So, I've been doing this the same way for over 20 years, but I am rethinking it. I've decided to submit the question to the ultimate arbiter of architectural correctness - the Archinect forums.
When dimensioning masonry for CDs, do you use nominal or actual dims?
I typically write how many full bricks I expect with special dims where a block is cut or needs to align with something for whatever reason. Second to this, I’ll add a rough opening dim and, if present overall size of door, window , etc. I let the mason do their thing after that. They probably don’t care for that 9mm difference.
I'm Union Commercial Construction in NYC. Every trade appreciates the architect who gave it some real thought and put Actual Dimensions on a plan. We know how to make it happen in reality.
Jun 19, 19 9:22 pm ·
·
curtkram
hell ya. That's why the last set sent out still had 1/256" dimensions
Jun 19, 19 10:13 pm ·
·
oldwhitehouse
That's a bit close of a tolerance curtkram, but stupid comments must be tolerated in online forums, so knock yourself out.
Jun 19, 19 10:47 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Trades appreciate clear instructions that leave no guess work as to the architect's intent. Micromanaging every aspect with non nonsensical or overly precise dimensions don't help anyone. Sure, I want this block wall to be exactly 4367mm long please.
Jun 19, 19 11:19 pm ·
·
oldwhitehouse
I can tell you from my 40 years union commercial experience that qualified trades appreciate an architect that puts actual dimensions. And qualified trades know when that 1/8" or 1/16" on a drawing can be disregarded or cheated one way or another in reality. We chuckle at this new generation of point click drag drop CAD college boys who never touched a pencil or triangle, let alone building materials.
Jun 20, 19 10:32 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
^That is pretty much what I meant with my above comment.
Jun 20, 19 10:36 am ·
·
oldwhitehouse
But yes, a drawing can call out "nominal" and specify + - a given tolerance, "Field Verify" and all that s#!t, but that still ultimately is up for tweeking in the field.
Jun 20, 19 11:24 am ·
·
curtkram
old, the 1/256" dimension means we didn't adequately review the drawings before we sent them out. i do think things should be accurate to 1/8" on our drawings though. a string of 16 1/8" off adds up to 2" off, which is enough to cause problems.
Jun 20, 19 2:15 pm ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
I thought the 1/256th was trying to count for individual inconsistencies among units.
Jun 20, 19 2:23 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
I don't understand what all those little air quotes and slashes mean.
Jun 20, 19 2:26 pm ·
·
atelier nobody
^Blame Canada!
Jun 20, 19 7:23 pm ·
·
citizen
Dimensional accuracy for skilled tradesmen is the best of all worlds. Unfortunately, it's rare in some parts.
Jun 20, 19 8:21 pm ·
·
curtkram
the inch" symbol is what put people on the moon. Metric engineering sucks.
i've been looking for an opportunity to stick in a detail like this.
Jun 19, 19 10:23 pm ·
·
Bench
Thats offensive
Jun 20, 19 11:29 am ·
·
oldwhitehouse
The Greeks are looking down laughing about That one.
Jun 20, 19 12:25 pm ·
·
atelier nobody
Someone should have an appointment with a sharp knife and a white kimono for that one...
Jun 20, 19 2:27 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
I love the offset of the two flanking brackets.
Jun 20, 19 2:34 pm ·
·
joseffischer
I like to think this was centered during DD and got stretched 2 days before the CD deadline. The Architect and GC argued about some other part of the building during CA where the architect said something like "I'm the architect, dimension it how I showed it" and the GC decided to get his revenge here.
Jun 20, 19 5:45 pm ·
·
curtkram
that would be Romans rather than Greek
Jun 20, 19 7:13 pm ·
·
citizen
The asymmetrically placed corbels make it even more ... something. Delicious? Disturbing?
Deliciously disturbing. But not as much as all those thin tapered bricks that somebody went to an inordinate amount of difficulty over.
Jun 20, 19 9:35 pm ·
·
citizen
Punishment for an unruly masonry apprentice?
Jun 20, 19 9:46 pm ·
·
oldwhitehouse
Curt, the Romans picked up where the Greeks left off. Classical Architecture is credited to both. That cornice would have been discarded by both
Jun 21, 19 6:38 am ·
·
curtkram
disagree. The Roman arch was roman. Greeks liked post and beam construction.
Jun 21, 19 10:34 pm ·
·
oldwhitehouse
There is no arch in that picture, it is an entablature. You can disagree all you like, but the study of classical architecture encompasses motifs and proportions handed down by ancient Greece and Rome. Or did they not mention Pythagorus in your school.
Jun 22, 19 8:05 am ·
·
oldwhitehouse
And if we did decide to refer to the cute diagonal brick detail as an arch, whickbI wouldn't but OK, I'm pretty sure mid landers intent on posting this pi
c was to call attention to the poor planning and execution and assymetry of the Cornice and Corbels above.
Jun 22, 19 8:19 am ·
·
midlander
actually i was interested to see some comments on the crazy amount of irregular and cut bricks in the flat arch. the asymmetry is strange but also less fascinating.
fwiw this is a historically protected building built in 1908. as far as i can tell these are real bricks not facing bricks, which makes this only more perverse.
