My firm has this practice where we "elevate" each elevation or a span of exterior curtain wall or storefront on a specific series of sheets, usually at 1/4"=1'-0" scale. Each elevation references a type tag (in Revit speak) found on the floor plans or building elevation (for example [A], [B], etc..).
These sheets basically end up looking like shop drawings but are rich in information that you could not fit on a 1/8" building elevation. Information such as mullion types and accessories, specific detail callouts (head, jamb, etc), glazing types, overall dimensions, mullion patterns, and so-on.
This can be time consuming, especially for large projects. Is this type of documentation common or typically can this intent be deferred from floor plans, sections, and building elevations? I know every office has their own standards and best practices but I'm in a position to suggest and implement improvements to our processes.
We do something similar for all window and door frames.
On smaller projects where plans and elevations are done at 1/4" (super rare) we put all this info on the exterior elevations.
One thing I've found helpful is to create different types of glazing that correspond to the window frame type. That way when you tag the frame (you're actually tagging the glazing) it's a smart tag.
So if I understand what you're saying, each of those tags references, say, a plan or section detail in your A-500 sheets? We only put our section cut line tags on elevations, and let the sections be where we mark detail callouts.
Ah, the butterfly collection. It's important, but only if you care that your design comes through the way you want it. Use EQ's wherever possible, and all other dims to be VIF.
We most certainly do but typically include this info on detail elevation drawings in the 1:50 (typical) or 1:20 (rare) scale specifically for CW dims, panel and mullion type, finishes, etc. You can get all the info you need for good shop drawing coordination while keeping the building context since I'm not isolating just one panel. Helps when you have "align with" type notes and other pesky items like grilles and lights and I'll break the elevation into as many views & sheets as is necessary to cover all conditions. It's not that time consuming if you have a decent model and annotation families.
Not sure about the question tho. You want as much control as possible so that the GC and trades make the least amount of assumption$.
What you are describing is a pretty standard system. Why do you want to reduce it? You probably can do a single schedule for those items like door schedule list out opening sizes, glass types, detail types, etc. But if you have complicated design, you need elevation drawings to show. The more you slack off, the more risk you take in construction. It also makes shop drawing review slower. Unless that GC is your internal design build team, maybe then you can slack off a little.
Sep 22, 20 5:19 pm ·
·
admiralArchArch
Not really looking to get rid of it, this is the only place I have worked so just wondering what other firms do. We are collaborating with another firm, much larger then ours, and it seemed like they do not elevate each curtain wall separately.
Sep 23, 20 2:35 pm ·
·
Jay1122
There is no definite example in construction document set preparation. There are always things learned through the mistakes of previous job. Certain standards are developed to help reduce that chance. And who your GC is matters, I work in public, so its low bid GC. Anything wrong or unclear in drawing = change order request, very nasty group of people. Both malicious and incompetent. Never got a shop that is approved in first attempt. If you have a competent design build GC, you probably can even skip some typical details and let them figure it out.
It's a common practice to have facade set-out plans, section/enclosure details, and elevations ( the one the OP attached ) in a drawing set.
We once left out the facade elevations series in a tender set simply because the deadline was moved forward and we ran out of time. We ended up including the set in CD somehow, just to cover our asses. The builder would have been fine without the set , as they always build the facade out of their facade contractor anyway.
It really depends on your contractor and your project. While I've never enjoyed doing these sorts of drawings, it's always been helpful in construction.
Yes, it's something that the contractor will completely redraw, but much of the time they'll somehow botch it and you'll be glad you have something to stand on. Submittals are much easier to get corrected when you can just point to a drawing that shows what it should be doing.
Most of our projects require this for complexity sake, even the small ones. I actually had a rather large project with a lot of glazing recently that we didn't do this for.... but the subcontractor was also the manufacturer and provided feedback during design. I think the façade was legally going to be design build, so providing them drawings seemed moot. We asked for 6 weeks for submittal review though... That's one way to compensate...
You could do something similar with your exterior elevations to save yourself a couple sheets. I like having specific sheets just for the curtainwall when things get complex
Keep in mind that drawings are done for communication purposes.
So, whatever you do or however you show it, communications is ultimately the purpose. There is no right or wrong way - some do it by doing window schedules, some identify glazing by notes and legends on 1:100 scale or at 1:50 scale.
Bottom line is, whatever gets the information to whoever you are presenting the drawings to works, that's what you do.
As a side note, I stopped identifying frame types in curtain walls or window walls long time ago. The reason is, you have no idea 99.9% of the time whose frames will be used. Normally, the lowest bid wins, and you don't have a clue who that may be or whether their frames are 2" or 2 1/4" or 2 1/2" or 4" or 4 1/2" or 5" or 6" or 8" or anything else.
Spacing or location is what you need to worry about; anything else is pretty well out of your hands.
So, remember drawing is a communication tool - that's all.
But, don't waste your time doing stuff that can be communicated by other means, such as specs.
Sep 23, 20 10:03 pm ·
·
Jay1122
Don't listen to this guy. Full of wrong information. He just assumes its Design Bid Build. What if it is Design Build. And only public work requires substitute products. Private jobs you can specify one specific item because it is your money. And you should always have your basis of design products. Simply because there is a possible substitute from the GC does not mean you can let all the details go. And you will never get substitute products with different frame sizes. No real architect allows that kind of flexibility in their design. The price is also world difference. If you allow that, you may as well give the GC a napkin sketch of the plan and have him do whatever to build it. It is especially important in large projects where curtainwalls and glazing systems are meticulously engineered and detailed, even down to anchor bolts. Do you know there is a job called curtain wall consultant? That tells you how important it is, enough to make it a job.
Yeah, Jay nails it. You should absolutely be 100% certain that you're designing to a 50 or 64mm wide mullion, ditto for the frame depth, anchoring, expansion, steel reinforcements. There are wind-load and span charts to guide this too.
Sep 24, 20 9:11 am ·
·
Jay1122
Well maybe the guy above spreading wrong information is working in Africa or middle east, with no set of rules and do whatever he wants. But I will assume OP is in US. or similar developed country.
I'll come in to defend a little bit of what aps' wrote. Understand what you need to communicate and what you don't need to communicate. Don't waste your time drawing things you don't need to in order to communicate your design intent, or that are communicated in other ways (like specs). That is just simple efficiency, time management, and good documentation.
I'll also add that like Jay was saying, you need to understand the audience and their priorities and tailor the documentation to work with them. Don't base everything on a specialized basis of design if your project is public-bid work, for example. Likewise, don't assume you'll get mullions ranging from 4 to 8 inches deep if you've already got a contractor on board and curtainwall is a big line item (work with the shop in that case to understand the system you'll be using ... they'll tell you what depth you need). You don't need to detail the internal reinforcing if you're delegating the engineering to the contractor (you might have a good idea that it will be necessary, but you don't need to locate it).
Also, you shouldn't need to detail something to a level of detail approaching shop drawings. This goes back to our roles in communicating design intent which aps got spot on.
^EA, I'll backtrack a little here and add to your point. In the early part of the shutdown, I took it upon myself to remake from scratch our typical office CW mullion revit families. The problem we had was that who ever was setting up the model would just download whatever first mullion popped up in google and put it it... so it came in with all the aluminum shapes and reinforcing and whatever else was proprietary to that manufacturer. It's just that the drafting staff often knows nothing about CW besides making it the correct size (sometimes) or they are lazy. But, you should still know the basic X by Y size of your framing members at a bare minimum.
LOL, EA, the first paragraph about efficiency, what you need and don't need is much easier said than done. I think everyone knows about that logic but fails to achieve. It is like everyone sets out to do a perfect CD set but never achieved it. Like your statement "you shouldn't need to detail something to a level of detail approaching shop drawings." My PM probably will disagree with you because the public bid GC we had is way too nasty, the more detailed the drawing, the better chance at winning an argument. Anyway I don't really care, it is all based on experience and judgement.
I do want to talk about, whether we should make the generic revit wall section cut beautiful and detailed. Did a project with various Revit wall section cuts in 1/4" Inch scale. It was covered with draft items all the way through, even in places with large blow up details. If you only do it once, you probably can copy and paste, but if you know architecture, someone always changes stuff at last minute. I feel it is unnecessary to do those since the scale is at a generic level meant to show opening sizes, heights and general conditions etc.
Sep 24, 20 12:56 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Jay, drafting details are kept to the absolute bare minimum here... and I do my details at 1:5 scale. Sure, the mullion is generic enough not to imply more than necessary, but it's not hard to make good quality revit details if you care about your work.
Sep 24, 20 1:14 pm ·
·
Jay1122
NS, I agree with you. But I worked with a PA that is obsessed with making the drawing set look "pretty" rather than communicate what is required to construction. Even wants the 1/4" wall sections items annotated while it was already indicated in other sheets and details just to make the section appear more complicated and professional. The Principal saw the set was kind of not so happy that he wasted all the time doing those. Well as a junior member doing CD, you can't say no. It is good to have different office experiences and see how things are done in different firms. Because sometimes, you may be learning the wrong thing.
Sep 24, 20 1:26 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Not sure I follow. We would never submit a drawing that was not annotated appropriately for it's scale. We certainly will annotate a 1:50 section (1/4") for wall types, O/A dims, window tags, etc...but there will also be 1:10 and 1:5 callouts that will pick up membrane laps, seals, and other finishing details. We have one arch here that tries to cram everything possible in 1:25 sections because they can't be bothered to break that info into separate scale details. Those drawings are a bloody mess.
Sep 24, 20 1:37 pm ·
·
Jay1122
I am talking about text call out. Item description with arrow point to it. For example, the text callout point to a window will say window assembly blah blah while there are window tags and elevations already in the set to convey those information. Feels very redundant. Just there to make wall section drawing look less empty. Also, how many exterior walls do you cut and show the wall section drawing is also a good argument.
Cheers NS, completely agree. Your efforts to redo the CW mullion families is great because you likely simplified it to not indicate all the proprietary stuff that the drafters were bringing in. That's the type of unnecessary detail that we don't need to draw, and can cause problems if it's there.
Which brings me to Jay's PM's point about more detail equals more arguments won ... maybe, sometimes it can result in costly problems. I'm assuming that you're not doing all your engineering for curtainwall in house, maybe you are, but likely not. If you've drawn things to the shop drawing level in a vain attempt to win arguments, you've not only wasted your fee in doing so, but you've also likely caused an issue when the actual engineer calculates the loads and figures out what is needed. But, since you showed it on the drawing, the contractor can rely on the accuracy of the drawings (hello Spearin Doctrine).
Worse case scenario, they don't hire an engineer (because everything is already full detailed), they rely on the "unegineered" details and build it exactly like you've drawn it, then things fail or break or fall down and hurt or kill people. Hopefully this doesn't happen because the AHJ insists on seeing the deferred submittal, or you catch that the shop drawings aren't stamped by the engineer they should have hired ... but those things can get missed as well because everyone might assume that what you show on the drawings is sufficient.
Is this hypothetical realistic? Possibly, I haven't seen it happen with curtainwall, but I have seen it specifically with stairs and railings. I know of a showcase building for a big client by a prominent firm where the grand staircase ended up being designed and "engineered" by the interior designer who was just making things look good. But since everything was fully detailed and dimensioned the GC never hired anyone to engineer the stairs as the spec required (who reads the spec anyway?). No one realized this until the stairs were already fabricated and installed. Suddenly someone realized they hadn't seen the delegated design submittal with the actual engineering. Lots of people said some naughty words in unison. Project's structural engineer did some quick calculations and confirmed the already built stairs were ok as detailed. Lots of people sighed in unison. They got lucky.
Another less prominent example for railings was where the exterior balcony railings were fully detailed to look good. Turns out they weren't engineered because they were fully detailed on the drawings. Contractor built them as detailed. Later after lots of lawyers got involved, the architect paid to have the railings removed and replaced with something that could withstand the wind loads without breaking the glass infill panels. Per your PM, you would have won all the arguments because the railings were fully detailed ... yet you would have been completely wrong.
TL;DR, you can run into serious issues if you draw too much where you should be communicating intent only and allowing the contractor to fill in on engineering the details when that engineering has been delegated to the contractor ... like with curtainwall.
LOL, EA I agree with you. Although I don't know if extra drawing will get you in trouble other than waste time and fee.If you forgot the engineering requirement it is your fault. BTW we don't detail anchor bolts. We cover the engineer calculation part in the specification. Requiring engineer's stamp and calculation submittals. Right now I have no say In how a final drawing set looks. If the PM QAQCed it and wants that specific extra fine detail, you have to do it. But good to know for future when I am in charge of my set.
You can agree with me, but I don't think you're really understanding my point. You say that you don't know if extra drawing will get you in trouble other than waste time and fee and I literally just gave you an example of a time when extra detailing got a firm in trouble.
This type of thing (over drawing and detailing) happens a lot, and I'm on the lookout for it in the sets I review. If engineering has been delegated to the contractor in the specs, but the drawings give all the dimensions, and the specs indicate the material ... what is left to engineer?
Take a curtain wall for example. You've defined the floor to floor height in your drawings and therefore the distance the framing members span. You've identified the mullion size in the drawings and the material (aluminum alloy and grade) in the spec, so those are also fixed. If you've also fixed the spacing between framing members (by dimension in the drawings), there is nothing left for the engineer to work with in order to meet the structural performance requirements (wind load and deflection criteria) except the thickness of the framing and adding steel reinforcement.
So now, if you've drawn the details to shop drawing level and you show the material thickness of the framing member, and the size of the steel reinforcement, what happens if the curtain wall won't withstand the wind loads and deflection criteria? You've left nothing else for the engineer to change to meet the performance criteria you're also requiring them to meet. The only thing they can do is point out where your design is deficient and suggest changes to the contract requirements so they can meet the performance criteria (reduce spacing and add a mullion, increase depth of mullions, increase material thickness, add steel reinforcement, etc.). You have to leave them some room to engineer things.
I don't know if this is really an issue for your firm. There is a lot I don't know about your documents that might make whatever you're being told to do fine, or not. Maybe your PMs know something you don't and you aren't able to tell us anons on the forum because you don't know what you don't know. That is probably the case. So I wouldn't start ignoring the PM when they mark up your drawings, but if you want to progress to the next level in your career, you should start to pick up on these things and see how they are working.
