Wall Legends

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Trevor Senior Member Username: trevorpan Post Number: 22 Registered: 04-2014 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2017 - 01:59 pm:    What is the most intelligent way to create a wall legend/schedule? I've seen quite a few ways to have wall assemblies drawn. Some with graphics and notes that point to the various layers. Some have the specification numbers, with no description otherwise. Some have in house codes for wood, steel, thickness, etc. Like F1, F2, F3. In a perfect world, how would you like to see wall legends displayed, in best relation to specifications? Trying to start my templates in revit. Thank you, Trevor Pan http://www.trevorpan.com anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2017 - 06:30 pm:    Trevor, I think you have stumbled into the wrong forum. We're spec writers (mostly) at this discussion thread, not Reviteers. Good luck in finding the right place to post your question - and a warning: folks on this discussion thread are happy to wax on and on about things they know little about, no topic is off limits, so if you do get a response to your question from someone here, just be wary... Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 669 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2017 - 06:54 pm:    I think he is in exactly the correct place for his question, "In a perfect world, how would you like to see wall legends displayed, in best relation to specifications?". I don't work w/ revit, but other specifiers do and may have some thoughts. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 581 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2017 - 07:45 pm:    Trevor, There are ways not to do this. I keep at my desk (to scare the younger folks) a binder from a famous A/E firm, published in 1986 titled "XXX Partition Selector". Their idea was to assign a Partition Type to every conceivable combination of stud thickness, stud gauge, stud spacing, fire rating, load PSF, Maximum Height given for L/120, L/240. L/360, STC Rating, and finally, maximum height allowed by local code in San Francisco in 1985. There are 159 pages formatted with 2 wall assembly plan details at the top and a spreadsheet of 8 wall types varying by the criteria noted above on the bottom half of the page. All told, the binder includes 1272 wall types. That is not clear, concise or correct. They quickly had to limit access to the binders because designers would browse through it to find the ideal wall for every situation so that projects would have 48 interior wall types. Turning something straight forward into something very complicated. I have had several projects where the Contractor offered a no cost substitution to all 16 gauge studs at 16 inches on center because that eliminated a college trained superintendent from the job site who would have been needed to interpret all the wall types. Trevor Senior Member Username: trevorpan Post Number: 23 Registered: 04-2014 Posted on Friday, February 24, 2017 - 12:20 pm:    Thank you, I've started my firm full time last year, and would like to set up a wall legend and schedule template. Now, if you don't use revit, no big deal, perhaps that was an unnecessary detail. I haven't joined CSI just yet ... so we're even. 1272 wall types is quite a lot. I've found some different ways of displaying the info from different firms (images attached). Maybe we could take a look at these? I'd like to find that "perfect world" display of detail, but not too much, reference to specifications (if necessary on the legends/schedule). The advantage with my own company is common sense can be applied, and no upper management to tell me otherwise. So, if you're open to giving your expert opinions on how best to display this info that'd be great. Trevor Pan http://www.trevorpan.com Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 70 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2017 - 12:12 am:    Trevor, I wrote about this on my long since abandoned blog. Archfuse.blogspot.com The short answer...schedule the partitions in Revit so that only the partitions used show up. Trevor Senior Member Username: trevorpan Post Number: 24 Registered: 04-2014 Posted on Monday, February 27, 2017 - 10:30 am:    Hi Brian, Thank you. I've actually come across your post. Revit, is not really the main concern. My real query has to do with how much info to show on the wall legends. Certainly, calling out layers is essential. Steven, above, had over 1200 wall types at his firm. I imagine those principals had a very good reason to do that many wall types. I'm questioning if that is "really" necessary. Maybe it is. I've also seen an architectural firm only use masterformat numbers on details/elevations with no other descriptions, which seems accurate but not too useful for someone without the spec book. Ideally, how much info should be shown. Is it best to have e.g. a steel stud wall (A), and the modifiers are on the elevations vs. 10 different wall types (A1,A1.1,A1.2, etc.)? Should masterformat numbers be referenced, perhaps in a column? Or is that unnecessary? Trevor Pan http://www.trevorpan.com Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 72 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Monday, February 27, 2017 - 03:13 pm:    Here is my attempt to simplify the wall types and more importantly I wanted the partition designation to be meaningful so that our firm's staff could memorize the schema. Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 73 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Monday, February 27, 2017 - 03:25 pm:    I will add this...one of the key things for me was to make sure that the partition schedule didn't unnecessarily overlap the information provided in the specifications. This greatly reduced the info required and reduced the overall number of wall types. Examples: Stud material: We don't do wood, so I got off easy. Stud spacing: Spec calls out 16" o.c. Stud gauge: Delegated Design so not included in partition type. Moisture Resistant: Spec calls out locations...not included in partition type. Tile Backer Board: Spec calls out locations...not included in partition type. Base Condition: Modeled in Revit or Scheduled in dwgs (just don't go there) Also...Revit modeling techniques impact things... I model my restroom wet walls and most furring as separate walls...which means I need fewer wall types for all the different combos possible. George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 847 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, February 27, 2017 - 03:39 pm:    Brian- Good specification practice as defined by CSI states