Diagrams - Draft or Reference?

[3Darchitect]

I'm in the process of revising most/all drafting standards in my firm and want to critically think about all aspects of the set to see if there's a different/better way of doing things. I realize that in a lot of cases, the answer is simply up to the firm and there is no right/wrong/better/worse solution.

My question here is about accessibility or typical construction diagrams. Most sets have some sort of general diagrams for mounting heights, clearances, etc. I'm wondering if anyone has ever seen a set reference external sources IN LIEU of drafting the diagram itself. This would ONLY apply to a construction constraint that has a diagram within the source material, and therefore would most often deal with Accessibility diagrams and some IBC diagrams (think door clearances).

The reason I'm considering this is because upon looking at my firm's previous sets, a number of these diagrams (which had been drafted a long time ago) were now inaccurate or weren't correct to begin with. My intent would be to provide clear references in the form of naming the code + section, and also a live link to a free internet source. This link would of course, only be valid when viewing the plans in digital format.

PROS:
- Limits liability on the firm/architect for potentially incorrect construction standards
- Limits the need to periodically QAQC these standard diagrams, mainly when known code changes happen
- Live/digital links provides the opportunity to reference other non-code (but reliable) sources for supplemental information - yes, this would be a form of liability as well though

CONS:
- Forces the GC/consultant outside of the set to an external source which may reduce the chances of them looking at the content at all (I've always questioned whether or not this should be a concern of the architect)
- While a lot of GC's are starting to have tablets and digital access on site, I realize that a lot of the trades still work off physically printed sets

Feel free to tell me if I'm completely off my rocker on this one too

 

[brokenkeys]

Include them. I know there are risks to copying and pasting standard diagrams, but;
1. you, or someone at your firm, should be reviewing your standards every code update, and just as important;
2. in my experience the guy installing the restroom accessories that don't always get inspected (soap dispensers, towel dispensers, etc.) is usually someone with little experience and/ or knowledge. If they screw up 10% of the time with diagrams, they'll screw it up 100% without diagrams.

 

[bill1952]

The problem I see with this is that just meeting code is a lette grade of D, and I prefer to aim for an A. Beyond the minimums and maximums of the codes and standards, there is definitely room for better design.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I'm in the process of revising most/all drafting standards in my firm and want to critically think about all aspects of the set to see if there's a different/better way of doing things. I realize that in a lot of cases, the answer is simply up to the firm and there is no right/wrong/better/worse solution.

My question here is about accessibility or typical construction diagrams. Most sets have some sort of general diagrams for mounting heights, clearances, etc. I'm wondering if anyone has ever seen a set reference external sources IN LIEU of drafting the diagram itself. This would ONLY apply to a construction constraint that has a diagram within the source material, and therefore would most often deal with Accessibility diagrams and some IBC diagrams (think door clearances).

To be honest, I have no idea why architects insist on including a page full of diagrams that are copied right out of A117.1 or the ADAAG. They never look at it -- I can't tell you how many sets of construction documents I have reviewed that included such a page, yet within the actual floor plans and interior elevations there were multiple doors, toilet rooms, and toilet compartments that didn't come close to complying with the minimum required clearances. So as far as I'm concerned, that sheet isn't for the benefit of the code officials. Whether or not it provides any leverage over a contractor who builds to the plans (which are wrong) and an inspector later spots the problem and requires correction, I'll defer to the attorneys.

 

[e hilton]

Keep the diagrams on the drawings. The guy in the field office is not going to take the time to look up a separate reference. The guy holding the tape measure and pencil is only going to look at what he has in front of him.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Keep the diagrams on the drawings. The guy in the field office is not going to take the time to look up a separate reference. The guy holding the tape measure and pencil is only going to look at what he has in front of him.

True, but the diagrams are useless if the actual floor plan lays out a building to dimensions that don't comply with the diagrams. The guy snapping lines on the floor for the walls isn't looking at those diagrams -- he has the one sheet out of the drawings that shows the plan of the floor he's laying out.

It starts with the designers paying attention to those diagrams -- but too often they don't. They just add that sheet into the set as boilerplate when they assemble the construction documents for permitting.

 

[ICE]

Twenty years ago I did double duty... no that's incorrect... it was actually a lot more than double ... one duty was plans examiner. Plans that had a load of sizzle to augment a smattering of steak went back with a bunch of red ink. For example, a single story old folks home with plans starting with the foundation of an elevator. Of course that's a glaring example but with the advent of computer generated plans, the extemporaneous bullshit fouls my inspection experience. Why examiners allow so many worthless details and notes escapes me.

If you want to include a page of typical ADA diagrams... have at it... They provide guidance but the actual condition is what matters. As a trade off, eliminate the shear transfer details/et al. that are not in the building.

