Drawing Revisions by Project or by Sheet 2

[CardsFan1]

I have been reading some older posts on here. I wanted to see what the new consensus is.
I am old school and I guess my way of tracking revisions is by sheet.

As it is explained to me:
By sheet means that only the sheet that is revised gets a raised rev level. Some guys in the office don't like that because there could be (and probably will be) multiple sheets with Rev. 1, but different revision dates. I say that is fine. That is what I expect to see.

By Project - means that a sheet can be raised to Rev 1. Then at a later date, a different sheet gets revised. It will be raised to Rev 2, because that is the second rev to the set. To me, that seems more confusing. I would be looking for Rev 1 of that sheet to see what changed.

What are other folks doing?

 

[jayrod12]

I'm with you, per sheet. I don't care that rev 1 for sheet S1.4 is a different date than rev 1 of sheet S3.4. each sheet has been revised once.

 

[dik]

Concur...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[flight7]

OP's description of "by sheet" is our office standard. For very large drawing sets we provide a sheet list (table of contents) which includes the most current version number/date of every sheet in the set.

 

[Ron247]

I agree.

 

[OHIOMatt]

We always go by project. So a sheet may have rev. 1, rev 3, and rev 4. The next one nothing at all, then one with just rev 2. We only issue the revised sheet, but the revision number and date are always synced.

 

[rowingengineer]

We used to do per sheet but now do project in most cases.

 

[phamENG]

I do it by project. All sheets get Rev1 whether there's a revision on it or not. That way you know you have the most recent version of everything. I've seen too many issues where slip sheets were missed and somebody wound up with a hodgepodge of mismatched sheets. I don't get the big glamorous projects where this could become a logistical headache, but for those I would probably want to issue some sort of revision control document each time that outlines which sheets are included in each revision, but it would still be by project where Revision 1 is for sheets 1, 5, and 86 on whatever date, Revision 2 is on sheets 25 and 73 on another date, etc.

 

[EZBuilding]

Also do it by project. I think it also becomes important that revisions match across all of the design disciplines. I.e. if there is a revision from the electrical engineer, you may end up skipping a revision entirely on the structural drawings.

Thinking holistically, if every design discipline does revisions per sheet - it would be easy for confusion to be introduced into a project.

 

[phamENG]

I agree with EZBuilding, though I admit I don't normally see it taken so far. If we did it that way, then the mechanical engineer would be forced to inform us when they revise a duct route to pass through the middle of a primary transfer girder before the contractor cuts the hole. What a novel thought...

Back when drawings were done by hand it made perfect sense to slip sheet everything. But now it's easy to structure a project so the project titleblock can be updated once and the entire set re-plotted to PDF in less time than it would have taken to slip sheet a single sheet 30 years ago. I think it's worth it to make sure everyone is on the same page, so to speak.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I've always done the following:
[ul]
[li]Rev numbers by project.[/li]
[li]I use one set (A,B,C for example) for pre-constructions revisions that are officially released to other disciplines, the client or plan check.[/li]
[li]Then I use another designation for revisions (1,2,3 for example) that cover construction changes or such. And, all sheets would have a Rev 1. [/li]
[li]I only mark the revisions on the sheets where something has changed. Keeping the change clouds for the most recent changes on that sheet.[/li]
[/ul]

 

[Lomarandil]

My practice matches Josh, except that the first construction set would be called Rev 0. Rev 1 being the first "revision".

----
just call me Lo.

 

[Scuka]

I don't see any particular upsides to numbering each sheet individually as per "by sheet" system.
I also don't see how the "By project" system can be confusing as long as everyone reading the drawing is aware of the fact that numbers can be skipped.

