Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: construction Drawings

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
...by the time you find the drafter and show him/her the changes and
red-mark it for them you would have already been done doing it yourself. My
experience has been that in general plan drawings are more static than
detail drawings. Once the plans are established and the most suitable layout
is chosen then it is mostly details.

Ghassem.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:52 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: construction Drawings


I will agree yet also disagree (and yes, I sound like a politician).

I agree that when drawing/"CADDing" a detail, it makes sense to have the
engineer do it.  The "old" method is that the engineer whould "sketch"
(which for me, since I am anal, would mean meticulously drawing it to
scale) the detail that then the CADD operator would re-draw on CADD.  It
certainly makes more sense for me just to "sketch" my original detail up
on CADD, which should effectively reduce the effort by about half
(assuming that I am as efficient in CADD as the CADD operator).

However, there is a lot more to creating structural construction drawings
than just details.  And a lot of that effort is work that should not be
done by mid-level or senior level engineers (and maybe not even junior
level engineers).  There is creating plan sheets, schedules for things
like columns, note sheets, and in many offices, typical details sheets.

Let's take a simple example.  Let's say the architect wants to change the
size of an opening by 1'-0".  Assume for the moment that this does not
require any additional engineering effort, just a change to the plans.
You will be hard pressed to convince me that it would be more efficient in
the use of time and resources to have an engineer make this change that a
CADD operator, especially if there are other actual engineering problems
that still need to be resolved.

Ultimately, the solution is going to be office dependent.  For example, a
one person office will obviously require the engineer to do everything.
The same could be true for a two or three person office.  But beyond that,
it is much more likely that a CADD operator would be required.  I tend to
feel that there should be at least one CADD operator for every 4 to 5
engineers as an absolute minimum.

Just my thoughts.

Scott

On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Roger Turk wrote:

> 
> Well said!
> 
> In the days of hand calcs and drafting, the engineer made a "sketch" of
the 
> detail and gave it to the drafter (or the drafter was given a set of plans

> for a similar project).  If, as in many cases, the "sketch" was drawn to 
> scale with the applicable notes and dimensions shown, the drafter
oftentimes 
> just traced the detail and neatly lettered the dimensions and notes.  The 
> engineer actually did the drafting and the drafter transferred the 
> information to the plans.
> 
> With CAD, the engineer can just turn to his/her computer, instead of
pulling 
> out a piece of paper, and draw the detail, complete with neatly lettered 
> dimensions, symbols, and descriptive notes.  No need to have it traced or 
> redrawn.  Since plans are nothing more than a compilation of various
details, 
> all that remains is to insert the various elements on the appropriate
sheets.
> 
> When an architect suggests that they do the drafting, I explain to them
that 
> I have to do the same amount of work producing drawings that they can 
> incorporate on their plans as I would in doing the structural sheets.
With 
> that, they generally see that it is not going to save them any money.  A
side 
> benefit is that I now have record prints or plots showing what I produced
in 
> case anything is modified.
> 
> A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
> Tucson, Arizona
>