I have been furnished drawings (not done by an architect) for a 4,200 sf house done to 1/8″ scale. I can probably suffer through these for estimating purposes, but am concerned that come building time, this tiny scale will be problematic. Anyone ever use 1/8″ scale drawings for large project, or is it just ridiculous to even think about it.
Thanks.
Making mitered head casings is a breeze with this simple system.
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial NowGet instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
Replies
If it was done on any kind of "CAD" get them to reprint at a larger scale.
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
Its not actually just a re-print type operation if they want to maintain architectural graphic standard text sizes. They would have to alter all the text sizes, re-do some other things and it sounds like the plans will not fit on D size sheet. Nothing wrong with 1/8" scale, but it sounds like they need to add some enlarged plans of rooms/areas at 1/4" scales. We have done a ton of plans at 1/8" for commerical projects. Some new building information modelling (BIM) tools make this quite a bit easier, but not too many using this yet.
Brad
we build out 20,000 SF High end T.I spaces all in 1/8" scale. I don't like it when any other scale is used. What size are your plans. all ours are 36" x 42"
Now House may be different due to the many details required....
ML
Now House may be different due to the many details required....
True, but if the archy did a good job with the plans, the floor plan is not much more than a point of reference and there are several pages of details in larger scale."Put your creed in your deed." Emerson
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
Take them to Kinkos and copy and double them if you think you want 1/8".
I used to print a letter sized copy of the elevations and fold them up and keep them in my pocket.
Bid on dimesions, not scale.
Chuck Slive, work, build, ...better with wood
Thats a bit dangerous for costing. The scales can go out of whack a bit, plus most general notes on drawings always say "do not scale drawings." Yeah, yeah, I know most everybody does because many times draftspeople dont always think about what dimensions a contractor may need or is being pushed to get it done. Some firms will "re-cycle" designs and not alter things to the specific project they are working on. That means they will manually alter dimensions so the scale will not work out.
Brad
Wouldn't bother me as long as they are legible and professionally drawn. Lot's of larger homes done at 3/16" or 1/8" scale. If you can rely on the accuracy of the dimensions go ahead and get them enlarged at a copy center for better readability. Construction drawings should not be scaled to figure dimensions, written dimensions should always take precedence over what they might scale at.
All the commercial jobs we used to build in NYC were done in 1/8" scale. Of course you had sections and details as needed, but the floor plans were 1/8".
Rich
this tiny scale will be problematic. Anyone ever use 1/8" scale drawings for large project, or is it just ridiculous to even think about it.
1/8 is very common for commercial work, on 36z24 sheets. You get used to the scale after a while. What's weird is when the plans "need" to be 3/32 to fit--that's not a common scale on a 6" pocket scale at all (and a 12" scale is pain on the job site).
1/8 is getting to be more common with B-sized (aka Tabloid; 17 x 11) sheets in residential work.
Thanks for the feedback. Thus far, this client has been using a self described "designer" vs. an archy. We have exterior elevations (with no dimensions), floor plans (with many, but not all dimensions), no sections, no details, no window schedule (only nominal window sizes), no mechanical drawings. Did I mention that he anticipates acting as GC?
It's going to take a fair amount of hand holding. Just trying to figure out how to structure a bid with some many unknowns, and not take a bath on the extra time that this will take.
I'm surprised to hear a draftsman mention a scale on a job site.I thought the instructions were "do not scale dimensions", printed at the bottom of every sheet?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
"do not scale dimensions",
That's Construction 101. But I have had it happen very recently on a commercial job, with bad results."Put your creed in your deed." Emerson
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
You can't scale off of teh prints because the reproduction process looses some of the accuracy. You can scale off of the originals though. 1/8" is fairly common. SOmetimes it's either that or you have to split the drawing onto several pages. Want to see a builder throw a fit? Show him drawings where the floor plan spans several pages. Personally I'd rather have a well dimensioned drawing at a small scale.
Yep, never scale the drawings. When things get to crunch time in the drafting end of things and walls or whatever are moved this way or that to accomodate a larger/smaller door or window, or increase it a footprint 12" this way, 6" the other way often times the dimensions are erased or overwritten without making the actual correction to the plan. That still can backfire too.
Heck, around here people tear pages out of plan books and use those as their "plan". So having a scaled drawing is a good thing.
I don't recall how long you've been around BT, but here's one "plan " I got a few years back:
View Image
Hey, can I buy that design from you? ; ^ ) Mike
Small wheel turn by the fire and rod, big wheel turn by the grace of god.
I always love how those folks with the napkin plans get upset when the rooms end up smaller due to the widths of the walls. Where did they think that space was going to come from?