Good aspiring architects that learn about these things can tactfully question the PM's directions if they will lead to problems and save the firm some headaches. Do this enough and promotions and bonuses will be in that aspiring architect's future. Grumpy QA people like me don't care if they piss off the PM, PA, or the drafter. I do care when we make stupid mistakes though and my bosses (partners and principles) appreciate that and still promote me and give me bonuses. YMMV.
Ah I see where you are getting at now with that super lengthy post. You are right. If your detail gets too far like material thickness, anchor bolts, etc. Nothing is left to change. Well said, man, well said. We don't really get to that level of details in my office. And it is too much to talk about every CD set components. Well, we don't have QAQC people. The PM is the PA and the QAQC, and occasional drafter too. So what ever is in his head is whatever that is going to be produced. He actually laughed at another guy with 10 yrs experience's set and think it is poorly done. Small job though, He had our detailing specialist rework all the parapet details and stuff, I feel it is totally overworked and waste of time & fee for a reno job.
Sep 24, 20 4:58 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
"detail specialist"..... there is your problem. I don't understand how some just brush off the important parts of construction to others. You need to know this stuff even if you're not actually doing the drafting.
Sep 24, 20 5:12 pm ·
·
Jay1122
I do details from time to time as well as all the other tasks. Trying to learn the full trade. But in our firm, there is one guy with 15+ Yrs only focusing on doing wall sections and detailing, nothing else. He does all the wall section details for all the big ground up. The PM trust him like his own heart. He takes a huge part of the fee though. Because he is senior=big fee, and he drafts the details himself. He does not like having a junior draft for him.
Sep 24, 20 5:16 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
I’ve met a few people like that. Always an odd bunch. Anyways, I do all my own stunts since I’m 99% likely to be reviewing construction.
I doubt that you actually got any actual project experience. Because the bar would be way too low from what you are trying to teach here. And it sounds like you are one of those incompetent architects that draws some simple plans and let GC do all the hard lift for you.
Sep 24, 20 1:03 pm ·
·
Jay1122
I guess that is why you think recent grads should review shop drawings. Because even if you miss stuff in your shop drawing, the GC will fix it for you, it is out of your control. I actually want to know, what do you do if the stair shops your intern approved are not code compliant and it was built then flagged by inspector. What are you going to do besides looking like idiot? Are you just going to blame the GC for making wrong stair shops and tricked your intern?
Technically Jay the architect dose not approve shop drawings or check them for accuracy, applicable building codes, technical aspects, or constructability. We only review them for design intent. The GC is supposed to review and approve the shops prior to sending them to us for design intent review. That being said it's still a good practice to spot check accuracy, code compliance, ect, and bring it to the GC's attention if we notice issues.
Sep 24, 20 2:04 pm ·
·
Jay1122
Really? Hmm the GC I work with does not even take a second look at the shop. Just blind stamp reviewed. I got a submittal with used car buying Ads page in it. I have not seen the shit hit the fan myself yet, so I don't know how it will go down. But the original design document definitely needs the accuracy right? If the CD set is wrong, no way you can get away with that. I was told a story how a beam went through an elevator shaft and GC knew and built it anyway and asked for a massive change order to fix it.
Uh chad, a quick google turned out this answer:
"An Architect who didn't catch or correct an error in a shop drawing and approved it could well be liable to the owner if his contract doesn't absolve him in advance."
Yup, really. Obviously if your CD's are wrong then your shops will be wrong. That's why we need to produce accurate CD's. It's a dangerous precedent to say 'eh, fuck it, we'll catch it in the shops'. You won't catch it in the shops and now the shops and your CD's are wrong. Big trouble. When dealing with crappy shops or submittals reject them and send them back for resubmittal.
Who knew Archinect forum is a place to learn and not waste time. But then again, I don't trust the CDs done by team member or even myself. So back to square one with thorough shop review.
Jay an actual reading of a standard AIA contract (A201) state Architect’s review obligations for submittals (this includes shop drawings) are limited to “checking for conformance with information given and the design concepts expressed in the Contract Documents.” (§4.2.7)
§4.2.7 also provides that the Architect’s review is not conducted to determine the accuracy, details, quantities, or to provide approval of installation or performance, all of which are the Contractor’s responsibility.
Article 3.12. §3.12.4 specifies that “Shop Drawings, Product Date, Samples and similar submittals are not Contract Documents.
If you're using A201 then the contract dose absolve you from catching and correcting errors in shops and they are the GC's job. Of course if the GC fights this it will require some type of legal action to resolve.
Jay, the quote from the Google machine is correct, but the devil is in the details (no pun intended). AIA B101 standard language is "Architect shall review and approve [...] submittals such as Shop Drawings [...] but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. Review of such submittals is not for the purpose of determining accuracy and completeness of other information such as dimensions, [and] quantities [...]." So those contracts and the many derived from it would "absolve [the architect] in advance."
Consensus Doc agreements don't have quite the same language (as far as I understand it) but still make it clear that approval of a submittal like shop drawings do not authorize any changes from the Contract Documents unless those changes have been specifically authorized with a change order, etc. So ... still keeping with the same intent that the architect is not responsible for checking the accuracy of everything in the shops.
Yup. The various AIA contracts absolve architects from approving any submittal for anything other than conformance with the design intent as shown in the CD's (drawings and project manual).
Edit: EA brought up a another AIA contract that better states architects are not responsible for 'approving' any type of submittal. Thanks EA! I forgot about B101.
Sep 24, 20 3:04 pm ·
·
Jay1122
I work with public government agency that has their own contract documents. I would expect it to have similar languages. Haven't seen AIA docs for a while. Funny thing, I am about to study B101 & A201 for the ARE test. Contract document sure is boring to read
.
I brought up B101 because it is an example of the Owner-Architect Agreement. A201 is important but actually has no enforceability on the architect's responsibility to the owner. A201 is the general conditions for the contract for construction. The owner and the contractor are party to it and bound by it. Yes, it lays out responsibilities the architect has, but those are actually laid out first in the Owner-Architect Agreement (B101 for example) and it even notes that the architect is not bound by A201 unless whatever is in A201 is also included in the Owner-Architect Agreement. See 3.6.1.1 of B101 where it says, "The Architect shall provide administration of the Contract between the Owner and Contractor as set forth below and in AIA Document A201-2017 [...]. If the Owner and Contractor modify AIA Document A201-2017, those modifications shall not affect the Architect's services under this Agreement unless the Owner and the Architect amend this Agreement."
Jay, good luck with the studying. You'll likely find a lot of similarities between AIA contracts and what you're used to for your clients. Most of the owner's own contracts I've reviewed are pretty blatant knockoffs of AIA language. It gets tweaked and modified here and there, but usually the important stuff is still intact. The problems usually arise when it's not intact.
I was reading Chad's words more carefully, and I'll take issue with something because I'm a pedant. I don't think he meant this as his intent, but I wanted to clarify anyway.
B101 definitely states that the architect is to review and "approve" submittals. So your statement that, "architects are not responsible for 'approving' any type of submittal," is wrong. It does, however, limit the scope of what that approval means when we do it: "conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. [...] not for the purpose of determining accuracy and completeness of other information such as dimensions, [and] quantities [...]."