that location belongs in the drawings, not in the spec. I am curious how you define location for the various types of boards. What specific language do you use? Do you try to do standard language that does not vary by job, or do you refine the language for each job? Trevor Senior Member Username: trevorpan Post Number: 25 Registered: 04-2014 Posted on Monday, February 27, 2017 - 05:02 pm:    Hi Brian, Definitely a clean explanation. Nicely done with lower case letters, too. In this case, would your wall tag in revit say 3BND? and it refers to a legend like on your blog post? Now, with studs, I worked for a structural engineer for a few years, and they called out spacing, concrete mix, etc. Do you find there is competition with structural, or does it defacto defer to their specs. For instance, if the spec says 16", but in a certain location, it really is a 12" spacing for structural needs that could cause some confusion.. George, thank you for your thoughts, too. Trevor Pan http://www.trevorpan.com Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 74 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Monday, February 27, 2017 - 05:17 pm:    George - Generally, I absolutely agree with you...in this case I'm following the language in BSD SpecLink (as you know, owned by CSI) that includes information about location. I try to not break the "rules" often, but sometimes it does make it much easier...and the fact that's it already in the Masterspec gives me a bit more leeway. Trevor - 3BND with a box around it...YES. Yes, it is further described through the legend that only shows the walls actually used in the project and updates automatically. (By far the best thing I've done in my template in the last 10 years) I don't find many conflicts...mainly because I only use those for interior non-load bearing interior partitions that are specified to be engineered through delegated design. A quick not that says provide ______ unless otherwise indicated should cover you. Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 75 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Monday, February 27, 2017 - 05:21 pm:    George - Here is an example from BSD "Backing Board For Non-Wet Areas: Water-resistant gypsum backing board as defined in ASTM C1396/C1396M; sizes to minimum joints in place; ends square cut. Application: Vertical surfaces behind thinset tile, except in wet areas." Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 582 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, February 27, 2017 - 05:52 pm:    I tend to modify and apply the Supreme Court's ruling against "Cruel and unusual punishment" regarding the death penalty for determining when I bend the rules against defining location in the specifications. If there is 1 solid gold toilet seat in a 1,000,000 SF hospital project, I will gladly state the location in the Toilet Accessories Section. Trevor Senior Member Username: trevorpan Post Number: 26 Registered: 04-2014 Posted on Monday, February 27, 2017 - 07:43 pm:    the cat pic makes your note even more funny Steven. Did you see the artist at the Guggenheim recently with the solid gold toilet? https://www.guggenheim.org/exhibition/maurizio-cattelan-america Correction: 18kt gold Trevor Pan http://www.trevorpan.com George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 848 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2017 - 02:13 pm:    When I learned about CDT, the instructor started off by saying "There is the right way, the wrong way, and the CSI way. This class and the exams are about the CSI way." When I starting teaching CDT and certifications, I had a similar approach; but over the years I have adopted the opinion that the CSI way is the right way. After all, it is based on sound interpretation of governing documents, contracts, and so forth. But here's the thing: Steven Bruneel is correct. Once you know the right way, you are free to deviate from it because you (presumably) have the knowledge and experience to understand the risks and implications of deviating. I'd suggest that toilet seat probably deserves it own spec section and shouldn’t be in toilet accessories, but otherwise, I agree with him. As relating to risk, Brian's use of BSD language to locate backing board in non-wet areas is not a big deal because installers understand what needs to be done on most jobs, so it ends up getting done correctly. But you properly need to define all the terms to make it work. Is the back splash area between the base and wall cabinets a wet area? Is the bathroom wall outside the shower surround a wet area? What happens when you have a vertical wall with a small horizontal area, like a window stool? What happens when your designer wants a slightly inclined wall – is it vertical or horizontal, or something else? Do you use ASTM C840 or a GA standard to locate control joints in gypsum walls? Not a bad time saver for most jobs, but that relies on the craftsmanship and aesthetic sense of the installer. What about in that big assembly space with all the doors where the 30’ on center rule doesn’t quite work out visually? You can start listing exceptions like put control joints at doorways, but it’s better to draw the wall in elevation (which you have done anyway, probably) and show the joints. I only raise these issues to raise awareness, and I’m probably preaching to the choir on this forum. Using standardized spec language to locate work is a more acceptable risk in smaller firms, where everyone understands what the spec says, and where everyone (or someone) is aware that an out of the ordinary situation calls for a re-evaluation of what the spec says. In larger firms, it’s less acceptable and riskier because there are more cracks for things to drop into, and far few people know what is typically in the spec. Locating work in the spec instead of on the drawings can be an acceptable deviation from standard specification practice, but there is no substitution for making sure everyone on the team understands the standards. That's why so many of us preach the value of the CDT for everyone on the team, and the certifications for the key people doing the specs and CCA. Trevor Senior Member Username: trevorpan Post Number: 27 Registered: 04-2014 Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2017 - 05:43 pm:    Hi George, Thank you for the insightful post. The CDT is the next major title I'd like to earn. More than anything, this post aimed at producing the most proper wall schedules and legends. As you can see in the examples I've found on the web, many firms handle this info differently—in content and graphically. Appreciate all thoughts above. Trevor Pan http://www.trevorpan.com