As a mechanical engineer, we use the "by sheet" system simply because "by project" is impossible to implement since the same part can go to a bunch of different machines, i.e. used on a bunch of different projects.
However, we do have a global revision system which goes even wider than "by project". There's a central database that tracks all the revisions ever made in the company.
For example, if I needed to change the size of the bolt on a machine, that means I need to revise three different drawings: part drawing X (enlarge the hole), part drawing Y (enlarge the tapped hole), and assembly drawing Z (remove smaller bolts and washers from BOM and put in larger ones). So, drawing X would say e.g. "Rev. 2895/2", which means global revision 2895, but a second revision of this particular drawing. Drawing Y could say "Rev. 2895/1", and so on... That system also allows us to attach additional documentation that explains the revision in more detail. So there would be a Word document numbered 2895 that explains why and who chose to change the bolt size.

 

[Settingsun]

I've only ever seen the sheet system and re-issue all drawings system, not the skip numbering system.

Anyone printing the drawings won't thank you for making them reprint the whole set for a revision at one corner of one drawing in the 're-issue all' system.

 

[GeorgeTheCivilEngineer]

By sheet, but always use drawing/document issue records, no matter the size of project.

Each sheet/document has it's own revision timeline in the ISO format (P01, P## and C01, C##). These can be grouped into a lettered issue (A, B, C) but I find just the date is nicer (for example, folder/email/zip file named '2022-03-17 Drawing issue').

All these problems go away with electronic document management but not worth it at the smaller end of industry.

 

[rb1957]

you can rev each sheet of a drawing separately (obviously, most of you do !) ... now each sheet is essentially it's own drawing with it's own rev and date.

we rev control drawings ... each sheet is at the same rev.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[CardsFan1]

Thank you all for your comments. I think maybe I am changing my mind. Especially for the smaller projects.
Several things are making me re-think my position:

Most people are looking at drawings on tablets or screens now. So re-issuing a complete set makes sense so that the latest complete set is distributed to everyone.

I had suggested in our office that we revise by sheet, but re-issue a complete set each time. So, in essence, replacing the revised sheets in everyone's set.

We also include the rev level in each drawing number. So S2.1-0 is IFC, S2.1-1 is rev 1, and so on. So raising the rev level on all sheets for a re-issue, all sheets in the package have the same rev. I will be easy to tell what package you are looking at.

I also think that REVIT is set up to allow you to do this easily. That is that the title block can either be set up for sheet or for project.

For large projects, if the field is still working off paper prints, it would likely cause some issues. In my experience, the field Supers like to keep track of as-built conditions, RFIs, and etc on the drawings and add in the "slip sheets" for revisions. I suppose this same practice can be achieved electronically as well.

Regardless of how you handle it, it is still important to COMMUNICATE and make sure the project team is notified that you uploaded a revised drawing to the Docubox Account.

 

[rb1957]

if you rev each sheet, then the first sheet should include a revision status table.

this way controls/explains the rev status of each sheet. If you're going to print each sheet, then you might as well rev them.

there are two ways (at least) to skin this cat ...

1) rev cntl each sheet (as a sub-drawing), and maintain a rev status table on sheet 1 (and print this each time, of course), or
2) rev cntl the drawing, reving each sheet (and add a change table on sheet 1, or the affected sheets, briefly explaining the change).

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[phamENG]

Even on larger projects, many of the 'advanced' GCs in my area are switching to all electronic documents. One in particular maintains a whole bunch of iPads with Bluebeam on them all connected to the same studio for the project. First, they send the whole drawing set to a third party that sifts through and hyperlinks all callouts, references, and bubbles. So if the structural drawings say "blah blah blah, refer to architectural drawings, they find it in the architectural drawings and turn that part of the structural drawing into a hyperlink that points there. I believe everyone from foreman and up is required to keep their tablet on them while on the job site, and no paper drawings are permitted. All shop drawings are included, and any RFI's get dropped in and/or hyperlinked to the drawing live. That was about 4 or 5 years ago. Haven't worked with them since, but I look forward to doing so again.

I toured a job site about 10 years back on the local university campus. They had an "electronic toolbox - one of those big steel boxes you can load in a pickup with a forklift. But instead of tools, you lift the lid and it was a large flat screen that they kept the master drawing file on and the NavisWorks model. It was pretty impressive.

 

[dik]

Why not just a USB stick with the data downloaded, as req'd, from the main server?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik