Abreviations and schedules in strucural drawings 1

[woody1235]

We have a project owner that is insisting on no periods in abreviations on the structural drawings, something we have done for decades. I know some CAD drafting publications say this is so, but I think this is just for ease of typing. I believe the use of periods is clearer, (we see it done both ways), but have not found any authoritative references to support this. Any thoughts?

Also, same owner does not want us to use schedules for footings - again something we have always done and see in virtually everybody else's drawings as well - but find no written justification to support this. Anybody know of any support, or your comments?

Thanks!!

 

[BAretired]

I can't cite any reference, but the reason we use millimeters instead of centimeters is to avoid decimal points. The argument I have heard is that a flyspeck could be mistaken for a decimal point and result in errors. I can't see how that would apply to abbreviations, though.

Consider an example...VEF means vertical each face. Would it be clearer to say V.E.F.? T&B means top and bottom. Is it better to say T.&B.? Personally, I prefer to leave out the periods, but to each his own.

Footing schedules are used by most engineers in my area. A typical detail of a footing to show bar placement is good practice, but surely nobody would detail every footing separately.

Maybe your client needs something more to keep him occupied.

BA

 

[dhengr]

Woody1235:

‘Clarity of intended meaning’ should be the guiding principle. As for authoritative references, I believe I heard God say that once, as regards construction documents. Common engineer/contractor practice in your area might be a reasonable fall-back position.
As for periods; how would you punctuate fun fun fun worry worry worry? Answer; fun period, fun period, fun no period, worry worry worry period. See the confusion and potential upset on the job site. Enough said.
BAretired’s points are all valid, I agree with all of them. The one thing I would add is that the first page of the drawings and spec. should contain a listing of all of the abbreviations and their meanings and full wording, and then you should be consistent. I’m having a bit of trouble with abbreviations and acronyms these days. They have become so prolific and undefined that I spend more time looking them up than reading the forum post or article.
Scheduling ftgs. (footings), cols. (columns), bms. (beams), etc. just keeps the drwgs. (?) from getting all garbaged-up. Most everyone I know appreciated schedules and typical details, where appropriate. In writing it seems reasonable to use the above (...) method when you first use an abbreviation.

BAretired:

I once ran a blue print where a fly did get flattened between the original and the printer light. And, I got a perfect fly print, could see the veins in its wings, we did make that fly print part of our spec. but had a hell of a time picking the appropriate spec. sec. for fly specs.

 

[cvg]

politely let the owner know that doing it his way will require a change order to cover the extra manhours required to remove all the schedules, add the extra dimensions to the footings, add the periods and to revise the list of abbreviations.

 

[southard2]

Times are tough but two years ago I'd have just told the owner to pound sand and please go away. I'd go ahead and remove the periods because that won't take long and not much could go wrong. I'd fight to keep the footing schedule. Perhaps you can move the footing schedule onto the foundations plans. That way it will be in a convenient place. You could also explain to the owner that the rebar shop drawings will show the bar placement, etc....

If the owner insist on no footing schedule I would ask for more money. If this is a small job consider walking. I suspect the owner will become even worse during construction

John Southard, M.S., P.E.

http://www.pdhlibrary.com

 

[paddingtongreen]

The man who pays the piper calls the tune, provided it is legal. My only questions are:
Did you know this when you bid the job?
Does the contract say anything about it?
If not, tell him it is extra work.

Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

 

[BAretired]

It really isn't much extra work. Deleting the periods in an abbreviation is actually less work. I think I would be inclined to go along with that.

The footing schedule is a little bit different. If footing schedules are your standard way of specifying footings, you should insist on doing it your way. The client has no business interfering with the way you perform your job. You might want to point out to him that by insisting on a particular method of specifying footings, he may be assuming some of the responsibility for the design. Your professional liability insurance may not cover him for that.

In doing government projects, I have found that the client often has particular requirements which he wishes engineers and architects to use for the sake of maintaining standards. Usually, there has been no difficulty in adopting those standards. I don't think that issue deserves a lot of concern.

If the client's requirements do not jeopardize the safety of the project, it is probably best to go along with his wishes unless he is such a pain in the butt that you don't want to be bothered with him any more.



BA

 

[woody1235]

Thank you for all your responses!

We will probably have to delete the abreviation periods to placate the owner. Will try to stick to guns on footing schedules (did move to foundation plan, but have another concurrent project with same owner with multiple buildings; hard not to use a single schedule here).

Owner also doesn't want any General Notes - saying all info should be in specs. - something we are arguing to keep. (We see an increasing use of general notes and schedules in structural engineering)

None of theses requirements were part of the original owner's standards - being forced on us now at end of project (we are working through an architect, not directly with owner), and no additional fee even though we having to spend a lot of time with these kinds of requirments.
Times are tough so can't afford to alienate any client, thus this post to look for stronger basis of arguing.

Thanks!

 

[cvg]

i have never had an owner request to remove general notes. in fact quite the opposite, i have frequently had requests to add them even though the specs already had it covered.

 

[FFENGINEER]

I had asked ford for a Chevy 350 in a truck once, but they said that our product does not come that way, that they do their product that way for a reason. It was not required when you bid the job, so unless you think the owner will provide more future work, make sure you are covered for your time. Engineering has become too much of a commodity.

 

[dik]

I include a list of abbreviations in my drawing notes and I don't use periods with them. The advantage of abbreviations is that they are often shorter and often details don't have the 'real estate' to provide full text. Abbreviations are really good as long as everyone knows what they mean. From my drawing note file:


ABBREVIATIONS

THE DRAWING(S) CONTAIN COMMON ABBREVIATIONS. IT IS THE CONTRACTORS' RESPONSIBILITY TO CORRECTLY DETERMINE THE MEANING OF THE ABBREVIATION USED (CLARIFY WITH [CONSULTANT | ENGINEER] AS REQD). WHERE MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS ARE GIVEN THE ABBREVIATION MEANING SHALL BE DETERMINED FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE USAGE. THE FOLLOWING ARE COMMON ABBREVIATIONS THAT MAY BE USED IN THE DOCUMENTS

'K 1000 FOOT POUNDS
%%C DIAMETER
%%D DEGREE(S)
AB(S) ANCHOR BOLT/ROD(S)*
ACCUM ACCUMULATION*
...
W WATT(S)
W/C WATER TO CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL (RATIO)
WT WEIGHT
WWR WELDED WIRE MESH/FABRIC/REINFORCING*

* DENOTES ABBREVIATIONS THAT ARE USED IN THE GENERAL NOTES

Dik