Where do you call out TOS elevation?

[Rabbit12]

Had a colleague back check a plan set I created. I had the TOS elevations called out on plan and the elevations referenced back to plan for TOS elevations. He red-lined that the elevations be duplicated on the elevations. He was as adamant as I am about on plan only about his method of both places.

I dislike this practice because if an elevation changes we have to chase it on another sheet (if we remember). Opens us up to errors.

How do you typically show TOS elevations? Plans? Elevations? Both?

 

[Guastavino]

Both. Advantages to doing it your way too. I just like to be thorough. It can be problematic if things change and you forget to update, but there are problems with not showing it on elevations too.

Frankly, if I paid someone to do drawings for me and all they did was CYA about things and put "refer to" everywhere, I wouldn't hire them again. I get the "legal" arguments, but I believe in serving my clients more, and cop out notes like refer back to such and such just annoy my clients. But, some clients may not care.

 

[jayrod12]

We typically show it in both locations. We generally try to limit the chances for double dimensions however I feel (and so does the majority of our office) that certain things (TOS for example) need to be shown in multiple locations.

 

[maxdistortion]

Both, it makes it easier for the contractor (me) but we've had the discrepancy you talk about happen to us. I've seen some designers insert a weasel clause in the TOS of section views saying "For reference only" or they have made the TOS drawing "Issued for Construction" and everything else "Issued for Information".

 

[delagina]

Both

On plan we have "Plan at 100'-0" TOS" at the bottom of each plan.
On elevation view we show, 100-0" TOS at every floor.

I have not seen any drawing that isn't shown like this.

 

[cvg]

perhaps civil's do it differently, but I disagree with the above. I would stay away from weasel clauses, your plans should be accurate, it sounds like you plan on making mistakes and that you are warning the contractor to expect them.

typically plans are best for showing horizontal geometry, dimensions and locations. sections and profiles are intended to show vertical geometry, dimensions and elevations. Occasionally, elevations are easier to show on a plan than to generate a lot of sections, but most of the time not. generally, there is not a good reason to show it twice, contractors should have the entire plan set and if your plans are clear, then they can easily find the elevations.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Arguments for each method can be made for sure. My personal preference is a hybrid; show full compliment of "top of" elevations on the elevation views/section cuts. Then show critical "top of" elevations on the plan views (like TOS elevations for example) and the remainder either not shown or refer back to the elevation views. This limits the number of duplicate dimensions while still presenting the key information in the places people expect to find them.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH, MA)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[EngineeringEric]

Or use Revit and let the program call it out in all plans and elevations and update everywhere

I do plans and show critical on all elevations.

 

[mike20793]

I show it on plan only, but if it won't fit or there is a high/low beam or a tube bracing storefront or something like that I show it in section. Sometimes, if it's a canopy or some other arch. related item, I will put TOS on them; I rarely do this, though.

 

[BSVBD]

typically plans are best for showing horizontal geometry, dimensions and locations. sections and profiles are intended to show vertical geometry, dimensions and elevations

While i agree with this statement, there are often an abundance of exceptions to the rule(s).

Like most, the typical daily goal in our office is to get the project completed and out the door. Because of the small size of our office (of 7), and, thus, the absence of a "standards specialist", we lack mutual standards in our office and the supervisor/boss doesn't care to (develop a necessary) focus on it.

The typical practice that "DOES" happen to be standard in our office IS:

- On the structural framing plan(s), the steel beam reads similar to:​

B1/W18x65(112'-4")​

- On the architectural building and wall section(s) we also list the T.O. FOOTING, PIER, SLAB, BEAM, TRUSS BEARING, ETC.​

- "ALSO", we list T.O.S. in the steel beam schedules.​

- Likewise we list T.O. FOOTING and PIER in the footing schedule.​

We cater to commercial and light industrial projects, where the typical construction documents consist of 10-30 sheets of civil, architectural and structural, NOT including MEP. With these (in my opinion) small-scale projects, I'm content with our practice. I can only imagine that on larger projects, with larger firms, trying to keep up with larger document sets could be more of a challenge that what i am accustomed to.



​

 

[slickdeals]

We rely on the architect to show the information. We don't call out T.O.S elevation in structural drawings, nor do we dimension grid lines. We have been burned far too many times with architects changing stuff last minute and information not being coordinated.

 

[sticksandtriangles]

We rely on the architect to show the information. We don't call out T.O.S elevation in structural drawings, nor do we dimension grid lines. We have been burned far too many times with architects changing stuff last minute and information not being coordinated.

I would like to work where you work.
Sounds a little too dangerous for my liking.

 

[hokie66]

Slickdeal's way is the way we do it in Australia. It is rare to see dimensions on structural design drawings, except in sections. But we don't do many structural steel buildings except for roof structures, and they slope a lot, sometimes in all directions. Our steel detailers seem to be able to work it all our...most of the time.

 

[dhengr]

I usually stamp it on the underside of the slab just before they pour it, that way it doesn’t interfere with the surface finish. Sometimes we show it on the plans too.

 

[TLHS]

Oh god... how do you put out a drawing set without baylines or elevations? What if the architect moves the baylines on you, or adds a couple of feet to a floor on their drawing after you've issued? Your drawing doesn't have anything on it that communicates your design basis.

 

[hokie66]

Maybe we just have better architects in Australia...but then maybe not. The system surprised me when I came here as well, but I got used to it. We do tend to check shop drawings thoroughly, so if the architect has done something drastic like that, he will be found out.

 

[carnahanad]

Rabbit,

We do call outs like you do at my firm. I'm surprised at the number of replies that say they've never seen it that way. Duplicating information is the best way to cause an issue. If you update only in one location, you now have an issue. The contractor will choose to follow the information tat suites him best and may not be correct. Why waste time and fee updating in numerous locations.

What if the building is multi-story? The same detail may work at numerous locations. Details should be used to let the contractor know more about the connection or relative framing. Elevation plays little role in that. We will typically call out bottom of deck. this way if the joist contractor needs to use 5" seats or change the seat depth, are drawings are still applicable. The steel contractor, who usually works closely with the joist supplier can make the necessary changes in shop drawings. Our drawings and details are still accurate. I've seen way too many drawings with cluttered details with redundant information. Callouts that say "Steel Beam" or "Metal Deck" are unnecessary as contractors and engineers should know what they are from the images or from the plan.

It is still on engineers to makes sure that our details are accurate and work for all geometries they are intended for

 

[SteelPE]

Rabbit,

I label my drawings the same with with the same reason you do (although some items that are impossible to call out on in plan will be called out in section, but only once). A long time ago I approached projects the same way your coworker did, then we designed a large complicated job that had numerous changes. Going back and catching all of the changes through the sections was impossible which made construction a bit of a challenge. Ever since we have taken the "call it out once" approach.

As slick and hokie have alluded to, I have seen plans from large firms with no dimensions or elevations. I'm sure they have their reason, but I can't see how they can get away with this. I have always said that we need to show these items on the drawings so if something changes drastically and there is a problem, we have a backup to show we at least did our job correctly. I suppose if something happens, they have the influence to change the "Code of Standard Practice" to suit their needs (which I have seen them do).

 

[Rabbit12]

All,

Thanks for the responses. Definitely reasons for both. I'll have to admit I was a little surprised by the number of response indicating the duplicate the information.

It has nothing to do with "expecting to make mistakes". It's more a quality control thing to myself that when there are a number of late changes picking up the changes is easy. For my clients field issues are going to be much more costly than referring back to another sheet for an elevation.

Thanks again all!