I've read Archinect for years, but I'm not an architect. I’m
in commercial glass and glazing and have always inquired to architects about
their opinion on great glass and glazing shop drawings and subpar shop
drawings.
Glass and glazing shop drawings play a crucial role in any
commercial building project. Although there are several companies
offering shop drawing services, I've found that the quality of many companies
is lacking (even though the price seems great). I've learned through
experience. We have received shops late
which could have led to late submittals, returns, material order, etc.
Another common problem was a lack of substrate information. Some shop
drawings had little to no substrate information, e.g. a jamb detail with
caulk joint sealed to an open rectangle. I asked the drafter if the
architect, engineer, and my installers were to just guess what they were
connecting to. Another common problem were details with the substrate
just converted from the pdf of the details in the CD's and the system just
arbitrarily placed. This resulted in each substrate member (gyp bd.,
metal stud, brick veneer, etc.) to be dimensionally inaccurate (however
slightly) and the system misplaced. Shop drawing details that do not show
critical seals or address the air/water seal continuity between the system and
the substrate has been another issue from time to time.
I'd like to know from an architect/design professional
perspective. What are some of the frustrations/issues that arise from
subpar glass and glazing (or ACM/Panel) shop drawings submittals.
Thanks
Non Sequitur
Jul 19, 19 1:28 pm
On my larger projects, it's not uncommon for me to reject the curtain wall and composite panel shop drawings 3 to 5 times.
Sometimes it's just incorrect or the draftsman did not read the arch drawings, but more often than not, what I'm correcting, as you mention, are the membrane tie-in details and joint alignment. I know that in most cases, membrane, insulation, substrate, etc are "by others" and out of the CW's scope... but the guys slapping together the building will likely look at the CW shops instead of my 1:2 details. So I make sure all those notes get carried through.
What I hate with CW shops is incomplete details. Don't make me review the package at 50%, then 75%, then again at 99%. Give me one set of drawings and I'll mark em up.
midlander
Jul 19, 19 8:38 pm
the worst CW submittal I ever reviewed was a 50% progress set. There were ~50 sheets of details at 1:5 scale or larger, and no key drawing. No organizing principle at all. It was as if they just had a team of 3 people split up and start drawing whatever part of the project they wanted.
The drawing titles generally described what was drawn, but with no keys and no context it was absolutely impossible to figure out if the details were meeting design intent. Also impossible to verify all important conditions had been covered short of having our team map out the details on our drawings (we did not do this).
We returned it as unreviewable. The next submission had double the number of sheets, so I guess they were just hoping to cover incomplete work by confusing everyone.
Non Sequitur
Jul 19, 19 8:56 pm
One thing I've had once was the CW guys making design and scope changes to other people's stuff... things like precast panels and slab edges. Oh, don't worry... I'm sure those guys won't care to redo their shit because you're too lazy to follow our drawings.
I've read Archinect for years, but I'm not an architect. I’m in commercial glass and glazing and have always inquired to architects about their opinion on great glass and glazing shop drawings and subpar shop drawings.
Glass and glazing shop drawings play a crucial role in any commercial building project. Although there are several companies offering shop drawing services, I've found that the quality of many companies is lacking (even though the price seems great). I've learned through experience. We have received shops late which could have led to late submittals, returns, material order, etc. Another common problem was a lack of substrate information. Some shop drawings had little to no substrate information, e.g. a jamb detail with caulk joint sealed to an open rectangle. I asked the drafter if the architect, engineer, and my installers were to just guess what they were connecting to. Another common problem were details with the substrate just converted from the pdf of the details in the CD's and the system just arbitrarily placed. This resulted in each substrate member (gyp bd., metal stud, brick veneer, etc.) to be dimensionally inaccurate (however slightly) and the system misplaced. Shop drawing details that do not show critical seals or address the air/water seal continuity between the system and the substrate has been another issue from time to time.
I'd like to know from an architect/design professional perspective. What are some of the frustrations/issues that arise from subpar glass and glazing (or ACM/Panel) shop drawings submittals.
Thanks
On my larger projects, it's not uncommon for me to reject the curtain wall and composite panel shop drawings 3 to 5 times.
Sometimes it's just incorrect or the draftsman did not read the arch drawings, but more often than not, what I'm correcting, as you mention, are the membrane tie-in details and joint alignment. I know that in most cases, membrane, insulation, substrate, etc are "by others" and out of the CW's scope... but the guys slapping together the building will likely look at the CW shops instead of my 1:2 details. So I make sure all those notes get carried through.
What I hate with CW shops is incomplete details. Don't make me review the package at 50%, then 75%, then again at 99%. Give me one set of drawings and I'll mark em up.
the worst CW submittal I ever reviewed was a 50% progress set. There were ~50 sheets of details at 1:5 scale or larger, and no key drawing. No organizing principle at all. It was as if they just had a team of 3 people split up and start drawing whatever part of the project they wanted.
The drawing titles generally described what was drawn, but with no keys and no context it was absolutely impossible to figure out if the details were meeting design intent. Also impossible to verify all important conditions had been covered short of having our team map out the details on our drawings (we did not do this).
We returned it as unreviewable. The next submission had double the number of sheets, so I guess they were just hoping to cover incomplete work by confusing everyone.
One thing I've had once was the CW guys making design and scope changes to other people's stuff... things like precast panels and slab edges. Oh, don't worry... I'm sure those guys won't care to redo their shit because you're too lazy to follow our drawings.