There is a very interesting discussion going on right now on an architectural listserver that I belong to. Unfortunately, you can’t see it without subscribing … but here is your opportunity to comment on the dimensioning provided by architects on plans.
1. What bothers you the most about the way architects tend to dimension?
2. Is there a preferred method from your perspective (face of stud, both faces, one side, centerline, masonry opening, face of finish, etc.)?
3. What causes you the most concern for dimensional error in the field?
4. Do you have any other recommendations?
If you are interested in providing feedback to architects, please feel free to do it here and I will provide the link for the group to read your comments.
Thank you!
T. Jeffery Clarke Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum (Whatever is built well, no matter how humble, is noble)
Edited 4/29/2005 8:28 am ET by Jeff Clarke
Replies
"1. What bothers you the most about the way architects tend to dimension?"
Personally, I hate plans dimensioned from brick. The brick is never there until the house is completely framed.
"2. Is there a preferred method from your perspective (face of stud, both faces, one side, centerline, masonry opening, face of finish, etc.)?"
I prefer either one side or both faces. Centerline dimensions don't seem particularly helpful to me. "Face of finish" also seems unhelpful. The finish isn't going to be there when you frame the house.
"4. Do you have any other recommendations?"
TELL me what you're dimensioning to, and/or what wall thicknesses you're assuming. If a dimension goes to one side of a wall, is that to the wall finish, or framing? If both sides of a wall are dimensioned, what thickness for that wall did you assume?
Can't tell you how happy I am that some of the architects out there are actually trying to see what the folks who use their prints actually want to see. Definitely a positive thing.
Jeff, long time no see. Good to see you around.
Thanks :o)
Mostly been reading ... no time to post!T. Jeffery Clarke
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum
(Whatever is built well, no matter how humble, is noble)
Dimension to face of framing, please.
Use "Finish" as a callout when dimensioning critical things in kitchens and baths.
Dimension window and door openings to edges of rough openings, not centers.
Show wall section dims from rough floor to top of plates.
"Show wall section dims from rough floor to top of plates."
That's a really good point ... we tend to think in terms of FINISH floor (=0'-0" etc.)
T. Jeffery Clarke
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum
(Whatever is built well, no matter how humble, is noble)
Yup, mainfloor rough should always be zero.
Another thing, if designing for engineered trussed roofs, please show heel heights at exterior wall lines, and keep energy codes in mind. Many jurisdictions like to have a minimum heel of 12 inches.
Design wall heights whenever possible to make use of framing lumber lengths used without cutting. Studs come at 92-5/8", 96, 104-5/8", 108", 120", etc.
Keep drywall board widths in mind when designing room heights. Boards are 48 and 54 wide, perfect for no-rip one-joint drywall work when 92-5/8" and 104-5/8" studs are used to build walls.
"Dimension window and door openings to edges of rough openings, not centers."
Gotta disagree on that one. What happens when the owner changes window manufacturers and the RO's change? I'm not talking about changing from a 3040 to a 6050, but just the minor differences in what two different manufacturers call a "3040". I'd rather know what the intended location/alignment of the unit was (ie: centered over a sink, or centered in an alcove), than know what the edge location of the trimmers is.
Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. One location i can think of where a dimension to edge of opening may be useful is at a window at a corner. That would allow a certain corner board dimension to be maintained.
Bob
You're right. I shouldn't have said that one about opening edges. R.O. sizes vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. Flexibility is achieved with dimensions to centers. But, when the choice is made, someone is needing to figure back to get the hole edges located.
Myself, I prefer them dimensioned at edges, because I want to see what the archy is thinking about clearances.
No matter how well detailed, I never trust an archy's set of plans, and always use my own CAD system to proof a planset. Having done that, I dimension the plans in my own preferred ways.
Ditto what Bob said, especially when you have different units from one floor to another that need to stack on a common centerline.Mike
I also prefer openning dims to center
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I asked this question a couple of years back when a contractor told me he had assumed I (architect here) had dimensioned to the finished walls, which I thought was a very strange assumption. Since that experience I've always been sure to make one of my first construction notes "All dimensions to face of stud." I've never used centerline of windows and doors because they confuse me and require me to do extra addition. I do use finish dimensions occassionally on remodels if I'm measuring to an existing wall that's not going anywhere, but try to always mark it as such. I've always done sill heights from finished floor to finish sill. It probably ends up being reasonably close even if the contractor assumes it's rough floor to rough opening. But I can see that it's a bit inconsistent of me.
1. What bothers you the most about the way architects tend to dimension?
That we fail to do so in a consistant manner. That there are offices where poor dimensioning is enshrined as "office practice." That our architectural schools suffer from thie plethora of method & technique so we can't really properly teach dimensioning.
2. Is there a preferred method from your perspective (face of stud, both faces, one side, centerline, masonry opening, face of finish, etc.)?
My first (and admittedly flippant) answer is: "Consistantly." My rule is from fixed benchpoint (slab or foundation or similar) to gridline (if used) and then to one side of framing. I've advocated and used drawings showing wall to finish, but that has been more a tool for residential work, per se.
3. What causes you the most concern for dimensional error in the field?
Number One, no second: Dimension changed, but not the geometry. One dimension gets tweaked, but none of the larger or cumulative ones are checked for that modifcation. That creates a line of smaller dimensions which do not add up to the larger, cumulative ones. Having an over all dimesnion that is fundamentally wrong, get reflected back into the building almost without repair.
I'm of two minds on leaving smaller dimensions "open" (letting the last dimesnion be the remainder after subtracting drom the overalls). While it simplifies practice, it also obviates checking the dimensions for accuracy.
4. Do you have any other recommendations?
Experience is really required. Laying out dimensions on an actual slab from the numbers on "the cartoon" is a learning experience with almost no comparison. Sadly, it's an expensive education, as in the "real" world, holding up an entire crew is expensive; so is trying to fix plan dimension errors.
Hey, I promised these guys that you all would agree on at least a few points :o)
Having done rough framing myself, I would rather see both sides dimensioned so that the classic error of picking the wrong side when plating is avoided. That way you can pick either side of the plate to work to, AND you have the wall thickness as a double check, in case the plans have multiple thicknesses, wet walls, etc.
T. Jeffery Clarke
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum
(Whatever is built well, no matter how humble, is noble)
> Having done rough framing myself....
To me is the best recommendation an architect can have. In a perfect world, all architecture students would work their way through school doing actual construction jobs. They'd learn a lot more than just dimensioning that way.
I'd like to see a Habitat house built by architects. That would be a win-win situation.
-- J.S.
AMEN!!!!!
Archys definitely need more hands on experience. I've framed houses. I've worked for architect, too..When I draw up plans now I try to think about how some guy is gonna build the thing.
Sometimes you slip to get the look you want, but for the most part, without knowing how things go together, the plans become schematics.
I had discussions with an archy on a building in which he wanted two 6" insulated heat pipes to run in an existing 16" wide soffit. This guy could not understand why the steam-fitter could not weld the pipes in place. I had to put the stinger in his hand and tell him to go up into the ceiling and pretend to weld the pipe.
I'm all for pushing the envelope of design and trying new things..I also believe that true craftsmen can build just about anything..But getting from one to the other is where the gap is still too wide..
> When I draw up plans now I try to think about how some guy is gonna build the thing.
Being neither an architect nor a contractor, I only draw plans that I'm going to build myself. With CAD, any imaginable dimension is just a few mouse clicks away, so the job of dimensioning is to select the ones you really need and put them where they won't clutter and obscure the drawing.
So, I also think through how I'm going to put something together, and in that process I put in the numbers I'm going to need. (And also change things to make them easier to build.) In general, dimensions need to run from something that's going to be there to something that needs to be put in or cut off. If I screw up, though, I have the luxury of walking downstairs to the computer and grabbing a dimenison when I need one. ;-)
-- J.S.
Exactly..my plans now are for I build, so I know where I'm gonna pull a tape from. I too adjust dimension to make things work with fewer cuts, standard sizes, etc...
"
57614.15 in reply to 57614.14
AMEN!!!!!
Archys definitely need more hands on experience.
"
I'm an architect and I agree 100%. I'm dying to volunteer on a Habitat House - they don't go up in our neck of the woods too often.
that you all would agree on at least a few points
Careful with the "you," I happen to be a "we," as well (archy, that is). I just happen to have more than a small amount of experience in residential & remodel & with CAD/IT exposure to to too many "other people's" drawings . . .<sigh>Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
How long have ticks or slashes been used? I've had to use old prints on occasion and found the arrows much easier on the eyes and the prints in general easier to read. Probrably just me but a return to arrows would make prints easier to read, especially in congested portions of the print. "What causes you the most concern for dimensional error in the field?" ........ Errors in the prints themselves, especially in commercial work. Sometimes it seemed like the bigger a project was, the worse the prints were. Incorrect dimensions and elevations, hidden lines that should have been solid (the weld plates ended up on the wrong side of a precast wall), rebar specified that won't fit in the space provided, and lack of information such as a window schedule with no quanities and missing locations.