I like to go the the museum of Bureau international des pieds et des mesures and stare for hours at the thumb and feet Number 27 cast in breadcrumbs and colby cheese, it still have the bone of the genius that invented this universal measure, even if I have to say that I miss the old and more traditional way of measure it by thoughts: "it's big enough" "it's very long" "at least 5000 weenies, 5\5932 lettuces, 65147+27654*17654%/&chops~ potatoes and 3 cubic snot" "from here to there" or the more classic "3 mid fingers and 5 greetings of the cyclist"
Jun 21, 19 9:26 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.
Important Philosophical Question
So, I've been doing this the same way for over 20 years, but I am rethinking it. I've decided to submit the question to the ultimate arbiter of architectural correctness - the Archinect forums.
When dimensioning masonry for CDs, do you use nominal or actual dims?
Masonry wall out-to-out: 120'-0" or 119'-7-5/8"?
Masonry opening: 3'-4" or 3'-4-3/8"?
I typically write how many full bricks I expect with special dims where a block is cut or needs to align with something for whatever reason. Second to this, I’ll add a rough opening dim and, if present overall size of door, window , etc. I let the mason do their thing after that. They probably don’t care for that 9mm difference.
Nominal for plans, actual for details.
ACTUAL!!!!!!! out to out for a masonry wall should be a normal dimension. The 1/8" should be the clear dimension.
I'm Union Commercial Construction in NYC. Every trade appreciates the architect who gave it some real thought and put Actual Dimensions on a plan. We know how to make it happen in reality.
hell ya. That's why the last set sent out still had 1/256" dimensions
That's a bit close of a tolerance curtkram, but stupid comments must be tolerated in online forums, so knock yourself out.
Trades appreciate clear instructions that leave no guess work as to the architect's intent. Micromanaging every aspect with non nonsensical or overly precise dimensions don't help anyone. Sure, I want this block wall to be exactly 4367mm long please.
I can tell you from my 40 years union commercial experience that qualified trades appreciate an architect that puts actual dimensions. And qualified trades know when that 1/8" or 1/16" on a drawing can be disregarded or cheated one way or another in reality. We chuckle at this new generation of point click drag drop CAD college boys who never touched a pencil or triangle, let alone building materials.
^That is pretty much what I meant with my above comment.
But yes, a drawing can call out "nominal" and specify + - a given tolerance, "Field Verify" and all that s#!t, but that still ultimately is up for tweeking in the field.
old, the 1/256" dimension means we didn't adequately review the drawings before we sent them out. i do think things should be accurate to 1/8" on our drawings though. a string of 16 1/8" off adds up to 2" off, which is enough to cause problems.
I thought the 1/256th was trying to count for individual inconsistencies among units.
I don't understand what all those little air quotes and slashes mean.
^Blame Canada!
Dimensional accuracy for skilled tradesmen is the best of all worlds. Unfortunately, it's rare in some parts.
the inch" symbol is what put people on the moon. Metric engineering sucks.
i've been looking for an opportunity to stick in a detail like this.
Thats offensive
The Greeks are looking down laughing about That one.
Someone should have an appointment with a sharp knife and a white kimono for that one...
I love the offset of the two flanking brackets.
I like to think this was centered during DD and got stretched 2 days before the CD deadline. The Architect and GC argued about some other part of the building during CA where the architect said something like "I'm the architect, dimension it how I showed it" and the GC decided to get his revenge here.
that would be Romans rather than Greek
The asymmetrically placed corbels make it even more ... something. Delicious? Disturbing?
Deliciously disturbing. But not as much as all those thin tapered bricks that somebody went to an inordinate amount of difficulty over.
Punishment for an unruly masonry apprentice?
Curt, the Romans picked up where the Greeks left off. Classical Architecture is credited to both. That cornice would have been discarded by both
disagree. The Roman arch was roman. Greeks liked post and beam construction.
There is no arch in that picture, it is an entablature. You can disagree all you like, but the study of classical architecture encompasses motifs and proportions handed down by ancient Greece and Rome. Or did they not mention Pythagorus in your school.
And if we did decide to refer to the cute diagonal brick detail as an arch, whickbI wouldn't but OK, I'm pretty sure mid landers intent on posting this pi
c was to call attention to the poor planning and execution and assymetry of the Cornice and Corbels above.
actually i was interested to see some comments on the crazy amount of irregular and cut bricks in the flat arch. the asymmetry is strange but also less fascinating.
That's a jack arch. AKA flat arch.
fwiw this is a historically protected building built in 1908. as far as i can tell these are real bricks not facing bricks, which makes this only more perverse.
What level of detail should the drawings have to achieve this?
I'm pretty sure the drawing specified "Ad Libit
Ad Libitum
Just fix the scale of your revit hatch.
Wankers screwed it up with those lintels, quoins and horizontal band.
how do they do expansion joints?
no need these are thermoelastic bricks
I like to go the the museum of Bureau international des pieds et des mesures and stare for hours at the thumb and feet Number 27 cast in breadcrumbs and colby cheese, it still have the bone of the genius that invented this universal measure, even if I have to say that I miss the old and more traditional way of measure it by thoughts: "it's big enough" "it's very long" "at least 5000 weenies, 5\5932 lettuces, 65147+27654*17654%/&chops~ potatoes and 3 cubic snot" "from here to there" or the more classic "3 mid fingers and 5 greetings of the cyclist"
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.