 

[bill1952]

the extemporaneous bullshit fouls my inspection experience. Why examiners allow so many worthless details and notes

Amen! When I started a new HS might be on 50 to 100 sheets, all very well coordinated. I've seen older projects with fewer sheets. Wonderful to look at a floor plan and see the wall section right there, rather than 50 pages ahead. Now, 500 to 1000 sheets seems to be routine. Of course the drawings are not coordinated. Everyone doing everything they can to not be liable.

 

[3Darchitect]

Everyone doing everything they can to not be liable.

I think any professional who cares about career wants to limit unnecessary liability. The key word being "unnecessary". When I stamp drawings, I am of course taking on a certain amount of responsibility by nature of the stamp that is to my name. But if code dictates something specific, professional best practice is to ensure the law is followed.

Drawing set coordination and organization is part of what I am evaluating in this process. As much as the simpler sets were nice to look at many years ago, the amount of information provided on current sets necessitates a more sophisticated level of organization.

 

[3Darchitect]

True, but the diagrams are useless if the actual floor plan lays out a building to dimensions that don't comply with the diagrams. The guy snapping lines on the floor for the walls isn't looking at those diagrams -- he has the one sheet out of the drawings that shows the plan of the floor he's laying out.

It starts with the designers paying attention to those diagrams -- but too often they don't. They just add that sheet into the set as boilerplate when they assemble the construction documents for permitting.

This is the reality of construction these days, as much as I struggle to accept that it is the case. This is why the validity of diagrams 1) on a separate sheet or 2) as an external reference is heavily diminished no matter where it's illustrated - OTHER than on the primary drawing.

 

[3Darchitect]

To be honest, I have no idea why architects insist on including a page full of diagrams that are copied right out of A117.1 or the ADAAG. They never look at it -- I can't tell you how many sets of construction documents I have reviewed that included such a page, yet within the actual floor plans and interior elevations there were multiple doors, toilet rooms, and toilet compartments that didn't come close to complying with the minimum required clearances. So as far as I'm concerned, that sheet isn't for the benefit of the code officials. Whether or not it provides any leverage over a contractor who builds to the plans (which are wrong) and an inspector later spots the problem and requires correction, I'll defer to the attorneys.

I just talked with a GC and asked him this question directly - he said he's basically never looked at this sheet in our set and said he's going to build off the drawings not the diagrams. I expected as much, but it was helpful to hear it from someone out in the field.

 

[3Darchitect]

Thank you everyone for the responses. After considering this more, I'm admittedly leaning toward a "reference only" approach. Not necessarily to reduce liability issues from my end, but simply to avoid providing (effectively) unnecessary information. A sheet that is truly fluff probably shouldn't be in the set. I would use the same approach when evaluating the rest of the drawings - does this section tell us something unique and specific? No? Then we shouldn't spend time annotating it or including it in the set.

Perhaps code sections are referenced in more immediate locations, IE door clearances are referenced in/next to the door schedule. I'm not sure yet, just processing how this might play out.

 

[jj1289]

The contractors do not follow the diagrams. They continue to install "like they have for the past 20 years". Even some Architect's don't follow their own information. Completed a review last week that showed a detail that contradicted the accessibility requirements depicted on another sheet.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Your drawings on your plans either original or copied from some other source are what you are attesting to be code compliant.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Your drawings on your plans either original or copied from some other source are what you are attesting to be code compliant.

Actually, that's a common misconception but it's not correct. An architect's or an engineer's seal and signature on a drawing (or set of drawings) does NOT in any way attest that anything about the drawings complies with any code or other legal requirement. ALL the seal and signature represents is that the drawing(s) was (were) prepared by the design professional personally, or under his/her direct supervision.

It's been many years, so I can't dredge up any case law at the moment, but this has been decided in multiple court cases.

 

[jar546]

CONS:
- Forces the GC/consultant outside of the set to an external source which may reduce the chances of them looking at the content at all (I've always questioned whether or not this should be a concern of the architect)
- While a lot of GC's are starting to have tablets and digital access on site, I realize that a lot of the trades still work off physically printed sets

Feel free to tell me if I'm completely off my rocker on this one too

You are absolutely not off your rocker and brought up some valid points. This was an excellent topic to discuss. We have delved into this area a few times. I think that your CONS are your answer. Put corrected information on the drawings for the contractor to follow. It will be one of the most helpful things you can do for the good of the project and your client.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Thank you everyone for the responses. After considering this more, I'm admittedly leaning toward a "reference only" approach. Not necessarily to reduce liability issues from my end, but simply to avoid providing (effectively) unnecessary information. A sheet that is truly fluff probably shouldn't be in the set. I would use the same approach when evaluating the rest of the drawings - does this section tell us something unique and specific? No? Then we shouldn't spend time annotating it or including it in the set.