Schedules are a bit OT although I believe in them strongly. I do finish, door, window, equipment, plumbing rough-in and light fixture schedules for all but the smallest projects. Sometimes a millwork schedule is called for. On the subject of quantities, however, as architects we generally don't provide counts and prefer to show the number of fixtures, outlets, cabinets, etc. We tend to see quantity take-offs as part of contracting work.
T. Jeffery Clarke
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum
(Whatever is built well, no matter how humble, is noble)
window schedules
Schedules are an entirely different can of worms to toss in this cusinart.
Archy practice and estimation practice being almost exactly opposite to each other.
For my own work, the schedules (barring room finish) are kind and quantity; not per room or use. The office I'm in has per use enshrined as practice--I think that makes an over-large and cumbersome schedule to create, let alone use. At least this office always uses the room number as the basis for the door & window tags.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Hi Jeff, it's been a while. Kinda miss seeing some of the projects you were involved with.
Regarding your querry.
1. What bothers you the most about the way architects tend to dimension?
Inconsistency in residential dimensioning. It seems that too many architects want to do it "their" way and I find it disrespectful to the tradesmen who have to make it real. Blueprint reading shouldn't be a test.
In a related concern, in Canada commercial is mostly metric and residential is mostly imperial. It's the mostly part that bothers me.
2. Is there a preferred method from your perspective (face of stud, both faces, one side, centerline, masonry opening, face of finish, etc.)?
Foundation face should be grid and all intersecting walls should be center dimentioned on the exterior of the floor plan........period.
3. What causes you the most concern for dimensional error in the field?
Clutter and lack of applied standards.
4. Do you have any other recommendations?
Design the house like you were going to build it for the money that you tell your clients it will cost and never forget that in the end, it's someone's home.
Gabe
There is a very interesting discussion going on right now on an architectural listserver that I belong to. Unfortunately, you can't see it without subscribing ... but here is your opportunity to comment on the dimensioning provided by architects on plans.
1. What bothers you the most about the way architects tend to dimension?
Inconsistency and ommissions.
2. Is there a preferred method from your perspective (face of stud, both faces, one side, centerline, masonry opening, face of finish, etc.)?
I prefer face of finish to face of finish and centerlines on openings.
3. What causes you the most concern for dimensional error in the field?
This is an easy one: ommissions! If an architect cant figure out what every room size is, how do they expect the framers to figure it out?
4. Do you have any other recommendations?
Yes, put a dimension on every room, and every wall thickness.
Others in here have already pointed out some common confusions, such as "what is the finish floor height?". The architects are obviously making some assumptions. Those assumptions should be noted in a ledger.
The most important asset a framer has when framing a house is confidence. If he's not confident that he knows every dimension on a house, then he automatically assumes that other interested parties and suppliers experienced the same confusions. For instance, lets discuss the ramnifications of brick wall thickness. In these parts, the truss designers assume that the brick is 4". The reality is that our brick spaces are 4.25". That's not a big difference, but some people think brick is 4.5". The confusion regarding these issues would be easily cleared up with a simple ledger explaining the architect's assumptions.
Floor finish thickness is another example of confusion. On a typical plan, the ceiling height is shown as 8'-0", but we all know the actual height is 8-1 1/8" in the rough. After installing a 1/2" drywall covering, should I deduce that the floor thickness is 5/8"? Why should I have to deduce anything? A simple ledger would explain all assumptions.
blue
If you are interested in providing feedback to architects, please feel free to do it here and I will provide the link for the group to read your comments.
Thank you!
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
Like most of the previous posters, i like to see dimensions to edges of structure with wall thicknesses, floor heights and ceiling heights noted.
The worst thing to have on a set of structural drawings is clutter. I do need to know where the toilets are going. I don't need to know where the paper holder is going.
I like the dimensions of openings to be to the centre with the opening RSO's to be on the same sheet. I hate having to hunt for dimensions from sheet to sheet.
Sections can make many things clear.
Ron
assume that the brick is 4". The reality is that our brick spaces are 4.25". That's not a big difference, but some people think brick is 4.5".
Which catches my eye, as my "reflex" is that a brick ledge is 5", so the dimension from framing to outside of veneer brick is 5" as well.
Floor finish thickness is another example of confusion. On a typical plan, the ceiling height is shown as 8'-0", but we all know the actual height is 8-1 1/8" in the rough. After installing a 1/2" drywall covering, should I deduce that the floor thickness is 5/8"?
