Why draw it on a sheet when it can be written out???

[Simonsays]

What are the feelings out there when revised drawings are returned for re-review now with narrative paragraphs headed by code section numbers instead of drawn plans, sections, and details?

 

[jar546]

I'm going to get some popcorn for this thread discussion. This should be good.

My opinion (humble):

No go. Am I suppose to mark only part of the drawings superseded then put notes referring to the new notes on separate paper? NFW.

I think, however, that there are times for clarification purposes this can be ok with limited allowance. Provide new drawings with clouded areas.

 

[tmurray]

I agree with Jeff. We need to think about the end user in the field. They are not reading the code in between driving nails. Interpreting a legal standard is not their strong suit, even if they are familiar with parts of it as part of their trade. It should be drawn out so they can see what the intent is. To say nothing of if the plans and "spec" is now conflicting.

Why not just hand the trades a code book and say "built it".

 

[classicT]

IF the narrative simply indicates how the existing details comply, I'd say that it is ok (presuming plans examiner/BO agree and drop the correction requirement).

However, if the detail is missing components or is wrong in any way, then attaching a written description "fixing" it is not going to fly. Contractor will look at the detail, build it per the detail, and be none the wiser that the detail was wrong and that the supplemental note had the "right" way to do it.

 

[e hilton]

What are the feelings out there when revised drawings are returned for re-review now with narrative paragraphs headed by code section numbers instead of drawn plans, sections, and details?

Depends on the intent of the resubmission. If it is to show the plan reviewer why the detail is correct, thats ok. Probably better done in a sit-down meeting. Go through all the “corrections” , agree which are acceptable, then submit clean drawings suitable for the knuckle-dragging apes on site.

 

[SCBO1]

You know the plans are already out to bid, don't you?

 

[classicT]

You know the plans are already out to bid, don't you?

That is one of my "favorite" comments to hear.... as if that has any bearing.

Once had an architect call for a fire wall based upon the code analysis, but the engineer detailed for a fire barrier with no structural independence. Not only had it gone to bid, but the steel package had been ordered.

 

[TheCommish]

2015 IBC note the word show, and as determined by the Building Official. I determine narratives give us an idea of the scope and intent of the project, the plan shows with clarity how the work is to be done. For example on a set of steel detail drawings the weld size and type is shown on the drawing, the specification of the weld is found in the standard.

 

[steveray]

As long as the information is understandable, I am good with it.....I had an old time Frenchie carpenter write out all of his lumber and spans for an addition for plan review and it came out beautifully. Accepting just code sections would be like accepting an application that says "built to code" not going to happen...The contractor has to be responsible for some code knowledge, but the designer needs to produce a reasonable drawing as well...

 

[ADAguy]

3 flavors:
1. Code minimum (design/build contractor - I don't need no stinking plans, will do it "my way anyway")
2 Bidable with specs to establish level of quality
3. Buildable as in with enough plans and details that it will almost stand up in court.