Proper Sequence of Drawings

[skeletron]

For renovation projects (my usual scope of work) I use the following sequence of drawings:
S1 = General Notes
S2 = Roof + Floor Plan
S3 = Foundation Plan
S4-S... = Details

My intent is that the renovation work is all about tracking down loads from top to bottom, and so stacking the plans this way is natural to follow from S2 to S3. However, a peer reviewer recently made a big deal about the sequence and how it should be reversed.

Is there really a distinct difference between having the foundation plan first as opposed to last?
I only see the difference being beneficial for new construction where the foundation is Step 1. But for renovations, the main issue is checking and ensuring a loadpath from top to bottom.

 

[dik]

I usually use the first drawings for Project Notes, the next drawings for foundation plan, main floor plan, etc., roof plan, with sections and details following. I don't think there's any real fixed order. Sometimes for large projects, the Project Notes will be S0.1, S0.2, etc... and floor plans S1.1, S1.2, etc. I usually don't put design loads on drawings, except foundation loads where needed... I keep the drawing order not in loads coming down, but as counstruction going up. I've seen all sorts of variations.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[kipfoot]

I start at the bottom and go up because that's how contractors think. For the most part, that's the order of construction... even in renovations. If there's space, I'll put the notes with the corresponding plan: concrete with foundations, steel and wood with framing. Detail sheets at the end, but I'll put sections on the appropriate sheet if there is space.

 

[skeletron]

Yeah, it makes sense to go sequence of construction. Easy switch on my behalf, just being stubborn I guess. Lol.

 

[phamENG]

because that's how contractors think.

This is important. While I agree taking the lead path is important... it's no different than new construction. So it makes sense for your calculations to be assembled top to bottom, but drawings are instructions to the builder and not demonstrations of our engineering process.

 

[KootK]

The two reasons I've heard for bottom to top presentation:

1) Sequence of construction.

2) One of my old bosses created gorgeous foundation plans and liked 'em up front for marketing / curb appeal.

I don't feel that your presentation is a problem if your clients are happy with it. It's certainly not something I'd flag in an external peer review. Soon enough there will be no such thing as a printed set and it will matter even less than it does now.

In my experience, many, if not most firms will run all of their plans together continuously even though the sequencing argument would lead one to include foundation details near the foundation plan etc which is also done. Human brains crave order, even at the expense of pure rationality sometimes.

 

[TLHS]

A bunch of my industrial and institutional clients just end up putting them alphabetically based on the drawing number coding, which is incredibly frustrating sometimes, but I understand from the standpoint of standardizing to allow drawing lookup in the same way across projects. I don't think the order of the detail plans or detail sheets is hugely critical as long as there's some logic to it, but it's important that the general arrangements, notes and sheets that explain the project as a whole end up in the front.

 

[Brad805]

We seem to lead the design process in many cases and are constantly sharing sections from our models. I have found for us the easiest organization is:

S1.0, 1.1,... : Title page, general notes sheets, general information
S2.0, 2.1... : Plan Views
S3.0, 3.1... : Sections
S4.0, 4.1... : Beam elevations, Precast...
S5.0, 5.1... : Details

My business partner does not see the benefit, but I find it easier to slide new drawings into the set later in a logical fashion without re-numbering all sorts of dwgs.

There is one consultants dwgs I see that orders drawings roof down. I find them difficult to follow since all others do it the opposite. Then again, he is clearly doing his own dwgs and may not have been trained in drawing standards.

 

[271828]

S1.0, 1.1,... : Title page, general notes sheets, general information
S2.0, 2.1... : Plan Views
S3.0, 3.1... : Sections
S4.0, 4.1... : Beam elevations, Precast...
S5.0, 5.1... : Details

That's how it was done at the best firms I've worked for.

In some of our older drawings, the numbering was S1, S2, and so on, but there would be S14A, S14B, etc. jammed in sometimes. The section numbers are a big improvement.

 

[phamENG]

In terms of the order of the plans, this is irrelevant, but for the rest of the set I'm working toward standardizing my drawings the National CAD Standard. Mostly voluntary, but a lot of government entities that I wouldn't mind working with again mandate it.

 

[dik]

Thanks pham... the first couple of items in the Standard are what I have done... I didn't know there was a National CAD Standard. Again, thanks.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik