Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Level of Detailing

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I agree that "sim" is very misused and very often not understood by the parties that must use the drawings to detail, fabricate or build from. We try to use it only sparingly and when we do, we describe in a note what the difference is between the detail referenced and the similar detail.
 
For example:  Note: at sim. no concrete deck
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Getaz [mailto:jgetaz(--nospam--at)shockeyprecast.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:40 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Level of Detailing

            Bill Polhemus wrote: “EXCEPTION: "Similar" details that work across the board,” as a response to “As an Architect and builder, I see absolutely no reason why every aspect of a structural design isn't drawn to scale.  IMO its pure laziness that details are drawn NTS.  With the sophistication of CAD programs today, there is no excuse for not drawing to scale.”

 

            Bill,

                        I hope you never draw for me. I hate, “Sim.” I never know what part is sim and what part is not. I’ve seen more than I ever wanted of sims that did not work, so I expect that none of them work across the board. Sorry to be so vociferous, but sim gets marked in red when I’m checking drawings. I sometimes have to ask an architect or engineer of record what sim. means on their drawings, too. If I do not and my reasonable choice turns out to be wrong when it is put in place in the field, it costs my company money to fix it.

                        Further, as a subcontractor’s engineer, I hate getting a call from our shop or our erector. If rebar does not fit or some other interference occurs, I make sure the detailer learns what he did not draw in his detail.

            Jim Getaz

            Precast Concrete Engineer