Also "No Exceptions Taken" does not in any way protect you from anything. Architects made up this language years ago and courts don't like weasel language, so it now means the same damned thing as approved.
If you want to be well prepares and have smooth sailing CA, Yes. Draw as many conditions and details as you can. If something doesn't work, you don't want to figure out in CA and possible cause a change order.
Enough to be able to get a building permit, enough to be able to get prices or bids on, and enough to be able to build from.
Any less and you haven't done your job as an architect.
Any more, and you have wasted your time as well as the time and money of your client.
Ask any seasoned, experienced Job Captain, and they will tell you what is enough. Many times, the less you say (or draw), the better you will be off as an architectural firm.
Many times, you don't ask the Project Architect or the Project Manager, because they will not know - it is not their job to know such things; they look after other things.
This protocol or system works well most of the time in large, well run firms. It does not in small firms, because one person usually looks after all the aspects of the business from getting the client to design to working drawings to getting the permit to getting bids to contract management.
Sep 24, 20 4:39 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
very bad advice here. you need to provide as much detail as is required to ensure the design intent is understood, accurate construction is maintained, and to minimize the amount of assumptions by your GC. The less you draw, the more power the GC has and the less relevant the architect becomes. Shows the quality of work you've produced... damn.
Sep 24, 20 5:15 pm ·
·
archanonymous
yeah this is crazy. If you are the Project Architect you should know every damn detail of your project. Someone should be able to point to a random beam and ask "what size is this" or a layer in an assembly and ask "what is this product?" and you had better be able to answer. Otherwise you're just a project manager.
Again, I'll come to aps' defense a little. I won't comment on the stuff in the last 3 paragraphs (job captain to the end). I think if you add, "enough to effectively communicate design intent," in the 3rd paragraph it's actually good advice I'd stand behind. Letting the GC fill in on some things here or there isn't an issue if the design intent is maintained. The key is you have to communicate it though. Obviously don't leave things that are important aspects of the design intent up to the GC, but some things are ok ... it makes them feel important ;)
I also don't disagree with archanonymous' comment that you should know what is in your project. Everything should be accounted for and you should be able to answer what that layer in the wall assembly is, but I don't think aps' comment said otherwise (you could point to the "enough to get accurate prices or bids on" as evidence of this). aps' point is that you shouldn't waste time drawing stuff that doesn't matter.
Do I need to draw a detail for the anchors for the hollow metal door frame? No, not unless it's important to the design intent. Do I need to draw a detail showing the spacing of the ladder siderails and rungs? No, not if I have a spec that indicates those things and it isn't otherwise important to the design intent. Do I need to show setting blocks under the IGU in a curtainwall detail? Probably not, because it would be covered in references to glazing standards in the specification. Do I need to detail the mullion spacing where it aligns with the control joints in the sidewalk? You bet I do if it is important to my design intent.
Agree that there are many things that don’t matter since they are the responsibility of a 3rd party or are entirely controlled by the specs but we’re finding that the old POV that “the trades know eh at to do” is not reliable. I do the site review on everything that I design and detail from a tenant for to a multi story office building. If I don’t have a clear 1:2 detail showing how I want my roof membranes lapped, it’s guaranteed to be installed incorrectly. Keeps our lawyers and insurer happy and makes my job on much easier even when the crusty old farts complain.
"Ask any seasoned, experienced Job Captain, and they will tell you what is enough. Many times, the less you say (or draw), the better you will be off as an architectural firm.
Many times, you don't ask the Project Architect or the Project Manager, because they will not know - it is not their job to know such things; they look after other things."
I think it is the PA's job to put together the set, to know what to draw (and what not to) and to be accountable for all the (drawn) components of the project.
EA - Agree with you (and NS for that matter) that it is a delicate balance, however....
I've found that when you draw that stuff (even if you don't intend to keep it in the finished details) you learn things about your project... loved that sill pan detail until I drew the setting blocks and realized it didn't all work together.
Thought that ladder metal spec would be fine, but oh, it's fastened to an aluminum facade and now galvanic corrosion at the fasteners is a problem, etc, etc, etc...
A Project Architect can handle a single job or 5 jobs all at once or even more depending on the scale and how busy the office is.
For him to know every detail, and every paragraph in the specs for every project is simply ludicrous. If that was the case, one could do with only one person in the office - a Project Architect. Having others, and others doing their jobs would be superfluous.
On any one given job there could be as many as 10-20 people working with all sorts of responsibilities, and that does not even include the owner(s) of the firm.
Next time you work on a large hospital, ask your Project Architect what size of doors are used for the Exam Rm. 412 or if they have a P.Lam finish or simple paint, and what kind of paint.
You can also ask that question of your Project Manager, if you like.
I'll buy you a coffee if they can tell you the correct answers.
Again, as I said to Jay, you need to get far more experience before you dish out advice or begin to correct others.
Have an open mind, and be a team member when you are working on a large project or even a small one. Also, recognise the fact that you don't have all the answers; listen carefully what more experienced and more senior staff tell you. You will learn many things by doing that.
Honestly, I was cocky too when I came out of the school. Found out quickly I knew fook-all! I was still learning the day I retired.
You guys agree on this, stop trying to find minutiae to fight about.
Sep 24, 20 6:45 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
And never ask the PM about anything related to design, they're upset they don't get to design and will inject an opinion that isn't necessary into things. (Hyperbole, of course.)
"...you need to provide as much detail as is required to ensure the design intent is understood, accurate construction is maintained, and to minimize the amount of assumptions by your GC..."
What the hell did you think I was talking about when I said, "Enough to be able to get a building permit, enough to be able to get prices or bids on, and enough to be able to build from."?
aps - to be fair you have three separate submittal processes all with vastly different levels of information in your comment. Building permit - plans and elevations. Pricing set - that can be a SD set with a design narrative. Construction Docs -that can be broken up into various packages all with different levels of information.
"What the hell did you think I was talking about when I said, "Enough to be able to get a building permit, enough to be able to get prices or bids on, and enough to be able to build from."?"
Each of those can be separate drawing submittals each with varying degrees of detail. Only the last one would have enough information to build something from. Even then CD's can be provided in phases depending on the delivery method.
Your comments was confusing at best as it implies that any one of these are good enough to build from as they would provide enough detail to build from. They are not.
Sep 25, 20 1:36 pm ·
·
apscoradiales
Of course you can have separate packages for those three different submissions. I have done it myself on some jobs.
"Enough to be able to get a building permit, enough to be able to get prices or bids on, and enough to be able to build from."
Totally agree with this, but only if you know what you are doing (enough experience) and they (GC) know what they are doing. I'd rather draw something once than explaining to an inept builder over the phone 3 times a day.
Sep 24, 20 11:14 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Usually end up doing both.
Sep 25, 20 12:36 am ·
·
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.
Documenting Design Intent for Curtainwalls/storefront
My firm has this practice where we "elevate" each elevation or a span of exterior curtain wall or storefront on a specific series of sheets, usually at 1/4"=1'-0" scale. Each elevation references a type tag (in Revit speak) found on the floor plans or building elevation (for example [A], [B], etc..).
These sheets basically end up looking like shop drawings but are rich in information that you could not fit on a 1/8" building elevation. Information such as mullion types and accessories, specific detail callouts (head, jamb, etc), glazing types, overall dimensions, mullion patterns, and so-on.
