENDLY FOR PRINTED SETS IN FIELD
START POINT = UPPER LEFT - ARCHITECT FRIENDLY WITHIN THE CONDITIONED GRADE SCHOOL TAUGHT PRACTICE OF READING A BOOK
THE IDEA IS TO GET THE CORRECT INFORMATION TO THE END USER AS FAST AND EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE. THE END USER WHO MOST OFTEN WORKS WITH PRINTED SET IS THE CONTRACTOR IN THE FIELD. WORKING WITH SAY 36X48 SETS ARE CUMBERSOME, AND THE FIRST POINT OF REFERENCE IS THE PAGE NUMBER LOCATED MOST OFTEN AT THE LOWER LEFT. THIS SETS THE BASIS OF THE LOGIC IN WORKING WITHIN A GENERAL TO SPECIFIC (LOD) LEVEL OF DETAIL DATA SEARCH.
TO HAVE THE UPPER RIGHT BEGIN WITH DRAWING ONE IS COUNTER INTUITIVE WORKING OFF THE AFOREMENTIONED BASIS
NEXT TIME AN ARCHITECT IS IN THE FIELD OPEN UP A DRAWING SET AN ONE WILL DISCOVER THE UTILITY OF THE MANUAL THEY HAVE CREATED. IT'S AN OPERATION THAT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE KINESTHETIC ACTIONS OF THE END USER IN INTERACTING WITH THE MANUAL ITSELF.
JJ
Calm down, man, it's not worth giving yourself an aneurysm over...
There's no need to yell.
sheeeeeeeit
How did this post come back to life?
ROSS
apropos of nothing & in diverting a necro-thread unnecessarily, we work on 22"x34" now (11x17 half size)
not all projects fit it perfectly, the odd ones can go larger or smaller as needed, but the convenience and cheaper cost of half size printing has mainly been the driver
(and sometimes specific clients or jurisdictions require different...)
LOTHROP
I absolutely loathe standards that ignore the needs of the project in favor of arbitrary printing sizes. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS we say and then require drawings to be of a scale or division to force the building to fit on a paper size that only matters IF YOU SCALE THE DRAWINGS.
Scale to fit means a 24x36 prints just fine on 11x17, and most printers I've used that can print on 11x17 can also take 12x18.
While I agree the contractor is not supposed to scale the drawings, we all know they do it all the time and if they bid a job wrong because they scaled the drawings and they weren't to scale, "do not scale the drawings" might or might not stand up in arbitration.
'"do not scale the drawings" might or might not stand up in arbitration.'
It will if its in your General Notes
tduds - I haven't personally been involved in arbitration on this issue, but I've read about cases going both ways.
I've heard roughly the same as atelier nobody, but haven't read or been involved in anything specifically. The way I remember hearing it ... which is probably flawed ... is why do we produce drawings to scale, including stating that scale on each drawing, if they aren't intended to be scaled?
I'm not advocating for this, but rather just asking the question ... instead of "do not scale drawings," should we be stating something like, "written dimensions govern over scaled dimensions in all cases and contractor is responsible for confirming scaled dimensions with architect where written dimensions are missing or otherwise not provided," or something along those lines? Of course, that means our CA fee gets blown answering all the RFIs this would cause.
This is a question for the lawyers. If adults acted like adults and not like children playing hot potato we could agree in a solution that would benefit both Architects AND Contractors. Instead we have this fucking game of GOTCHA.
Sneaky, I agree with the hot potato situation we always find ourselves in ... but I'm not sure the lawyers are going to help get us out. It's their job to protect their client and if they can pass the potato to someone else, they'll do it in a heartbeat.
What I'm attempting to get at with my proposed statement is that we all know that contractors scale the drawings, so let them. However, at the same time, make it clear that they are doing so at their own risk unless they can confirm their scaled dimensions with something written.
I would see that as a valid approach. My two sentences were meant as discrete statements, should have put a line break between.
Despite what I said above, I actually have no dog in the fight about contractors scaling drawings. My real perspective is as "the QA/QC guy" - if I see a dimension on a drawing then I'd better be able to drop my scale on it and confirm (or scale the PDF in Bluebeam these days) or it's wrong purely as a matter of drafting practice.
At the 11th hour someone wants a different length and you haven't the fee left to recombobulate the revit model. What do you do?
@SneakyPete - In my particular situation, we have a very formalized system for comments and responses (complete with 2 different systems of color-coding), so the PA could respond to my comment with "It was an 11th hour change" and I would sign off on it.
On the other hand, I've experienced many situations where the last-minute change got picked up on one view, but didn't follow the falling dominoes, and now there's a bust during construction (e.g. arch moved a wall but now the mech equip doesn't fit), so there's a lot to be said for doing it right even if it is the 11th hour.
I'd like to work with a system like that, please.
In a perfect world, I'd like to work with a PM that is able to manage a project where 11th hour changes aren't necessary unless it's coming from the client. If that happens, the PM hands the client a proposal for additional services extending the clock and adding fee so there is time and money to make the change properly.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.