Perhaps code sections are referenced in more immediate locations, IE door clearances are referenced in/next to the door schedule. I'm not sure yet, just processing how this might play out.

Keep in mind that a web site you reference today may change (or go away) tomorrow. Also, if you include external references, what is the building department reviewing and "approving" when it issues a building permit? We issue a permit to construct what is shown on the approved construction documents. Is an external reference -- that may change or disappear tomorrow -- "shown" on the documents? I would say the answer is no.

 

[walker.t]

I'm in the process of revising most/all drafting standards in my firm and want to critically think about all aspects of the set to see if there's a different/better way of doing things. I realize that in a lot of cases, the answer is simply up to the firm and there is no right/wrong/better/worse solution.

When I read the term “drafting standard” I thought you meant things like layering standards, hierarchy of text sizes, drawing labels, detail tags, et cetera. I would not have considered copying diagrams from another source into your drawings as a “drafting standard” because you’re not actually drawing them.

I'm wondering if anyone has ever seen a set reference external sources IN LIEU of drafting the diagram itself.

I have never seen this before. People I’ve worked for print their drawings for use on site. They want to lay them out on a table and be able to have people stand around to discuss the project, point to things on the drawings, write notes on the drawings, et cetera. Even if they had a PDF with the links as you describe I expect they’d sooner call me then click the link - and I’d rather they called me instead of trying to find the answer themselves so I can confirm they understand the intent of the drawings. I would then follow-up with an email so all parties have a record and attach a PDF of a drawing if needed. But I wouldn’t use the link system, I’d put the information on the drawings.

I would recommend against either referencing “external sources” (such as to have a note that says, “Provide accessible grab bars per A117.1 Figure 604.5.1”) or simply reproducing Figure 604.5.1 on your drawings.

Regarding using a note referencing Figure 604.5.1. That diagram has a lot of dimension ranges on it, so someone has to determine what the specific dimensions to use will be. It’s not the contractor’s responsibility to make design decisions regarding accessibility (or whatever) - that’s the architect’s responsibility. Someone has to make this design decision (picking a dimension,) I’d rather it was you (one person who knows how/if decisions regarding the grab bars might affect other parts of the project) than to hope the general contractor coordinates the work of at least three other people (the framer installing the blocking, the person ordering the grab bars, and the person installing the grab bars.) For sure there are contractors who can do that, but I’d rather we made the decision before drawings are printed and given to the contractor.

By reproducing Figure 604.5.1 you are stating general requirements that apply to every project with a toilet - I would prefer to see the specific requirements that apply to the specific constraints of your project. Stating that a grab bar should be installed from 33” to 36” is not specific, I want to see a dimension that says 34” or whatever single dimension you choose.

- Limits the need to periodically QAQC these standard diagrams, mainly when known code changes happen

Quality management is cheap insurance, I wouldn’t suggest skimping on that. Quality assurance (making sure that the work is being done right) and quality control (making sure the work was done right) is just part of the job. If someone sues you and finds out you used standard details to “limit the need to QAQC” anything, they are probably going to say you were negligent - and there’s a good chance they’ll find an expert witness to support that. Your defense would be to say that in your locality lots of firms use standard details like that, expert witness will say, “Yes, they’re negligent, too, and I’ll tell you why…” Ultimately it’s up to who is most convincing to the judge, jury, mediator, whomever. I’m not saying you’re negligent, I just think the policy of using standard details could be used against you.

- Live/digital links provides the opportunity to reference other non-code (but reliable) sources for supplemental information - yes, this would be a form of liability as well though

I’m not a fan of providing “live links” in the PDFs of your drawings because I don’t think you can count on the the contractor and subcontractors to have the the drawings on digital devices. If anything they’ll view the link at their office and print something to hand off to someone in the field - so just put it on the drawings for them. Also, there’s no guarantee that the link won’t change then suddenly relevant information in your drawing set is no longer available.

- Forces the GC/consultant outside of the set to an external source which may reduce the chances of them looking at the content at all (I've always questioned whether or not this should be a concern of the architect)

I think most contractors are expecting paper drawings. I had one contractor request a PDF because he said he wanted to be able to also look at the drawings on his tablet, I guess that helps keep his truck tidy, but they had drawings on site.

- Limits liability on the firm/architect for potentially incorrect construction standards

Be careful these standard details aren’t prescribing construction means and methods, that’s the responsibility of the contractor.

Feel free to tell me if I'm completely off my rocker on this one too

No, you’re not off your rocker. There’s nothing wrong with giving consideration to how you might improve things. You were thoughtful and objective enough to list pros and cons, even humble enough to post your thoughts on the forum to get some feedback for your further consideration.