This can be time consuming, especially for large projects. Is this type of documentation common or typically can this intent be deferred from floor plans, sections, and building elevations? I know every office has their own standards and best practices but I'm in a position to suggest and implement improvements to our processes.
We do something similar for all window and door frames.
On smaller projects where plans and elevations are done at 1/4" (super rare) we put all this info on the exterior elevations.
One thing I've found helpful is to create different types of glazing that correspond to the window frame type. That way when you tag the frame (you're actually tagging the glazing) it's a smart tag.
Yeah, we do the same for doors frames/windows. Essentially we are treating curtainwalls and storefronts the same, just not scheduled.
I have tagged glazing to correspond to glazing types listed in specs (Type 1=1" IGU, Type 2=spandrel, etc).
So if I understand what you're saying, each of those tags references, say, a plan or section detail in your A-500 sheets? We only put our section cut line tags on elevations, and let the sections be where we mark detail callouts.
Those are elevations in the OP's post though . . .
Ah, the butterfly collection. It's important, but only if you care that your design comes through the way you want it. Use EQ's wherever possible, and all other dims to be VIF.
We most certainly do but typically include this info on detail elevation drawings in the 1:50 (typical) or 1:20 (rare) scale specifically for CW dims, panel and mullion type, finishes, etc. You can get all the info you need for good shop drawing coordination while keeping the building context since I'm not isolating just one panel. Helps when you have "align with" type notes and other pesky items like grilles and lights and I'll break the elevation into as many views & sheets as is necessary to cover all conditions. It's not that time consuming if you have a decent model and annotation families.
Not sure about the question tho. You want as much control as possible so that the GC and trades make the least amount of assumption$.
What you are describing is a pretty standard system. Why do you want to reduce it? You probably can do a single schedule for those items like door schedule list out opening sizes, glass types, detail types, etc. But if you have complicated design, you need elevation drawings to show. The more you slack off, the more risk you take in construction. It also makes shop drawing review slower. Unless that GC is your internal design build team, maybe then you can slack off a little.
Not really looking to get rid of it, this is the only place I have worked so just wondering what other firms do. We are collaborating with another firm, much larger then ours, and it seemed like they do not elevate each curtain wall separately.
There is no definite example in construction document set preparation. There are always things learned through the mistakes of previous job. Certain standards are developed to help reduce that chance. And who your GC is matters, I work in public, so its low bid GC. Anything wrong or unclear in drawing = change order request, very nasty group of people. Both malicious and incompetent. Never got a shop that is approved in first attempt. If you have a competent design build GC, you probably can even skip some typical details and let them figure it out.
It's a common practice to have facade set-out plans, section/enclosure details, and elevations ( the one the OP attached ) in a drawing set.
We once left out the facade elevations series in a tender set simply because the deadline was moved forward and we ran out of time. We ended up including the set in CD somehow, just to cover our asses. The builder would have been fine without the set , as they always build the facade out of their facade contractor anyway.
It really depends on your contractor and your project. While I've never enjoyed doing these sorts of drawings, it's always been helpful in construction.
Yes, it's something that the contractor will completely redraw, but much of the time they'll somehow botch it and you'll be glad you have something to stand on. Submittals are much easier to get corrected when you can just point to a drawing that shows what it should be doing.
Most of our projects require this for complexity sake, even the small ones. I actually had a rather large project with a lot of glazing recently that we didn't do this for.... but the subcontractor was also the manufacturer and provided feedback during design. I think the façade was legally going to be design build, so providing them drawings seemed moot. We asked for 6 weeks for submittal review though... That's one way to compensate...
You could do something similar with your exterior elevations to save yourself a couple sheets. I like having specific sheets just for the curtainwall when things get complex
Yeah, every project is different so I could see that working for smaller projects.
Keep in mind that drawings are done for communication purposes.
So, whatever you do or however you show it, communications is ultimately the purpose. There is no right or wrong way - some do it by doing window schedules, some identify glazing by notes and legends on 1:100 scale or at 1:50 scale.
Bottom line is, whatever gets the information to whoever you are presenting the drawings to works, that's what you do.
As a side note, I stopped identifying frame types in curtain walls or window walls long time ago. The reason is, you have no idea 99.9% of the time whose frames will be used. Normally, the lowest bid wins, and you don't have a clue who that may be or whether their frames are 2" or 2 1/4" or 2 1/2" or 4" or 4 1/2" or 5" or 6" or 8" or anything else.
Spacing or location is what you need to worry about; anything else is pretty well out of your hands.
So, remember drawing is a communication tool - that's all.
But, don't waste your time doing stuff that can be communicated by other means, such as specs.
Don't listen to this guy. Full of wrong information. He just assumes its Design Bid Build. What if it is Design Build. And only public work requires substitute products. Private jobs you can specify one specific item because it is your money. And you should always have your basis of design products. Simply because there is a possible substitute from the GC does not mean you can let all the details go. And you will never get substitute products with different frame sizes. No real architect allows that kind of flexibility in their design. The price is also world difference. If you allow that, you may as well give the GC a napkin sketch of the plan and have him do whatever to build it. It is especially important in large projects where curtainwalls and glazing systems are meticulously engineered and detailed, even down to anchor bolts. Do you know there is a job called curtain wall consultant? That tells you how important it is, enough to make it a job.
Yeah, Jay nails it. You should absolutely be 100% certain that you're designing to a 50 or 64mm wide mullion, ditto for the frame depth, anchoring, expansion, steel reinforcements. There are wind-load and span charts to guide this too.
Well maybe the guy above spreading wrong information is working in Africa or middle east, with no set of rules and do whatever he wants. But I will assume OP is in US. or similar developed country.
Aps is, apparently, a retired canadian architect who thinks shop drawing review is a task best suited for the lowest junior staff.
I'll come in to defend a little bit of what aps' wrote. Understand what you need to communicate and what you don't need to communicate. Don't waste your time drawing things you don't need to in order to communicate your design intent, or that are communicated in other ways (like specs). That is just simple efficiency, time management, and good documentation.
I'll also add that like Jay was saying, you need to understand the audience and their priorities and tailor the documentation to work with them. Don't base everything on a specialized basis of design if your project is public-bid work, for example. Likewise, don't assume you'll get mullions ranging from 4 to 8 inches deep if you've already got a contractor on board and curtainwall is a big line item (work with the shop in that case to understand the system you'll be using ... they'll tell you what depth you need). You don't need to detail the internal reinforcing if you're delegating the engineering to the contractor (you might have a good idea that it will be necessary, but you don't need to locate it).
Also, you shouldn't need to detail something to a level of detail approaching shop drawings. This goes back to our roles in communicating design intent which aps got spot on.
^EA, I'll backtrack a little here and add to your point. In the early part of the shutdown, I took it upon myself to remake from scratch our typical office CW mullion revit families. The problem we had was that who ever was setting up the model would just download whatever first mullion popped up in google and put it it... so it came in with all the aluminum shapes and reinforcing and whatever else was proprietary to that manufacturer. It's just that the drafting staff often knows nothing about CW besides making it the correct size (sometimes) or they are lazy. But, you should still know the basic X by Y size of your framing members at a bare minimum.
