• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Does Anyone Read & Comprehend Anymore?

Inspector Gadget said:
The freaking law (plus common sense) says that y'all gotta file *scale* drawings.
Click to expand...
A number of years ago there was an article in the AIA magazine where the author, an architect, submitted freehand drawn plans for a building (apartment complex, I believe). The project got permit.
The whole point of the article was that the code (today's IBC 107) doesn't require you to submit "plans". It requires you to submit "construction documents". It says the CDs must be "dimensioned and drawn" and "shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location nature and extent of the work" and show "in detail" how it conforms to the provisions of the code and other applicable regulations.

There is nothing in the IBC that requires CDs to be scale-able or to scale. In fact, most architect's plans (including mine) have a general note saying "do not scale plans". This goes all the way back to the good ol' days of pencil drawing where even the thickness of the pencil lead could result in differing measurements.
Rely on the dimensions, not on the scale.
The information is the deliverable -- plans are merely a handy medium to deliver the info.
 
I think the BOCA code did specifically call for drawings to be drawn to scale, but it is true that the IBC does not use that exact term. (Section 107.2.1 -- which I cite in almost every plan review.) But the IBC does, as noted above, require that the construction documents show "in detail" that the work will comply with the code. If plans are not drawn to scale, how can a reviewer check such things as exit access travel distance and common path of travel?

Then there are the geniuses who have plans drawn to scale on CADD -- and then they don't plot at 100% full-size, so if you put a scale to any dimension on a sheet, the scaled dimension is off by 10%, 15%, or 25%. I never accept an architect's (or unlicensed "building designer's") statement of the exit access travel distance. It's rare to find one that's listed even remotely accurately. Have I mentioned the one several years ago where an architect provided an egress diagram to support the claimed exit access travel distance? His exit access route passed through half a dozen or more solid walls. When I cited that, his answer was (honest -- I am NOT making this up) "But if I draw it using the corridors it will exceed the allowable distance."

So I want drawings that are to scale. If pushed to the wall I can't make it stick, but I try.
 
I agree that drawing be submitted to scale for clarity and reference, verifying MOE distance, room size, diagonal distance for exit spacing.
Scaling the drawing for construction in a not allowed, however the designer should proved drawing of sufficient clarity in the detail with all necessary dimensions called out.
 
Yikes said:
There is nothing in the IBC that requires CDs to be scale-able or to scale.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, our lawmakers - for as much as they made a horrific mess when they did the first (of five) changes to the regulations back in 2021, got that part right.

1700753147187.png

What I really like in the above is the "any other related document required by building inspector."

So, I can ask for "show me the specification for the fire dampers used in <location>" or "We request a copy of the truss plan prior to issuance of the permit," etc.

(Shudder)
I just complimented the government... there goes my reputation.
 
Yikes said:
A number of years ago there was an article in the AIA magazine where the author, an architect, submitted freehand drawn plans for a building (apartment complex, I believe). The project got permit.
The whole point of the article was that the code (today's IBC 107) doesn't require you to submit "plans". It requires you to submit "construction documents". It says the CDs must be "dimensioned and drawn" and "shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location nature and extent of the work" and show "in detail" how it conforms to the provisions of the code and other applicable regulations.

There is nothing in the IBC that requires CDs to be scale-able or to scale. In fact, most architect's plans (including mine) have a general note saying "do not scale plans". This goes all the way back to the good ol' days of pencil drawing where even the thickness of the pencil lead could result in differing measurements.
Rely on the dimensions, not on the scale.
The information is the deliverable -- plans are merely a handy medium to deliver the info.
Click to expand...
Legible scale drawings are required in our province by law.
 
Granted some of the examples shown here are a bit sketchy but remember that not everyone reaches to your skill level.
 
ICE said:
Granted some of the examples shown here are a bit sketchy but remember that not everyone reaches to your skill level.
Click to expand...
My bar is set pretty low for some structures. Building a garage? I just need to know how you're building it. But the example I posted earlier was a sketch with not one whit of detail. I'd accept a box drawn in crayon on a napkin for a garage if it were accompanied by sufficient detail to ensure that the builder's intent was Code-compliant.

