Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: CAD - Standard for Detail Names?- LONG![Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
- Subject: RE: CAD - Standard for Detail Names?- LONG!
- From: "Dennis S. Wish" <wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:27:10 -0800
Bob, I am at a loss for using 32 character standards to identify details more clearly. I am not using a block viewing program other than the thumbnails saved with each "W" or "Wblock" command as I mentioned in my previous post on Intellicad. I used to have a book of paper details with file names to search, but hated pulling the book out and updating it each time a detail changed. One problem I had is simply standardizing the size of the detail. If I stick to a 6-1/4" box, it looks small when placed in a 30x42 sheet of details containing a grid of 5 across by 4 deep (20 per sheet). However, it fits nicely in a 24x36 sheet of twelve details. Therefore, I have created details for one clients project that fits a larger standard and have to cram it all together when working in 24x36. As far as storage, I follow a similar convention. Inasmuch as Autocad defaults to one directory I place all of my details under a folder called Symbols. Each sub-folder is further defined as "conventional framing", "Steel", "wood", "masonry", "foundations", "URM Retrofit" (with various classifcations such as 'tension', 'shear' etc.). For nails, bolts, weld symbols - I create a folder called "components" and sub-folder it for "Simpson Connectors" (with further Sub-folders), 'Nuts & Bolts', Common Nails', 'wood joists' etc. I just started to do this and find that at least it narrows down the number of files per folder and makes it easier to find duplicates or to standardize names. It is also easier to search than trying to scroll down a long list of non-descript or confusing names. There are many shareware products to help create thumbnail detail libraries that pop-up in AutoCad. Generally, they cost over $100.00 and leave much to be desired (I've tried many of them). It's funny in a way, Visual Cadd, which has had such a rocky evolution, has one of the best block and component archive methods I've ever seen. If you want to create a block file on the hard drive you simply define the block and drag it over to the symbol manager - which saves it to your drive and creates a thumbnail on the desktop. You can load any number of details or components and have them stay on your screen as a toolbar to simply pick from. When you are through, you simply remove all symbols that you don't use. Now why can't Autodesk come up with something as simple and useful as this in their expensive package? Another useful tip I might offer is to create library drawings of common details. For example, I have one drawing that is nothing by plywood web joists. Once the sheet is created, block each of the sections and save the sheet. It appears to be blank, but has all of the plywood joists embedded in the sheet. Insert the sheet into your drawing at whatever scale you choose. You only need to choose from existing blocks from then on rather than search your drive for a block location. When you are through working on the sheet, purge everthing not referenced in the drawing and your done. You can even set up a standard detail sheet with a border and grid and embedded blocks such as sections in any material, weld symbols, nails, bolts and nuts, frequently used hangers and clips etc. This way you're ready to draw and don't have to recreate blocks such as a 2x6 - you can even restrict your block to 1x1 and simply scale it to 1.5x5.5 (although this is time consuming verses choosing a 2x6 from a list of available blocks). One more tip: In release 14 you can save dimension styles drawing setups as script files. If anyone does not know how to do this, I will provide directions. It comes in handy when you use specific text sizes, dimension tick marks, colors or detail standards. You can even export the definition from one drawing and insert it into another. Check out the AutoCad 14 bonus disk for this feature. Dennis Wish PE |-----Original Message----- |From: Robert Grandmaison [mailto:robert(--nospam--at)mkmassociates.com] |Sent: Friday, February 20, 1998 9:35 AM |To: 'seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org' |Subject: RE: CAD - Standard for Detail Names?- LONG! | | |Currently we use a thumbnail image binder and file cabinet system |described, pretty much, as in the message I am replying to. | |We currently have around 1200 standard details/notes. The arbitrary |numbering system makes some sense for us, because many details don't |have a clearcut neat pigeon hole to plug them into...jee- is this a |roof to wall detail, a shear transfer detail, etc...And more often the |type of detail we use for a project is more determined by if it is a |residential (i.e. wood frame) detail or a commercial detail (i.e. cmu, |conc, steel, etc.). We have a commercial and a residential engineering |committee which meet regularly and modify and create new details as |need be. Most details that get used regularly are known by the |drafters by their numbers and when a project gets to us from the |engineering department it has a stack of details that have been culled |from the file cabinet and redmarked as need be for inclusion into the |project. But it sure seems to me like a lot of wasted paper and the |slow way of doing things. | |Our standard detail sheets (typical construction details and notes) |all xref in the standard details so as we make changes to the masters, |the standard S1 and S2 sheets all get revised automatically. | |It's kind of interesting hearing how other firms do this kind of nuts |and bolts CAD operations stuff! | |Thanks, |Robert Grandmaison |MKM & Assoicates |Structural Engineers |
- RE: CAD - Standard for Detail Names?- LONG!
- From: Robert Grandmaison
- RE: CAD - Standard for Detail Names?- LONG!
- Prev by Subject: RE: CAD - Standard for Detail Names?- LONG!
- Next by Subject: RE: CAD - Standard for Detail Names?- LONG!
- Previous by thread: RE: CAD - Standard for Detail Names?- LONG!
- Next by thread: RE: CAD - Standard for Detail Names?- LONG!