LOL, EA, the first paragraph about efficiency, what you need and don't need is much easier said than done. I think everyone knows about that logic but fails to achieve. It is like everyone sets out to do a perfect CD set but never achieved it. Like your statement "you shouldn't need to detail something to a level of detail approaching shop drawings." My PM probably will disagree with you because the public bid GC we had is way too nasty, the more detailed the drawing, the better chance at winning an argument. Anyway I don't really care, it is all based on experience and judgement.
I do want to talk about, whether we should make the generic revit wall section cut beautiful and detailed. Did a project with various Revit wall section cuts in 1/4" Inch scale. It was covered with draft items all the way through, even in places with large blow up details. If you only do it once, you probably can copy and paste, but if you know architecture, someone always changes stuff at last minute. I feel it is unnecessary to do those since the scale is at a generic level meant to show opening sizes, heights and general conditions etc.
Jay, drafting details are kept to the absolute bare minimum here... and I do my details at 1:5 scale. Sure, the mullion is generic enough not to imply more than necessary, but it's not hard to make good quality revit details if you care about your work.
NS, I agree with you. But I worked with a PA that is obsessed with making the drawing set look "pretty" rather than communicate what is required to construction. Even wants the 1/4" wall sections items annotated while it was already indicated in other sheets and details just to make the section appear more complicated and professional. The Principal saw the set was kind of not so happy that he wasted all the time doing those. Well as a junior member doing CD, you can't say no. It is good to have different office experiences and see how things are done in different firms. Because sometimes, you may be learning the wrong thing.
Not sure I follow. We would never submit a drawing that was not annotated appropriately for it's scale. We certainly will annotate a 1:50 section (1/4") for wall types, O/A dims, window tags, etc...but there will also be 1:10 and 1:5 callouts that will pick up membrane laps, seals, and other finishing details. We have one arch here that tries to cram everything possible in 1:25 sections because they can't be bothered to break that info into separate scale details. Those drawings are a bloody mess.
I am talking about text call out. Item description with arrow point to it. For example, the text callout point to a window will say window assembly blah blah while there are window tags and elevations already in the set to convey those information. Feels very redundant. Just there to make wall section drawing look less empty. Also, how many exterior walls do you cut and show the wall section drawing is also a good argument.
Cheers NS, completely agree. Your efforts to redo the CW mullion families is great because you likely simplified it to not indicate all the proprietary stuff that the drafters were bringing in. That's the type of unnecessary detail that we don't need to draw, and can cause problems if it's there.
Which brings me to Jay's PM's point about more detail equals more arguments won ... maybe, sometimes it can result in costly problems. I'm assuming that you're not doing all your engineering for curtainwall in house, maybe you are, but likely not. If you've drawn things to the shop drawing level in a vain attempt to win arguments, you've not only wasted your fee in doing so, but you've also likely caused an issue when the actual engineer calculates the loads and figures out what is needed. But, since you showed it on the drawing, the contractor can rely on the accuracy of the drawings (hello Spearin Doctrine).
Worse case scenario, they don't hire an engineer (because everything is already full detailed), they rely on the "unegineered" details and build it exactly like you've drawn it, then things fail or break or fall down and hurt or kill people. Hopefully this doesn't happen because the AHJ insists on seeing the deferred submittal, or you catch that the shop drawings aren't stamped by the engineer they should have hired ... but those things can get missed as well because everyone might assume that what you show on the drawings is sufficient.
Is this hypothetical realistic? Possibly, I haven't seen it happen with curtainwall, but I have seen it specifically with stairs and railings. I know of a showcase building for a big client by a prominent firm where the grand staircase ended up being designed and "engineered" by the interior designer who was just making things look good. But since everything was fully detailed and dimensioned the GC never hired anyone to engineer the stairs as the spec required (who reads the spec anyway?). No one realized this until the stairs were already fabricated and installed. Suddenly someone realized they hadn't seen the delegated design submittal with the actual engineering. Lots of people said some naughty words in unison. Project's structural engineer did some quick calculations and confirmed the already built stairs were ok as detailed. Lots of people sighed in unison. They got lucky.
Another less prominent example for railings was where the exterior balcony railings were fully detailed to look good. Turns out they weren't engineered because they were fully detailed on the drawings. Contractor built them as detailed. Later after lots of lawyers got involved, the architect paid to have the railings removed and replaced with something that could withstand the wind loads without breaking the glass infill panels. Per your PM, you would have won all the arguments because the railings were fully detailed ... yet you would have been completely wrong.
TL;DR, you can run into serious issues if you draw too much where you should be communicating intent only and allowing the contractor to fill in on engineering the details when that engineering has been delegated to the contractor ... like with curtainwall.
LOL, EA I agree with you. Although I don't know if extra drawing will get you in trouble other than waste time and fee.If you forgot the engineering requirement it is your fault. BTW we don't detail anchor bolts. We cover the engineer calculation part in the specification. Requiring engineer's stamp and calculation submittals. Right now I have no say In how a final drawing set looks. If the PM QAQCed it and wants that specific extra fine detail, you have to do it. But good to know for future when I am in charge of my set.
You can agree with me, but I don't think you're really understanding my point. You say that you don't know if extra drawing will get you in trouble other than waste time and fee and I literally just gave you an example of a time when extra detailing got a firm in trouble.
This type of thing (over drawing and detailing) happens a lot, and I'm on the lookout for it in the sets I review. If engineering has been delegated to the contractor in the specs, but the drawings give all the dimensions, and the specs indicate the material ... what is left to engineer?
Take a curtain wall for example. You've defined the floor to floor height in your drawings and therefore the distance the framing members span. You've identified the mullion size in the drawings and the material (aluminum alloy and grade) in the spec, so those are also fixed. If you've also fixed the spacing between framing members (by dimension in the drawings), there is nothing left for the engineer to work with in order to meet the structural performance requirements (wind load and deflection criteria) except the thickness of the framing and adding steel reinforcement.
So now, if you've drawn the details to shop drawing level and you show the material thickness of the framing member, and the size of the steel reinforcement, what happens if the curtain wall won't withstand the wind loads and deflection criteria? You've left nothing else for the engineer to change to meet the performance criteria you're also requiring them to meet. The only thing they can do is point out where your design is deficient and suggest changes to the contract requirements so they can meet the performance criteria (reduce spacing and add a mullion, increase depth of mullions, increase material thickness, add steel reinforcement, etc.). You have to leave them some room to engineer things.
I don't know if this is really an issue for your firm. There is a lot I don't know about your documents that might make whatever you're being told to do fine, or not. Maybe your PMs know something you don't and you aren't able to tell us anons on the forum because you don't know what you don't know. That is probably the case. So I wouldn't start ignoring the PM when they mark up your drawings, but if you want to progress to the next level in your career, you should start to pick up on these things and see how they are working.
Good aspiring architects that learn about these things can tactfully question the PM's directions if they will lead to problems and save the firm some headaches. Do this enough and promotions and bonuses will be in that aspiring architect's future. Grumpy QA people like me don't care if they piss off the PM, PA, or the drafter. I do care when we make stupid mistakes though and my bosses (partners and principles) appreciate that and still promote me and give me bonuses. YMMV.