I actually had a lady get ticked off at me about that one time. She had a "line drawing" done at 1/8" scale, and had figured her square footage based on that.When I drew her floor plan to scale, she wanted her 16' wide rooms to be 16' wide on the INSIDE of the walls. And she didn't understand how that affected the total square footage of the house.I drew 4 different plans for her before she finally got one that she liked. But I don't think she ever did believe me about the square footage thing...
The other day I slammed a finger in the car door. My friend sure was pissed.
What, you do not have infinetly thin walls there? That makes me laugh, cause I have dealt with that a lot. Odd how so many dont understand that when you have 10 party walls equals is 45" to 65". We fought with a client trying to fit some silly portable facility into a small shack over this exact thing. It didnt fit, he did not agree. We agreed to disagree. Worst was an architect that was updating his unit plans, but not the overall plan (did not tell us that until about three revisions of plans). We kept telling them our columns fit into their walls after overlaying their plan onto ours, but they said otherwise. We finally got to the bottom of it only to find the lead arch "didnt truss CAD dimensions." I might have came a bit unglued.
Brad
One of our space planners at work gave me a floor plan printed to fit 24x36 paper, and I think the gross floor area is about 30,000 sf so the image is kinda small. I still don't understand why she thinks she has to include the entire floor when we're working in one quadrant. I see only one dimension for the wall she wants to add, but I can't read it cuz the print is too small, so I went to her desk and asked for clarification. She calls up the plan on the pc, snaps a dimension, and says I need to start 3'-9 1/8" off an existing wall. I asked if it would be ok to start 3'-9" off. She thinks for a minute, looks at me with a serious expression, and say "well I guess so, if you must". "Put your creed in your deed." Emerson
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
lol
too funny. It takes years to beat that out of draftspersons and far too many firms could care less about the site guys when preparing drawings. Interesting that a space planner does not plan her drawing space a bit more practical:)
>>It takes years to beat that out of draftspersons and far too many firms could care lessWhich should have been taught in school in the first place.What really annoys me of late are the number who have no idea of what they are drafting, so, any dimension the cad system coughs back _has_ to be right <grr>So, when some bojo fails to close a couple lines early in the design process (since _every_ snap is turned on, including "hand grenade close") and every other person in the office has offset from that line like it was gospel, and it's only at the plan details stage anyone notices that the column grid is 1'30" out of square, and that's why one overall wall dimension is 1.6574 bricks longer than the other . . . (and no amount of rounding on the Dimensions will really cure that . . . )Another thing that gets over looked is that the CAD files often should not be scaled off of, either--that they can often need to be "dimensioned" by some one who knows what they are doing.
<sigh>Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
True, it should be taught in school. The reality is many of the profs may not have done much actual framing and may not be the best teachers for this aspect. It is quite similar in engineering. I got to know one of my university profs, and I finally asked him how long he worked out in industry. He proceeded to tell me he worked about 4yrs, but he did not like it so he went back to school to get his PHd to teach. Makes sense why some young engineers come out of school lacking practical knowledge about how things go together. I have taken on many of my own simple building projects over the years and come hear to listen to tradesman because I think it makes me better at my job.
There is a major change starting in the design field. Building Information Modelling (BIM) is catching on and clients are starting to list this as a deliverables in their contracts. This tool allows designers to build things in virtual space and the modeller sees right off the bat what may or may not fit properly. Now I know people will say, oh, you mean software like sketchup. Thats not it at all. BIM software such as Tekla Structures, Autodesk Revit (arch version too) and archisoft are what I am referring to. Using this I can create my 2D plans from my 3D model and the computer keeps track of the mundane numbering and other simple tasks that are so frequently screwed up. As an added benefit, it also gives material quantities, but the quality of the model still boils down to the modeller. There is a bit of a struggle going on amoungst designers as to whom starts/controls the models as well as liability related to the modelling process.
Brad
BIM software such as Tekla Structures, Autodesk Revit (arch version too)
As an academic exercise, I can find few faults with BIM. I personally feel we should have been teaching atchitecture and construction from that sort of basis all along.
As an actual tool for use by business, BIM is not my friend. Revit Architecture leads that list, too. It's targeted at offices to 150+ CAD seats, and towards the $150+ million dollar projects such firms work on. (And it still does not have a truly useful CD tool to generate plan documents for wet stamps & permits, either.) Firms of that size are only drafting about 10% of all the architectural work out there.
