Abbreviations

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

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 304 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:21 pm:    Years ago, CSI used to publish a book of abbreviations. It is too bad they discontinued it. More and more architeccts are asking me what to call something on the drawings or how to abbreviate the name of a material. I think that CSI could set a good precidence by creating a list of acceptable generic names and abbreviations. (See discussion on 'Tectum' in the Product Discussion forum.) William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 289 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:34 pm:    David, >>> I think that CSI could set a good precidence by creating a list of acceptable generic names and abbreviations. <<< They do - its an entire module of the UDS/NCS publication called "Terms and Abbreviations. William Anonymous   Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 03:03 pm:    As a young (well youngish) specifier may I ask what is UDS/NCS? (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 03:31 pm:    I tried to find a reference to the "Terms and Conditions" module on the CSI website. It is very cleverly hidden; I couldn't find it. Even the information on the National Cad Standard/Uniform Drawing System was minimal. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 291 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 04:02 pm:    Anon, UDS = Uniform Drawing System NCS = National CAD Standard They are one and the same thing. Inside it is a module for abbreviations. Unreg - the information about what is acutually IN the UDS/NCS is totally insufficient. At least what they have up there now is more or less up to date. Until they revised their information only a couple weeks ago, the only information available was over 2 years old. Especially good when looking up who has adopted it (as an owner or architectural firms using it). 9 months ago I asked for an update as to what organizations had adopted it and what firms were using it. Every month for 6 months I sent a question to customer service. Even the Institute President got involved, and yet no one ever did answer my question until finally 9 months later they updated the information. Anyway, the module is not available separately, you have to get UDS to get it. v3.0 is about to be released (or has just been released, not sure) so anyone should wait for that or make sure that is what they ask for. William Helaine K. Robinson CCS Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 59 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 05:26 pm:    On 6/16 I saw the following: Version 3.0 of the U.S. National CAD Standard (NCS) will be released in June! Once it’s released, you can pick up a copy, or an upgrade for Version 2.0, using the CSI Bookstore on CSINet (www.csinet.org). Discounts will be available for CSI members. Version 3.0 includes updates to the NCS package’s eight modules in the Uniform Drawing System (UDS) and the AIA CAD Layering Guidelines. Buyers of Version 3.0 will get the Version 3.1 upgrade at no extra charge when it’s released this fall. Version 3.1 will reflect MasterFormat ™ 2004 Edition and include a CD-ROM version of the package. After Version 3.0 is released, you can determine whether it or the upgrade to Version 2.0 meets your needs by visiting CSINet (www.csinet.org) and clicking on “Bookstore.” Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 101 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 06:33 pm:    David: it might also be worth considering if you want abbreviations at all on the drawings. I'm not certain there is any need for them; the drawing notes should be short enough that having to abbreviate something isn't necessary. I think abbreviations just add another layer to the confusion, and look sloppy. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 37 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 07:23 pm:    First on notes in general (or general notes) Notes are fine. I have found that other than material or demo keynotes, most should be in the spec. and NOT on the drawings, Second, I’d disagree with Anne on the abv. item, inside details especially, living without them is simply NOT an option. The detail box environment is simply too tight. Yes, Limit them, use them consistently, spell out when possible BUT when you abbreviate do so universally. For instance if W/ is going to serve for "with" do it all the time. Don’t switch back and forth. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 293 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:58 pm:    I agree with Marc about notes and that most of the 'general' type notes should be in the spec. At least at my office as an in-house specifier, I have direct input to all general notes. Actually, I have final approval of any on our drawings. Thus I can prevent conflicts, and I can mesh the languge that we have on the drawings with the specifications. The rationale for notes on the drawings is that people don't read the spec anyway. Besides that being irrelevant to the issue, working with our CA group, we find that they don't read the drawing notes either -grin! As for abbreviations, we actually use a keynote system, where the key is not an abbreviation, but an abstract alpha numeric number and its definition is spelled out. There is currently a debate in among our project managers - some display the keynote index on every page of the drawings, some only on the abbreviation and indexing page. Richard L Matteo Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 37 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 01:07 pm:    I tend to agree with most of what everyone has said so far. It is my firm belief that abbreviations, including ampersands(&), have no place in specifications; everything should ne spelled out. As for drawings, notes would become incredibly long if we didn't abbreviate to some extent. The firm I was with in Connecticut had a printed list of abbreviations that was given to every technical employee in the firm. It was also included in the specifications under Division 1. The rule was: "If it is not on the list, do not abbreviate it!" There was some leeway for some projects, but not often. I even had one PM edit the list down to reduce the number of abbreviations! I also agree that they should still be used sparingly on the drawings. I was reviewing drawings one time and found a note that was approximately 2" x 3" and was so full of abbreviations that no one could have understood it! Another item I am trying to institute in my current firm is a list of "keywords" - product and materials terms used in the specifications that should be used on the drawings. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 294 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 03:05 pm:    Richard, Your keywords is definitely the way to go. In our keynote index, every keynote number's definition is actually the keyword term used in the specifications. The people that we all need to convince about this stuff are the consultants. Structural, civil, MEP, pick almost any, their 'general notes' page might as well toss out half of the spec book. They are redundant, and a number of times they have been caught in contradictions with the spec. And they do the same thing over and over with the claim that they have to keep them to cover any gaps in the spec. Right! William Richard L Matteo Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 38 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 03:18 pm:    Absolutely! Another annoying thing the consultants do is repeat a whole buch of stuff in their specs that is already taken care of in Division 1 and a lot of times is contradictory to what is said in Div.1 They even reference Div. 1 sections that don't exist - we normally tell them to reference Div. 1 and not to reference specific section numbers. Since they can never seem to meet a deadline, we ususally get their spec sections the day before we go to print and there is no time to read their specs and get them revised. We also have to get them up to speed on spec section numbering - forget about MF 04, we can't even get them to conform to MF95! John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 243 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 09:08 am:    As to notes on drawings by consultants: I too find this particularly annoying. However, I have had to back off on structural notes. In some cases structural engineers have made persuasive arguments that certain key structural items, such as concrete strength, should be on the drawings because the drawings often survive years into the future for use by other designers, but the specs never do. (Which, I think, is true.) Also, many building codes/departments require that this information appears on the drawings. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 311 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:38 pm:    I have realized that if beating your head against the wall does not get you anywhere, the best thing to do is stop. I am surrendering and throwing up my hands about abbreviations. I am divorcing myself from the problem. As far as I am concerned, abbreviations are a drawing issue, not a spec issue. I very infrequently use abbreviations in the specs. The architects can abbreviate (or not abbreviate) materials in any manner they see fit. I will stick with accepted CSI Masterformat terminology. Richard L. Hird P.E. CCS Member Username: dick_hird Post Number: 3 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:57 pm:    Cognitive Behavioral Modification is becoming very popular these days. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 312 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 04:17 pm:    Me or them? I have realized that you can't rescue a drowning person if they don't want to be rescued. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 39 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 04:28 pm:    I'm from the old school. Negative conditioning and a skinner box. Or to be more sadistic, I use random positive reinforcement. They never know when the food pellet is going drop down from on high and will push the lever until they starve to death. Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 56 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 04:28 pm:    It is hard to watch though, isn't it. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 39 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 04:57 pm:    Electro-Shock treatment might be the best. It is fun to see them jump! Them, of course. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 170 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 02:49 am:    Proposed Architect's Abbreviations Someone has finally produced definitions for architect's common abbreviations that are way too truthful: V.I.F. - Various Items Fudged (Verify in Field) F.O.S. - Face of Something (Face of Stud) N.I.C. - Nobody is Concerned, Nothing is Checked (Not in Contract) SIM - Something in Mind (Similar) O.C. - Obviously Crooked, Overly Confused (On Center) C.L. - Clearly Lopsided (Center Line) S.S. - Something Shiny (Stainless Steel) V.C.T. - Value Carving Technology (Vinyl Composition Tile) ALT. - Altercation (Alternate) R.F.I. - Referral for Ignorance (Request for Information) C.O. - Collusion Opportunity (Change Order) ALIGN - It doesn't match on the drawings, but it should in reality. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 77 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:46 pm:    BTF - beat to fit NLH - nail like hell HM - hammer miter Richard L Matteo Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 56 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 05:58 pm:    When I posted John's abbreviations in my office, someone added another good one: N.T.S. - Not Too Sure (Not To Scale) David J. Wyatt Junior Member Username: dave_wyatt_csi_cca_ccca Post Number: 2 Registered: 09-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:00 am:    These are great! Here's another one: OFCI - Owner forgot, Contractor indifferent (Owner-furnished, Contractor-installed) Does anyone have a good one for A.F.F. (Above finished floor)? The only ones I have heard are unprintable. Richard L Matteo Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 65 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:13 am:    How about "Alternate Fudge Factor" ? Also, somebody in my office came up with "Not Too Sure" for N.T.S. (Not To Scale) David J. Wyatt Member Username: dave_wyatt_csi_cca_ccca Post Number: 3 Registered: 09-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 12:40 pm:    These are great! Here's another one: OFCI - Owner forgot, Contractor indifferent (Owner-furnished, Contractor-installed) Does anyone have a good one for A.F.F. (Above finished floor)? The only ones I have heard are unprintable.