Ah I see where you are getting at now with that super lengthy post. You are right. If your detail gets too far like material thickness, anchor bolts, etc. Nothing is left to change. Well said, man, well said. We don't really get to that level of details in my office. And it is too much to talk about every CD set components. Well, we don't have QAQC people. The PM is the PA and the QAQC, and occasional drafter too. So what ever is in his head is whatever that is going to be produced. He actually laughed at another guy with 10 yrs experience's set and think it is poorly done. Small job though, He had our detailing specialist rework all the parapet details and stuff, I feel it is totally overworked and waste of time & fee for a reno job.
"detail specialist"..... there is your problem. I don't understand how some just brush off the important parts of construction to others. You need to know this stuff even if you're not actually doing the drafting.
I do details from time to time as well as all the other tasks. Trying to learn the full trade. But in our firm, there is one guy with 15+ Yrs only focusing on doing wall sections and detailing, nothing else. He does all the wall section details for all the big ground up. The PM trust him like his own heart. He takes a huge part of the fee though. Because he is senior=big fee, and he drafts the details himself. He does not like having a junior draft for him.
I’ve met a few people like that. Always an odd bunch. Anyways, I do all my own stunts since I’m 99% likely to be reviewing construction.
What? You actually check your own drawings?
Jay 1122, evidently you don't have enough experience to judge things or offer your opinions.
Get a few more years in various jobs and contracts, then we can talk.
Alight?
I doubt that you actually got any actual project experience. Because the bar would be way too low from what you are trying to teach here. And it sounds like you are one of those incompetent architects that draws some simple plans and let GC do all the hard lift for you.
I guess that is why you think recent grads should review shop drawings. Because even if you miss stuff in your shop drawing, the GC will fix it for you, it is out of your control. I actually want to know, what do you do if the stair shops your intern approved are not code compliant and it was built then flagged by inspector. What are you going to do besides looking like idiot? Are you just going to blame the GC for making wrong stair shops and tricked your intern?
Technically Jay the architect dose not approve shop drawings or check them for accuracy, applicable building codes, technical aspects, or constructability. We only review them for design intent. The GC is supposed to review and approve the shops prior to sending them to us for design intent review. That being said it's still a good practice to spot check accuracy, code compliance, ect, and bring it to the GC's attention if we notice issues.
Really? Hmm the GC I work with does not even take a second look at the shop. Just blind stamp reviewed. I got a submittal with used car buying Ads page in it. I have not seen the shit hit the fan myself yet, so I don't know how it will go down. But the original design document definitely needs the accuracy right? If the CD set is wrong, no way you can get away with that. I was told a story how a beam went through an elevator shaft and GC knew and built it anyway and asked for a massive change order to fix it.
Uh chad, a quick google turned out this answer:
"An Architect who didn't catch or correct an error in a shop drawing and approved it could well be liable to the owner if his contract doesn't absolve him in advance."
Yup, really. Obviously if your CD's are wrong then your shops will be wrong. That's why we need to produce accurate CD's. It's a dangerous precedent to say 'eh, fuck it, we'll catch it in the shops'. You won't catch it in the shops and now the shops and your CD's are wrong. Big trouble. When dealing with crappy shops or submittals reject them and send them back for resubmittal.
I always hear "Lets fix it in CA" or "Shop drawing is your last chance to correct the mistake" from my firm. LOL
Found this PDF regarding shop drawing liability and stuff, good read.
TRADITIONAL SHOP DRAWING LIABILITY
Who knew Archinect forum is a place to learn and not waste time. But then again, I don't trust the CDs done by team member or even myself. So back to square one with thorough shop review.
Jay an actual reading of a standard AIA contract (A201) state Architect’s review obligations for submittals (this includes shop drawings) are limited to “checking for conformance with information given and the design concepts expressed in the Contract Documents.” (§4.2.7)
§4.2.7 also provides that the Architect’s review is not conducted to determine the accuracy, details, quantities, or to provide approval of installation or performance, all of which are the Contractor’s responsibility.
Article 3.12. §3.12.4 specifies that “Shop Drawings, Product Date, Samples and similar submittals are not Contract Documents.
If you're using A201 then the contract dose absolve you from catching and correcting errors in shops and they are the GC's job. Of course if the GC fights this it will require some type of legal action to resolve.
Edit: I can see that Chad beat me to it.
Jay, the quote from the Google machine is correct, but the devil is in the details (no pun intended). AIA B101 standard language is "Architect shall review and approve [...] submittals such as Shop Drawings [...] but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. Review of such submittals is not for the purpose of determining accuracy and completeness of other information such as dimensions, [and] quantities [...]." So those contracts and the many derived from it would "absolve [the architect] in advance."
Consensus Doc agreements don't have quite the same language (as far as I understand it) but still make it clear that approval of a submittal like shop drawings do not authorize any changes from the Contract Documents unless those changes have been specifically authorized with a change order, etc. So ... still keeping with the same intent that the architect is not responsible for checking the accuracy of everything in the shops.
Yup. The various AIA contracts absolve architects from approving any submittal for anything other than conformance with the design intent as shown in the CD's (drawings and project manual).
Edit: EA brought up a another AIA contract that better states architects are not responsible for 'approving' any type of submittal. Thanks EA! I forgot about B101.
I work with public government agency that has their own contract documents. I would expect it to have similar languages. Haven't seen AIA docs for a while. Funny thing, I am about to study B101 & A201 for the ARE test. Contract document sure is boring to read .
I brought up B101 because it is an example of the Owner-Architect Agreement. A201 is important but actually has no enforceability on the architect's responsibility to the owner. A201 is the general conditions for the contract for construction. The owner and the contractor are party to it and bound by it. Yes, it lays out responsibilities the architect has, but those are actually laid out first in the Owner-Architect Agreement (B101 for example) and it even notes that the architect is not bound by A201 unless whatever is in A201 is also included in the Owner-Architect Agreement. See 3.6.1.1 of B101 where it says, "The Architect shall provide administration of the Contract between the Owner and Contractor as set forth below and in AIA Document A201-2017 [...]. If the Owner and Contractor modify AIA Document A201-2017, those modifications shall not affect the Architect's services under this Agreement unless the Owner and the Architect amend this Agreement."
Jay, good luck with the studying. You'll likely find a lot of similarities between AIA contracts and what you're used to for your clients. Most of the owner's own contracts I've reviewed are pretty blatant knockoffs of AIA language. It gets tweaked and modified here and there, but usually the important stuff is still intact. The problems usually arise when it's not intact.
I was reading Chad's words more carefully, and I'll take issue with something because I'm a pedant. I don't think he meant this as his intent, but I wanted to clarify anyway.
B101 definitely states that the architect is to review and "approve" submittals. So your statement that, "architects are not responsible for 'approving' any type of submittal," is wrong. It does, however, limit the scope of what that approval means when we do it: "conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. [...] not for the purpose of determining accuracy and completeness of other information such as dimensions, [and] quantities [...]."
Also "No Exceptions Taken" does not in any way protect you from anything. Architects made up this language years ago and courts don't like weasel language, so it now means the same damned thing as approved.
If you want to be well prepares and have smooth sailing CA, Yes. Draw as many conditions and details as you can. If something doesn't work, you don't want to figure out in CA and possible cause a change order.
This can be bad advice. Detail and note it once correctly. The more drawings you have the more you need to coordinate and the more you can mess up.