Can't draw? Use software. There's plenty of good, free programs out there.

heck, I had a plan for a hotel submitted to me using Excel. I kid you not. Laugh as you will, once I drilled into the details, buddy had everything perfectly fine - including fire-rated walls with sound-transmission figures, appropriately referenced.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
My bar is set pretty low for some structures. Building a garage? I just need to know how you're building it. But the example I posted earlier was a sketch with not one whit of detail. I'd accept a box drawn in crayon on a napkin for a garage if it were accompanied by sufficient detail to ensure that the builder's intent was Code-compliant.

Can't draw? Use software. There's plenty of good, free programs out there.

heck, I had a plan for a hotel submitted to me using Excel. I kid you not. Laugh as you will, once I drilled into the details, buddy had everything perfectly fine - including fire-rated walls with sound-transmission figures, appropriately referenced.
Click to expand...

"When the only tool you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail." Case in point.
 
steveray said:
Dimensioned would be fine....but they never give enough dimensions or then you couldn't see the plans...
Click to expand...
A few times I have had a comment response that I shouldn't scale the drawings for code review. I then explain that when a crucial dimension is needed but not provided, I could just make a comment that the "sufficient clarity" threshold hasn't been met. With BB, or probably other software programs, we can use a preset scale, make our own, or calibrate it using some other dimension used on the plan. I rarely find a drawing that I can't accurately scale, but if they really don't want me to, I can just have them resubmit with the needed dimensions. Not sure anyone has ever pushed it to that limit.

The frustration I run into is usually that they use different scales on the same page. Then I have trouble with BB, but I find ways to work it out.
 
Out state does not use chapter 1 of the IBC but has its own version. Scale drawings are required for commercial construction but not for one and two dwellings.
403.42a (d) Provide the scale of each drawing. A building code official may require submission of additional construction documents in special circumstances.
 
Sifu said:
A few times I have had a comment response that I shouldn't scale the drawings for code review. I then explain that when a crucial dimension is needed but not provided, I could just make a comment that the "sufficient clarity" threshold hasn't been met.
Click to expand...

When the first (2000) edition of the ICC International Building Code came out, I was a professional member of both BOCA and ICBO. I immediately noticed the watered-down language of what is now IBC 107.2.1 regarding information required on construction documents. So, as a professional member, I called and asked why they had removed the language contained in the BOCA code prohibiting the use of boilerplate terms such as "to code" instead of providing specific information. The answer was that the "intent" of the code remains the same, and that I should just cite 107.2.1.

Which I've been doing for 20 years -- but there has almost always been push-back (sometimes significant push-back). Our state recently adopted a new code, and I was successful in getting the state to restore some of that language. Next time around maybe I'll push for also requiring drawing to be to scale.

What's really annoying is prints that are labeled as some standard scale, but somebody forget to tell the printer to plot them at 100%, so the scaled dimensions don't match the printed dimensions -- regardless of what scale you use.

Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Reader both have a measuring tool for PDFs, and it can be calibrated to the scale of the PDF drawing. IIRC, I think Bluebeam also has a measuring tool built in.
 
tmurray said:
I saw this a while ago from one professional and it was really helpful to confirm that the drawing was printed at the proper scale.
Click to expand...

And whether or not the paper prints are plotted to scale, a graphic scale is handy for calibrating the scale when reviewing on-line using Abobe or Bluebeam.
 
Again, if the plans examiner needs to scale drawings in order to determine code compliance, IMO it's evidence that insufficient information has been provided on the plans, and the plans should be returned to the applicant as incomplete.
 
Yikes said:
Again, if the plans examiner needs to scale drawings in order to determine code compliance, IMO it's evidence that insufficient information has been provided on the plans, and the plans should be returned to the applicant as incomplete.
Click to expand...

How do you check for length of exit access travel distance and common path of travel?

We usually get a code sheet or two at the start of the set that may (or may not) include an egress diagram. They're wrong more often than not, but it seems most architects in my area have at least figured out that means of egress is something that needs to be checked under the building and fire codes. Technically, if a set of plans is fully dimensioned the plan reviewer can figure out exit access routes, and then laboriously read the dimensions of each space a route passes through, subtract a foot here or add 18 inches plus a wall thickness there, and eventually come up with a travel distance.

Or we can look at the diagrammatic plan provided and either accept the architect's claimed number, or do something to verify it. Scaling it is far faster than trying to look up the room dimensions, corridor widths, and wall thicknesses to arrive at a number.

The same principle applies to room/space areas and occupant loads. Sometimes the plans I get show areas and occupant loads, sometimes they don't. When they do include those numbers, I never accept them at face value. As Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust, but verify." I spot check a few rooms for area and occupant load. If I get any significant discrepancies between my numbers and what's called out, I'll dig in and check every occupied space. Like egress paths, that can be done fairly easily by reading numbers of all the spaces are rectangular but, when spaces have jogs and notches and alcoves, it's mush faster to unlimber a #2 pencil and draw some rectangles to break the space(s) down into manageable chunks. But that only works when the drawings are plotted to scale.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
How do you check for length of exit access travel distance and common path of travel?

We usually get a code sheet or two at the start of the set that may (or may not) include an egress diagram. They're wrong more often than not, but it seems most architects in my area have at least figured out that means of egress is something that needs to be checked under the building and fire codes. Technically, if a set of plans is fully dimensioned the plan reviewer can figure out exit access routes, and then laboriously read the dimensions of each space a route passes through, subtract a foot here or add 18 inches plus a wall thickness there, and eventually come up with a travel distance.

Or we can look at the diagrammatic plan provided and either accept the architect's claimed number, or do something to verify it. Scaling it is far faster than trying to look up the room dimensions, corridor widths, and wall thicknesses to arrive at a number.

The same principle applies to room/space areas and occupant loads. Sometimes the plans I get show areas and occupant loads, sometimes they don't. When they do include those numbers, I never accept them at face value. As Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust, but verify." I spot check a few rooms for area and occupant load. If I get any significant discrepancies between my numbers and what's called out, I'll dig in and check every occupied space. Like egress paths, that can be done fairly easily by reading numbers of all the spaces are rectangular but, when spaces have jogs and notches and alcoves, it's mush faster to unlimber a #2 pencil and draw some rectangles to break the space(s) down into manageable chunks. But that only works when the drawings are plotted to scale.
Click to expand...
Our firm provides "code analysis" sheets which provide the occupant loads for each room, and it includes a line from the corner of every room showing the CPET with a dimension provided. The only time we don't do the CPET is when the overall building dimensions (as shown on other floor plans) are so small that there's no way it could possibly reach the limit of CPET. Example: a 30'x40' sprinklered building with 100' of allowable CPET.

If dimensions are provided, there should be no need for you to scale the plans to calculate the room area.
 
Yikes said:
Our firm provides "code analysis" sheets which provide the occupant loads for each room, and it includes a line from the corner of every room showing the CPET with a dimension provided. The only time we don't do the CPET is when the overall building dimensions (as shown on other floor plans) are so small that there's no way it could possibly reach the limit of CPET. Example: a 30'x40' sprinklered building with 100' of allowable CPET.

If dimensions are provided, there should be no need for you to scale the plans to calculate the room area.
Click to expand...

You provide a dimension, but how is a plan reviewer supposed to check that the dimension you provided is accurate? Sure, if the plan is fully dimensioned I can read a bunch of dimension of rooms, subtract a foot here to get the starting point, enter the length of the room less a foot, then make a 90-dgree turn and take the width of the room less a foot on one side and less half the door width plus the jamb offset on the other side, then add the thickness of the wall plus half the width of the corridor -- and do that for the entire length of that path of travel. And then rinse and repeat for every other room I want to check.

