"Sheet Specs"

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

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message Helaine K. Robinson CSI CCS CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 401 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - 06:55 pm:    CSI Cincinnati Chapter was asked by AIA Cincinnati to make a presentation on Sheet Specs in November. Any comments or suggestions (other than avoiding them)? hollyrob19@gmail.com Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 84 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - 07:20 pm:    One way to answer it, is this way. How much risk do they want to take? Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1265 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - 07:28 pm:    As a specifier, I use to hate them, too. But why? For very simple projects (i.e. small renovations, TIs, etc.) why should the effort be made to prepare a full set of specifications? Especially when the parties have worked together before on previous projects. Here's an article that I wrote that you/they can use as a resource if they wish: http://specsandcodes.com/Articles/Keynotes%20No.%2015%20-%20Sheet%20Specifications.pdf Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 161 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - 09:56 pm:    Holly, You bring up a topic that has been dormant for over 4 years. At that time I mentioned that sheet specs were mainly applicable for owner-builder projects that had no oversight from the designer during construction. In my "architect" days, we used sheet specs on every project for residential, small commercial and industrial buildings, and interior remodels. Those days ended in the early 80s when I switched to writing specifications full time. That was before the PC was introduced by IBM, so we were working with Wordstar. That data is unfortunately stored on 5-1/14-inch floppy disks somewhere, or I would send you a copy. I developed a simple system that basically replaced the section name with the Division name. There were 16 "sections" named after the divisions. The "articles" were named after the sections required. The paragraphs were the organized like article topics. And so on.. There were no CSI section numbers. There were no parts. The text was mostly Part 2 information with some Part 3 recommendations. The Divisions worked like Sections, and the Sections took the form of Articles. The structure looked something like this: DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. Summary of Work: 1. ... B. Regulatory Requirements: 1. ... DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK A. Earthwork: 1. and so on...(Note that the numbered lines are indented, but indents don't show in this format.) It was printed in a single column on a matrix line printer or a golf ball IBM Selectric typewriter with a line width that fit the module width of the drawing sheet. Then it was cut to column lengths, pasted up, and sent out for a Xerox on velum. That now seems like cave man technology. The whole spec fit on about three 24" by 36" sheets. What this system does is organize general notes into a logical format, which is something an architect will understand. So, when you prepare your presentation, think like an architect, not as a specifier, and you'll make a connection. David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS Architectural Resources Co. Vivian Volz, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 140 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2014 - 12:16 am:    Ron has done a great job covering the nuts and bolts of sheet specs. I would add that the firm needs a clear set of rules about when sheet specs may be used, based on risk management decision. I normally advise: - trusted client - trusted contractor - no risky assemblies or practices This means your first LEED v4 job shouldn't be a sheet spec, nor should it contain a design element that you've had trouble with in the past. Often, retail tenant improvement projects are built with sheet specs, even when the storefront is exterior. However, I encourage most other clients with other project types to consider exterior work off-limits for sheet specs. Hope this helps you and your chapter decide whether and how to speak about shet specs! Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 696 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2014 - 12:13 pm:    My firm does specs on drawings in MSWORD and AutoCAD. Basically the end result is a shortform specification. Herman R. Hoyer, PE, FCSI, CCS wrote ellequently about this years ago. He said "Creating and developing short-form specifications requires specialized knowledge and skill, and imparting this special knowledge is the purpose of this column. It also requires an appreciation of the concept that the length of specifications should be kept in realistic proportion to the cost of the project. First, let’s define short-form specifications and establish some guidelines. Short-form specifications are construction specifications reduced to the shortest length possible without reducing the effectiveness of the specifications and without sacrificing any essential ingredients. For smaller projects, short-form specifications can take the form of notes on the drawings. Creating and developing short-form specs is not a process involving abridgement or condensation of so-called long-form specifications. Instead, it is a fresh approach involving the reengineering of construction specifications. Abridgement of long-form specifications invariably leads to omitting important elements. The end product of our endeavor for this column will be “state-of-the-art specifications.” My short-form specs have withstood the test of many field applications, as well as the test of time, dating back to 1965. I have never received any negative feedback. In fact, feedback from contractors has been positive and enthusiastic. They freely admit to bidding lower on projects with shorter specs. Their premise: there is less to read and, therefore, less chance of overlooking something." Mr. Hoyer's monthly columns were once available on this forum. They may have been archived. Specs on drawings is not risk taking. Division 01 is not omitted. To repeat Mr. Hoyer, "We have never received any negative feedback." Christopher Borcsok Senior Member Username: ckb Post Number: 41 Registered: 06-2013 Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2014 - 02:41 pm:    I recently tried to get a change in my office where I am following Ron's article above, and the best approach I've had is to save Word file as RTF, open in WordPad, then copy and paste to an AutoCAD mtext object. As well, the specs tended to just be one glob of text that wasn't really broken down, or in a particular order, and for me, the issue of determining what was added or deleted on one job versus another was harrowing. One of our newer cad guys has come up with an annotative block to produce a nice border around multi-column text, get nice spacing, etc. Anyway, the issue I've encountered is this: font. I don't know why RomanS has always been so popular (I guess I'm just too young), but when using the dwg to pdf plotter in autocad, it seems that Autocad has to convert .shx fonts into images, and that significantly increases the file sizes of drawings beyond what can be considered practical for email. I've been trying to move our office to arial narrow, since as a TTF font, it plots to a PDF as actual text, which can also be searched in a PDF file, unlike with SHX fonts. Or is there a way to make RomanS still work and keep the PDF file size manageable? The question I have is this: if I'm not capitalizing the sheet specs, what is the appropriate font size, or should I be blanket capitalizing