Ah you see, the circle is back again. How much detail is too much. How many wall section cuts are too many. Its just so funny.
It's the difference between a decent set and a great set.
How many details/wall sections is enough?
The answer is rather simple;
Enough to be able to get a building permit, enough to be able to get prices or bids on, and enough to be able to build from.
Any less and you haven't done your job as an architect.
Any more, and you have wasted your time as well as the time and money of your client.
Ask any seasoned, experienced Job Captain, and they will tell you what is enough. Many times, the less you say (or draw), the better you will be off as an architectural firm.
Many times, you don't ask the Project Architect or the Project Manager, because they will not know - it is not their job to know such things; they look after other things.
This protocol or system works well most of the time in large, well run firms. It does not in small firms, because one person usually looks after all the aspects of the business from getting the client to design to working drawings to getting the permit to getting bids to contract management.
very bad advice here. you need to provide as much detail as is required to ensure the design intent is understood, accurate construction is maintained, and to minimize the amount of assumptions by your GC. The less you draw, the more power the GC has and the less relevant the architect becomes. Shows the quality of work you've produced... damn.
yeah this is crazy. If you are the Project Architect you should know every damn detail of your project. Someone should be able to point to a random beam and ask "what size is this" or a layer in an assembly and ask "what is this product?" and you had better be able to answer. Otherwise you're just a project manager.
Again, I'll come to aps' defense a little. I won't comment on the stuff in the last 3 paragraphs (job captain to the end). I think if you add, "enough to effectively communicate design intent," in the 3rd paragraph it's actually good advice I'd stand behind. Letting the GC fill in on some things here or there isn't an issue if the design intent is maintained. The key is you have to communicate it though. Obviously don't leave things that are important aspects of the design intent up to the GC, but some things are ok ... it makes them feel important ;)
I also don't disagree with archanonymous' comment that you should know what is in your project. Everything should be accounted for and you should be able to answer what that layer in the wall assembly is, but I don't think aps' comment said otherwise (you could point to the "enough to get accurate prices or bids on" as evidence of this). aps' point is that you shouldn't waste time drawing stuff that doesn't matter.
Do I need to draw a detail for the anchors for the hollow metal door frame? No, not unless it's important to the design intent. Do I need to draw a detail showing the spacing of the ladder siderails and rungs? No, not if I have a spec that indicates those things and it isn't otherwise important to the design intent. Do I need to show setting blocks under the IGU in a curtainwall detail? Probably not, because it would be covered in references to glazing standards in the specification. Do I need to detail the mullion spacing where it aligns with the control joints in the sidewalk? You bet I do if it is important to my design intent.
Agree that there are many things that don’t matter since they are the responsibility of a 3rd party or are entirely controlled by the specs but we’re finding that the old POV that “the trades know eh at to do” is not reliable. I do the site review on everything that I design and detail from a tenant for to a multi story office building. If I don’t have a clear 1:2 detail showing how I want my roof membranes lapped, it’s guaranteed to be installed incorrectly. Keeps our lawyers and insurer happy and makes my job on much easier even when the crusty old farts complain.
"Ask any seasoned, experienced Job Captain, and they will tell you what is enough. Many times, the less you say (or draw), the better you will be off as an architectural firm. Many times, you don't ask the Project Architect or the Project Manager, because they will not know - it is not their job to know such things; they look after other things."
I think it is the PA's job to put together the set, to know what to draw (and what not to) and to be accountable for all the (drawn) components of the project.
EA - Agree with you (and NS for that matter) that it is a delicate balance, however....
I've found that when you draw that stuff (even if you don't intend to keep it in the finished details) you learn things about your project... loved that sill pan detail until I drew the setting blocks and realized it didn't all work together.
Thought that ladder metal spec would be fine, but oh, it's fastened to an aluminum facade and now galvanic corrosion at the fasteners is a problem, etc, etc, etc...
Just don't draw the aluminum extrusion splines, ffs.
archanonymous,
A Project Architect can handle a single job or 5 jobs all at once or even more depending on the scale and how busy the office is.
For him to know every detail, and every paragraph in the specs for every project is simply ludicrous. If that was the case, one could do with only one person in the office - a Project Architect. Having others, and others doing their jobs would be superfluous.
On any one given job there could be as many as 10-20 people working with all sorts of responsibilities, and that does not even include the owner(s) of the firm.
Next time you work on a large hospital, ask your Project Architect what size of doors are used for the Exam Rm. 412 or if they have a P.Lam finish or simple paint, and what kind of paint.
You can also ask that question of your Project Manager, if you like.
I'll buy you a coffee if they can tell you the correct answers.
Again, as I said to Jay, you need to get far more experience before you dish out advice or begin to correct others.
Have an open mind, and be a team member when you are working on a large project or even a small one. Also, recognise the fact that you don't have all the answers; listen carefully what more experienced and more senior staff tell you. You will learn many things by doing that.
Honestly, I was cocky too when I came out of the school. Found out quickly I knew fook-all! I was still learning the day I retired.
You guys agree on this, stop trying to find minutiae to fight about.
And never ask the PM about anything related to design, they're upset they don't get to design and will inject an opinion that isn't necessary into things. (Hyperbole, of course.)
A Project Architect is not a PA if they are doing 5 jobs at once.
It’s a tricked question. There was never a room 412.
archanonymous wrote:
"A Project Architect is not a PA if they are doing 5 jobs at once."
What if you're working on eight projects simultaneously and two of them are in CA?
"Again, as I said to Jay, you need to get far more experience before you dish out advice or begin to correct others."
I've restrained myself from making this same comment in a couple of threads
I saved the hassle of saying in multiple threads and posted it in TC.
doesn't balkins post in TC as rcz001 or whatever?
no, he got that sock puppet canned from the thread as well. He can "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" posts, but not anything more than that.
Non Sequitur
"...you need to provide as much detail as is required to ensure the design intent is understood, accurate construction is maintained, and to minimize the amount of assumptions by your GC..."
What the hell did you think I was talking about when I said, "Enough to be able to get a building permit, enough to be able to get prices or bids on, and enough to be able to build from."?
“Enough to build from” is too generic for me.
Good gravy, why so much SALT?
aps - to be fair you have three separate submittal processes all with vastly different levels of information in your comment. Building permit - plans and elevations. Pricing set - that can be a SD set with a design narrative. Construction Docs -that can be broken up into various packages all with different levels of information.
Not sure what you are saying.
aps wrote:
"What the hell did you think I was talking about when I said, "Enough to be able to get a building permit, enough to be able to get prices or bids on, and enough to be able to build from."?"
Each of those can be separate drawing submittals each with varying degrees of detail. Only the last one would have enough information to build something from. Even then CD's can be provided in phases depending on the delivery method.
Your comments was confusing at best as it implies that any one of these are good enough to build from as they would provide enough detail to build from. They are not.
Of course you can have separate packages for those three different submissions. I have done it myself on some jobs.
"Enough to be able to get a building permit, enough to be able to get prices or bids on, and enough to be able to build from."
Totally agree with this, but only if you know what you are doing (enough experience) and they (GC) know what they are doing. I'd rather draw something once than explaining to an inept builder over the phone 3 times a day.
Usually end up doing both.
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.