The number of folk coming fresh out of school who cannot correctly cipher a stud length from a given finish floor to finish ceiling, let alone correctly call out the rough framing dimension for the same condition frightens me no end. The glazed looks are a bit stunning when their stated ambition is to "get into residential construction." "Oh, you use 5/8" d/w on ceilings?"Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I had the opportunity to frame a couple
of houses for Looney Kiss and Ricks Arch.
I liked the way they did it. "All dimensions to Face of Stud"
Very simple. No guessing.
1. What bothers you the most about the way architects tend to dimension?
a. Not providing enough dimensions so that you don't need to calculate 3/4 of them.
b. Running dimensions to window centerlines, not the edge of the rough opening.
2. Is there a preferred method from your perspective (face of stud, both faces, one side, centerline, masonry opening, face of finish, etc.)?
Face of stud, no finish. Make sure you are crystal clear on the wall thickness, and that the 8' run of cabinets doesn't have to be wedged into a 95" opening because you forgot about half-an-inch of drywall on either end.
3. What causes you the most concern for dimensional error in the field?
Conflicting dimensions between sheets. Put all your dimensions on the rough framing and then dimension the sections separately.
4. Do you have any other recommendations?
Yes. All architects need to spend some time on a crew, swinging a hammer, roofing, plumbing, electrical, something to make them learn how difficult it is to build half of what they design. No offense intended - I have told more than one archy that their design was virtually impossible to construct. The plumbing/electrical/HVAC trades seem to get the worst of it.
Thank you all for your responses. I've read every one, and I hope that others in our group will as well. In 27 years of practice, I've learned that nothing is gained by finding ourselves (builders, architects) on opposite sides of the table. It's interesting too that you seem to disagree on some points, particularly dimension to centerline of openings.
One thing that I have done in the past for more complicated plans, and will return to after this discussion, is to issue a dimensioned plate plan for each floor, one that only takes stud locations into account and doesn't 'clutter' the plan with dimensions to things that aren't important at that stage of the work.
Thanks again ... hope to be here more often -
T. Jeffery Clarke
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum
(Whatever is built well, no matter how humble, is noble)
I've taken to throwing a corner to corner dimension on the foundation plans for squaring. I also try to pull dimensions from places where a tape can actually hang, such as the back face of the brick ledge instead of the edge of the foundation. I mentally lay out the plates as I dimension and try to draw like I would build if I were using the drawing.
I dimension common walls to the stud face on the same side all the way across the plan in a single dimension string, just like I would tick them off on the floor for a snap line. Thicker walls get dimensioned to both sides as a secondary heads up, just like I would tick them off on the floor for a snap line.
On masonry jobs I try to insure modular measurements. Wall sections get dimensioned from top of slab with top of plate or steel figured from there. I try to insure that I never dimension to or from anything that will not be there when the actual element being dimensioned are being installed.
This next trick is more critical on commercial projects but it has application in residential as well:
All plan notes are numbered by division and spelled out in the note column as to which contractor is responsible for which note numbers. For example, a wall section will have a lead arrow pointing to a black blob at a masonry control joint that falls right next to a door frame with the note "07900" on the tail. You look at the note column and there is a heading "Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection" with all of the 07000 through 07900 notes spelled out under it. Note 07900 reads, "two-part polyurathane elastomeric sealant."
Each contractor finds the note numbers they are responsible for clearly spelled out in the specs. Instead of the door guy, the masonry guy and the thermal protection contractor all figuring a little into their bid for that bead of caulk, they all know that the responsibility falls to the one contractors assigned the 07900 series notes. It makes for much tighter bids and fewer job site misunderstandings.
Many of the problems on dimension plans arise from the fact that Architectural plans are first and foremost bid documents. It takes a little more work to tweak the bid documents into a construction manual. When architects try to create construction documents, instead of bid documents they can really muddy up a set of drawings trying to anticipate how someone might plan on working off the set in the field.
The best working drawings I've seen are those where the bid documents were concise, clean and accurate with enough room left for the hand written, working drawing field notes that made it a usable field document for the guy who was actually be doing the work.
Once I've got a good bid document I hope to see room for the contractor to include his notes, tailored to his way and leave it up to him to convert it to a full on working set. I do my best to give him all the info he may need and a little free room to use it. It's a good policy for follow-up site visits too.
If we fail to catch a cosmic fish it may be a trillion years before the opportunity comes again
>I've taken to throwing a corner to corner dimension on the foundation plans for squaring.Not me! <G>
Roar! You do break your share of rules in the Reprehensible, Ordinancial, Unconventional, Non- Dimensional world you get a ROUND in.
If we fail to catch a cosmic fish it may be a trillion years before the opportunity comes again