everything? Doesn't make sense to me when you get into things like metric units where for example "mm" should not be "MM". J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 777 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, October 20, 2014 - 10:38 am:    A lot of this font stuff is a carry over from producing Drawings by hand. If you were a really top of the line outfit, you lettered with a Leroy machine or templates. I believe that the RomanS font very closely mimics the Leroy font. Of course all of that becomes irrelevant with the current technology. Then there are the group of "hand lettering" fonts. I am not sure if architectural drawings have always been produced with upper case lettering, but the tradition goes back to the 1920s at least. What I remember is that most people did a creditable job of creating a legible note with all caps (remember when how well you lettered was one of the ways you were evaluated?). The resulting hand lettering was typically slightly extended (elongated horizontally) with the horizontal strokes a little larger than the vertical strokes. When we first began to see technology to produce half-size reproductions (around 1980s), many firms standardized on typical lettering that was 1/8-inch high. When the drawing was reduced, it was still readable. Originally AutoCAD didn't support TrueType fonts (they did not exist in the mid-1980s) so some of the current situation is a holdover (typically user based) from the original technology/ I am now getting half-sized sets with caps and lower case (C&lc) lettering that is not readable because the lower case lettering is too small. If I were setting up office standards now, I would probably go with Arial Condensed, all Caps, 1/8 inch tall or a 9 pt font. This should give a readable font. Arial would be another option, but the length of each line might have to be modified. Chris Borcsok raises an interesting point about certain types of abbreviations; however, MM (as opposed to mm) in an all caps annotation would still be interpreted as millimeters. Note that simply globally changing the font on everything may result in some odd situations depending on the actual content. This is more of a problem with annotations on the left side of the detail than on the right side. There is a relationship between readability, line length, and point size, but that particular piece of trivia is beyond my ken. This would primarily apply to blocks of text (such as you would find in "sheet specs"). George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 770 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, October 20, 2014 - 12:12 pm:    This is a pretty cool video on the History of Typefaces: http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/277376/the-history-of-typography-in-stop-motion-animation/?utm_content=buffere6112&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer I don't know where I found it - it may have been posted on 4specs previously. Robert E. Woodburn, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 109 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Monday, October 20, 2014 - 12:38 pm:    Lettering styles in architecture have been based primarily on tradition and secondarily, on aesthetic preferences, not on functionality (i.e., legibility and readability). Hence the extended block letters in all caps (and the heavy horizontal strokes characteristic of a pencil sharpened to a chisel point). Engineers, in contrast, generally preferred upper and lower case in a uniform stroke width (like Leroy lettering), and usually sloping, like an italic font. There are good reasons for the astonishing variety of print typefaces, and equally good reasons why certain fonts are so frequently used. Each has its purpose; like buildings, they are designed to meet specific needs. We would be wise to learn from the art and science of typography in using fonts suited to the purpose intended. Some consider legibility and readability to be virtually synonymous. Not quite. Similar, yes—but "one needs to remember that sans-serif typefaces are more legible and therefore easier for spot reading, while serif typefaces are more readable and easier to read when one has long texts (http://michalisavraam.org/2009/05/readability-vs-legibility/) ." Bottom line: Short text (a label, note, title, headline, etc.) is generally more legible in a sans-serif font. And generally, upper & lower case is A LOT more legible than ALL CAPS, and fonts with a high "x-height" (high lower case compared to upper case height) are even more legible. On the other hand, long blocks of text (paragraphs, pages, etc.) are generally more readable with book-style serif fonts (e.g., Times Roman). So it would make sense to set sheet specs and perhaps general notes in a serif font (like Times), and drawing titles, short notes and material labels in a sans-serif font like Ariel (condensed, preferably, since regular Ariel, a Helvetica clone, is so wide). If I remember correctly, Times Roman was developed about a century ago for the Times of London, to make its text as compact, yet as readable, as possible (that's why, from not too far away, the Times use to look solid gray…). More recently, the existing standard for sans-serif street sign text was revised to require use of both upper and lower case, in a font with a high x-height. Result: better legibility--very important for street signs. AIA documents used to be set in Optima, a very attractive typeface family that combines the best attributes of both sans-serif and serif fonts. It works well for dense body text, titles, labels, and notes. If you prefer to stick with a single typeface for all your text, it's a great choice. But it is not as easily available as the omnipresent Times and Ariel. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 543 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Monday, October 20, 2014 - 01:48 pm:    There is a fascinating book on the history of fonts titled Just My Type, by Simon Garfield. It's more anecdotal than scholarly, and a good read. Vivian Volz, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 141 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - 01:50 pm:    Peter and Robert, what if you were setting up sheet spec standards and chose 12 pt C&l lettering? I find C&l much more scannable: It's easier to find ends of sentences and numerical information when the field of text is lower-case. I agree with the selection of true-type fonts, not the ones that look hand-drawn or like a Leroy set, and I generally prefer a sans serif font, in part because the drawing annotations are usually sans serif. Robert E. Woodburn, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 113 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - 06:00 pm:    IMNSHO, all lettering on drawings other than titles and perhaps very short notes should be in C&lc, serifed or not. It's just easier to read. Engineers have been using C&lc for a long time. Architects hang on to all caps on drawings due to tradition and ignorance--they've always done it that way, and don't realize lower case is much easier to read. Have you noticed that some end-user license agreements etc. sometimes use all caps (and long lines), apparently to discourage reading? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 779 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - 07:48 pm:    If you are going to use C&lc, you need to make the size larger. Sets printed half-size are difficult to read, and yes I know that hard copy is going the way of the dinosaur, but I still use it. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1909 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - 07:49 pm:    How else can you cover up the clutter and dust on your work surface?