OR -- I can take a roll-up scale and just follow the line of travel from one end to the other. IF the drawing is to scale. I'm not interested in accuracy to a quarter of an inch. If the allowable exit access distance is 100 feet, the architect says he has 99.2 feet, and my scale looks like "a tad over 100" I'll let it go. If my scale gets up to 105 or so, then I start to worry.

The point is that we don't have time to sit down and read the dimensions and manually calculate the travel distances from multiple rooms on every plan. Yes, it can be done . . . bit there aren't enough hours in a day.

If you think I'm going to accept every number an architect puts on the drawings as being accurate and correct -- forget it. I've been doing this for a long time. I know better.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
You provide a dimension, but how is a plan reviewer supposed to check that the dimension you provided is accurate?
Click to expand...
Let's use another analogy: If my plan says a room is a bedroom, how is a plan reviewer supposed to check that my room description is accurate?
Answer: because I wrote the word "bedroom" on the plan, and that word is "of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws" (107.2.1)
So why wouldn't written dimensions on the CPET also be of similar level clarity to demonstrate conformance?

My point is, if you are not using the written dimensions provided, then you are giving more weight to the graphical accuracy of the plans reproduction process than to the written statement of the registered design professional, and that seems bass ackwards to me.
 
Yikes said:
My point is, if you are not using the written dimensions provided, then you are giving more weight to the graphical accuracy of the plans reproduction process than to the written statement of the registered design professional, and that seems bass ackwards to me.
Click to expand...

Over the years, I have seen a lot of rooms that have a door and a closet but the window doesn't meet the minimum size to be an escape/rescue opening. These rooms are typically labeled "Den" or "Study." Am I supposed to believe that these rooms will never be used for sleeping?

I choose not to believe what design professionals put on their plans because I am one. I have been licensed as an architect for well over 40 years, and I know that too many of my architect colleagues are willing to lie and cheat if they think they can get a permit even if the design doesn't really meet the code. They don't understand that, as architects, we are not licensed to design pretty buildings, we are licensed to design safe buildings. Since I know I can't simply accept what the drawings say, I have to do something within the constraints of the time available to verify what's written.

That's my job as a building official. If I could rely on every architect and every engineer to do his/her job right, I wouldn't have to review plans at all -- I could just look for a seal and signature and call it good. But the code and the law don't say that -- the code and the law says I must check the design professional's work. As I said, I'm not interested in having the numbers match to the sixth decimal place, but I do need to expeditiously verify that we're in the same order of magnitude. The best/fastest way to do that is with a scale.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
You provide a dimension, but how is a plan reviewer supposed to check that the dimension you provided is accurate? Sure, if the plan is fully dimensioned I can read a bunch of dimension of rooms, subtract a foot here to get the starting point, enter the length of the room less a foot, then make a 90-dgree turn and take the width of the room less a foot on one side and less half the door width plus the jamb offset on the other side, then add the thickness of the wall plus half the width of the corridor -- and do that for the entire length of that path of travel. And then rinse and repeat for every other room I want to check.

OR -- I can take a roll-up scale and just follow the line of travel from one end to the other. IF the drawing is to scale. I'm not interested in accuracy to a quarter of an inch. If the allowable exit access distance is 100 feet, the architect says he has 99.2 feet, and my scale looks like "a tad over 100" I'll let it go. If my scale gets up to 105 or so, then I start to worry.

The point is that we don't have time to sit down and read the dimensions and manually calculate the travel distances from multiple rooms on every plan. Yes, it can be done . . . bit there aren't enough hours in a day.

If you think I'm going to accept every number an architect puts on the drawings as being accurate and correct -- forget it. I've been doing this for a long time. I know better.
Click to expand...
You don't have to accept it as gospel....Put a note on the plan review that it looks close and will be verified in the field and it will need to be corrected if incorrect and move on...
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
If I could rely on every architect and every engineer to do his/her job right, I wouldn't have to review plans at all -- I could just look for a seal and signature and call it good.
Click to expand...

I often state that "if everybody knew what they were doing, I'd be out of a job."

The corollary to that is the followup statement, "I have no concerns over job security."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top