Drawing Package Strategy

[skeletron]

I'm interested in hearing about how others submit/charge for their drawing packages. Specifically looking at residential/tenant improvements, as that is what I handle.

Right now I'm sending out the following sheets:
Sheet 1: General Notes typically in 6 columns
Sheet 2-3/4: Plans for each level (Roof, Floors, Foundation). Plans have callouts for sizes that are found in schedules on the page. The pages typically include "builder notes" which tend to be further clarification of common sizing/requirements.
Sheet 4-5: Section details and typical details as they apply
Sheet 6: Specialty details (if required, ie. moment frame steel details)

I've noticed the 'old-school' approach of having plans and the section cut detail on the same page. It seems like it could be helpful for the builder, but possibly have a really crowded plan (or require trimming of notes on plan). It seems like this was more conducive to hand drawn plans where there weren't a lot of notes and back-and-forth between pages.

I've also noticed the production-style approach of not sectioning the plan, but just including "typical details" at the package. The detail package is very general with no modifications to the actual plan.

And I've also noticed the 'new-school' approach of the plans just having really detailed call-outs and then the detail page is pretty sparse with maybe a handful of sections to illustrate.

The questions that I always come back to are:
1. Am I over-detailing a structure?
2. Where is the line between having a really thorough list of general notes and providing too much written instructions?
3. Should details be more generic but also paired with specifications listed on the plans? Or vice versa? Example: Should you be calling off the A35 spacing on the plan or on the detail?
4. Lastly, are firms providing production-style/more generic drawings and then providing clarification (if required) through construction administration (ie. field reviews) and then charging for it?
5. Do you ever feel like you put way too much time/effort in the drawing process only to have them be completely ignored?

 

[phamENG]

1. Depends on a few things: the project delivery format, the builder, the AHJ, and the complexity of the design. Is this a design-bid-build or does the owner already have a builder on board? If design-bid-build, more detail is often better as it helps to ensure everyone is doing what's expected. If you assume details XYZ are just going to get done, at least one bidder will have never seen them before and won't include them in their price. If the builder is already involved, do you know them? If you work with them frequently and they know what you're expecting, you may be able to get away with a little less - just put the typical notes and fastening schedule rather than detailing every nailed connection, for instance. The information should still be there, but you may not need to hole the contractor's hand if you know them. What does the AHJ expect? Some permit offices will accept a line sketch on a napkin if it has an engineer's seal...others want full calc packages and details. If this is a simple design but one corner has a large open floor plan and needed a few beams, so the architect asked for full structural (I have one client who does this, and I love him for it)...you really don't need many sections in the "prescriptive" part of the house. This is where I have typical details that I put on, but I let the architect detail those. I just worry about the beam connections.

2. Again, varies job to job and contractor to contractor. I've had contractors scream at me and tell me that I'm horrible at my job because standard rebar detailing on the contract documents isn't as detailed as rebar shop drawings (he was a bit miffed because he didn't get rebar shop drawings, just started building it and got stopped with half the bad rebar embedded in concrete...). I also have contractors who I can what size beam to install and when I inspect the installation it looks exactly like the connection I would have designed.

3. I like standard details with modifications. So 90% of the houses will have these 10 details, but the nail or connector spacing will vary based on actual loads. So I'll just "fill in the blank" on those details on each project. (Or at least that's what I'm working toward - don't have time to sit down and do it all in one go, so I add a few to the library each project.)

4. Yes. They do. And it's a terrible practice and quite risky.

5. All the time.

 

[rowingengineer]

What size paper are we discussing? A1 or A3? Back in the day everything was A1 these days a lot is A3, less room means that you need to use more pages.

1. We would need to see to say, overall I like a good set of plans, that you can be proud of.
2. Notes should be for specs and fall backs not specific details in my opinion.
3. Similar to Pham.
4. Strangely a Cross's article will be published next month in Aust where this exact problem lead to a collapsed building.
5. Nope

 

[Aesur]

Our drawing packages typically include:

S1.0-S1.x - General structural notes, these are fairly detailed, although I'm fairly certain we are the only ones that read through these based on the RFI's I get. Like yours, ours is typically 6 to 8 columns depending on page size.
S1.x - S1.x - SSI tables
S1.x - S1.x - Typical details and Schedules (sometimes the schedules go on the plan sheets if there is room)
S2.0 - S2.x - Foundation plans
S3.0 - S3.x - Framing plans
S4.0 - S4.x - Foundation details
S5.0 - S5.x - Framing details

For our larger commercial projects, we may use S4 series for roof framing and shift foundation and framing details down. We also tend to separate stair framing plans and details.

The "new-school" approach you mention I believe is less of a new school approach and more of a don't have time to properly detail in the given budget and schedule. This can be especially tough to deal with on residential and TI projects as those tend to be more complex with tighter fees and schedules. Additionally, I believe providing detailed keynotes does not always clearly get the information across. Sometimes I suspect another aspect here is the engineer doesn't completely understand the area and is just keynoting hoping the contractor can figure something out. Additionally I have noticed that as the newer generation of contractors are asking a lot more questions and having much more difficulty understanding basic building concepts relating to structural designs - using notes in lieu of details only further complicates their difficulty. I believe this is due to lack of shared knowledge from the older experienced builders (as happens with engineers as well) as well as a legal excuse of "I built based on my understanding of the plans, it wasn't clear in the note". Compound this with residential builders and you see even more complications on complex residences.

1. phamENG's response is spot on to what I would say.
2. I'm not sure there is a fine line here - I recommend not changing your standard way of doing something as changing it project by project increases the changes of you forgetting something on the plans.
3. This one depends on what the detail is showing, for instance if it's a ledger attachment, I show the attachment in the schedule as I may have multiple ledgers with different trib areas requiring different connections. If this information was in the detail, I would have more details, if on the plans I just made it more cluttered. I would look at this based on a how repetitive is this note versus does it change frequently.
4. To add to phamENG's response, this also depends on the client, some clients understand that you get what you pay for and if you pay more up front there is a better quality design with less CA. Ideally you should strive for no CA in my opinion. I find it unacceptable to rely on CA to address "missed information" on a project. CA should be only for legit RFI's and shop drawing review (I saw a note recently on a set of plans that I really liked - it basically said, if they get an RFI and the information was clearly shown on the drawings, the contractor would receive an invoice for the time spent answering that RFI as this wasn't legit CA). I notice that depending on the project and contractor, CA fees are way too low typically if pricing based on what your market can handle, on the flip side, I believe hourly CA encourages the bad behavior of deferring your design services to CA in hopes it gets caught then (I have seen this happen before and it's just wrong on so many levels).
5. All the time!