From: Christopher Wright <chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 01 12:29:33 -0600
>As I said
>before, there certainly are other ways of communicating your design to
>others. I would like to hear of the successes.
We gearheads generally do it your way--detailed drawings with fab methods
indicated if not specified--if only because most machinery is fabbed and
designed by the same entity. I'm all for it--it makes better designs,
better QA and better performance and fewer misunderstandings. I've had
occasion to work with building plans with no bills of materials, no item
numbers and everything specified as 'or equiv.' It seemed a little
clearer how one of the Palo Verde nuke plant units ended up rotated 180
deg. Detailed drawings sure clear up design intent issues, particularly
situations where the designer intends to ignore details that might be
To be fair it's a lot easier when you can get the fabricator in on the
job early which isn't possible for a lot of building structures. I've
worked on a few projects for fabrication by parties unknown, and we were
always arguing over how far to take it, particularly welding. It's
impossible to guess what any given fabricator might want to do by way of
groove detail or weld process, and most of the time there's a lot of
leeway and a lot of very good reasons to keep the fabricator happy.
Meaning happy enough to get the work done but not so happy as he might be
to get first class payment for second class work.
Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant from
chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com | this distance" (last words of Gen.
___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)