And, that's the rub of it. Until revit will draw a strip center, or a house, or a fast food joint better than the "flat" CAD software out there, it does not matter if it does it better, intellectually. Until I can knock out a tip-up high-cube retail shopping center, and the BOM includes sealants, cant strips, and all the "forgotten" things the contractors need, "flat CAD" will be the way of it.
That is, if we can find people who can "get" that buildings are processes of systems--other wise the poor contractors are stuck with brick dimensions measuered in 3/16" increments, or some other equally silly, but "right on my drawing" plans.
But, I'm biased.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
We are not a 150+ seat firm, and I know of a few other smaller firms using this software. We use Tekla structures for modelling the structure and have found it very helpful to avoid silly mistakes, numbering errors, accidentially moving a column or a gridline or other silly things that can crop up from time to time. The number of fit problems has dropped off quite a lot since starting with this. I tried Revit before making the plunge, but didnt like the drag and drop concept. I agree, its not much of a tool for the field personelle. They will always need the 2D plans, but this software has a tremendous advantage for the technician using it and that should reduce the problems in the field by catching errors earlier. They can immediatelly see conflicts. Does it speed the drafting process? No, because instead of spending lots of time drawing lines and other such tasks technicians are modelling building elements. I agree that it will never provide you the sealants and all the little bits that site personelle need.
For houses I agree, flat cad is pretty darn tough to beat. For the most part, many are not that hard to visualize in 3D space, but once things get complicated 3D is great. I can take my 3D model, transfer it directly into my other software, analyze it, alter it, and transfer the changes back. Previously, there were about three useless steps.
We will have to wait and see how it develops.
Brad
Yeah. and she draw the walls 3" thick then complains when the finished room doesn't exactly match what she drew. i try to tell her that I can't build a 3" wall, and that vunless there is millwork going there it doesn't matter."Put your creed in your deed." Emerson
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
I like the descriptive legend in the upper right corner -
I can't read the legend but that house is so basic that if it has flat ceilings all on one level, and the outside dimensions are noted, it's probably good enough. That assumes of course that the standard heels and overhangs are discusses and notated somewhere. I'd make those notations and have the client sign that copy, use it as part of the design proposal and be willing to design trusses for it. It looks like a basic U shaped truss system. If I was in a position where plans like that were coming in, I'd probably have a part time CAD guy in my hip pocket that I would refer the clients too. I'd make sure the CAD guy wasn't one of the types that like to jazz up the plans too much...I'd prefer more of a vanilla "get the lines on the paper" type referral so the cost would be minimal.
I'm not sure, but looks to be a legend representing something from the dashed and solid lines. Drawing is actually done neatly with a straight edge. Probably conveyed the information it needed to.
I thought the same thing. All I know is that a house that simple really doesn't need much more information for a set of trusses unless it's got some wild up and down walls and ceilings. Judging from the money spent on the blueprints, I'd bet my last dollar that they wanted 4" heels, flat ceilings, gables on each end with two reverse gables, and 12" maintenance free overhangs (wood wrapped in aluminum). It probably took the truss programmer a whopping ten minutes to draw it and another minute to punch the buttons to get the engineering drawings printed out.
Find a drafting supply store and get an Architects Scale. Mine has 11 scales (from 1/8"/ft to 3"/ft) and a 12" rule with 1/16" divisions.
With a little practice, you can pull your dimensions pretty easily.
Be careful trying to make scaled up copies of your drawings. That scale factor on the copier usually isn't as accurate as people want to think it is.
I would never build from any plans without all necessary dimensions printed on them. No way would I pull the dimensions off with a scale, especially at 1/8 to a foot.
However, when I furnish design proposals to clients who have not yet signed me to build it, I turn off the dimension layer before I print his copy, because I do not want him passing my designs off to another builder for a low-ball bid. I charge enough for design and drawings that only someone who is serious will order them, but I do not charge all my hours. I expect to get those hours back in the construction phase.
Maybe that's the case with your client's designer?
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not brought
low by this? For thine evil pales before that which
foolish men call Justice....
Naw, my client's designer is simply incompetent and in over her head. In fact, she pirated a design from another source, tweaked it just a hair, just barely a hair, and then had the gall to copyright the design. It really annoys the heck out of me but if I walk away based on principal, someone else will simply walk in and do this job.
Naw, my client's designer is simply incompetent and in over her head. In fact, she pirated a design from another source, tweaked it just a hair, just barely a hair, and then had the gall to copyright the design.
Is she too incompetent to provide rough dimensions that are just precise enough for decent cost estimating? That protects 'her' copyright but provides your (and her) client a reasonably good chance of your estimate being worth the paper it's printed on.
Of course, if she doesn't wanna do the grunt work, you're gonna have to charge the client for you to do it yourself....
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....