CAD Managers

CAD Managers

Active Contributor
Posts: 28
Registered: ‎08-16-2007
Message 11 of 24 (1,107 Views)

Re: Drawing Revision Standard?

10-13-2009 02:40 PM in reply to: mcoffman
I'm a big believer that a revision number is universal across a project, but only affected sheets should be marked and reprinted. We do it for a number of reasons.

First, many times we will require a cost proposal for a revision prior to actually proceeding with the change. In these cases especially, keeping the same revision number across the multitude of affected disciplines helps reduce confusion with the design team and contractors. Plus, if a decision is made not to proceed, we only need nullify one revision number. This rarely happens, but it has occurred.

Second, two or more revision can be in the design stages concurrently. If revision 2, 3, and 4 are all started around the same time, and revision 2 gets held up for discussion, revision 3 and 4 can still go out the door. Obviously, we try best not to have this occur, but nothing in the universal system precludes it. Not so when using sheet independent revision records.

Lastly, when reviewing the set in the future, universal numbering just make it easier to make sense of a set of drawings. Say a revised toilet room arrangement causes changes across architectural, plumbing, and electrical sheets. Universal numbering allows us to see clearly how this one change affected all these disciplines. You don't have to go hunting through the set to understand the impact.

*Dean Saadallah
Message 12 of 24 (1,107 Views)

Re: Drawing Revision Standard?

10-14-2009 05:02 AM in reply to: mcoffman

CG needs to stay in that little dark room so as not to self-destruct :smileyhappy:)

Dean Saadallah
*Matt Dillon
Message 13 of 24 (1,107 Views)

Re: Drawing Revision Standard?

10-16-2009 06:17 PM in reply to: mcoffman
No. Don't tell him to do that.

He's probably been living in his parents' basement for the last 20 years.

His head could explode.

That would be messy...


"K" wrote in message
clintonG wrote:
> As opposed to the licensed frauds that pose as architects, a genuine
> professional would impose a zero tolerance for slop; quality beng the most
> persued objective.

you need to venture out into the real world...
Valued Mentor
Posts: 1,257
Registered: ‎08-17-2007
Message 14 of 24 (1,107 Views)

Re: Drawing Revision Standard?

10-19-2009 03:35 PM in reply to: mcoffman
> {quote:title=jlpeterson wrote:}{quote}
> I'm a big believer that a revision number is universal across a project, ....

depends on the project and industry ... we may have 3,000-20,000 drawings on a project, maintaining a constant revision numbers across those projects would just be silly, and VERY expensive.
Posts: 4
Registered: ‎10-12-2013
Message 15 of 24 (549 Views)

Re: Drawing Revision Standard?

03-05-2014 11:40 AM in reply to: mcoffman

This indicision on each of the comments is basically rediculous. Catchup, the world is moving. You must go back to the days (And I've been there) of drawing on vellum with rapidigraph pins in ink. The reason we had a sheet activated revision control is simple... we did not want to reprint every d size vellum format to each subscribers. Therefore, we revised only the sheets with changes and sent out only the sheets we changed. Today, of course, we can send drawings to a plotter fast and easier than we did during the Ammonia days.

Get up to date, the drawing revision for every sheet as one is the way to go, why make it complicated.

I try to insure we stay abrest of top of the line software. The ASME standard calls for both.


*Expert Elite*
Posts: 2,226
Registered: ‎12-05-2005
Message 16 of 24 (510 Views)

Re: Drawing Revision Standard?

03-11-2014 10:16 AM in reply to: kwood

Thread necromancy -- ressurecting a zombie that's been dead for half a decade.


Noting that it's easier to plot out a fresh sheet from CAD than draw a new one on mylar, the cost of a plotted set of drawings (110 sheets, 24x36) - going to a half dozen recipients because one item on one sheet has been revised is substantially higher than the running a half dozen bluelines on that sheet used to be.  for that matter, running 6 plots of that one changed sheet is sheaper and simpler than doing a halfdozen copies of the set.


so the economics haven't changed since 2009

Distinguished Contributor
Posts: 143
Registered: ‎10-15-2009
Message 17 of 24 (253 Views)

Re: Drawing Revision Standard?

06-23-2014 10:18 PM in reply to: mcoffman
Updating the revision of every drawing, each time a minor change is made to one seems ridiculous. For those of us who often have hundreds of drawings in a set, the man hours required would be enough to send the company broke. We make revisions numerical, but the description describes the stage of the issue. For example, drawings in a set may have different numerical revisions, but the description next to the revision would be For Client Review, For Information, For Tender, For Contract, For Construction. Intermediate issues would be Revised as per Client Comments etc.
Distinguished Contributor
Posts: 109
Registered: ‎10-22-2003
Message 18 of 24 (235 Views)

Re: Drawing Revision Standard?

06-24-2014 10:34 AM in reply to: mcoffman

Most people in the industry don't understand Document Control 101.  I've seen many ideas of what "proper" document control should be.  What seems to be considered "proper" is what the P/A or P/M on a specific project thinks it should be.  That is THE worst reason to choose one reason over another.


Old school methodologies have always tracked drawings on an sheet-by-sheet basis.  This was a simple system that has worked for decades.  If it ain't broke...


A drawing's revision number should NOT change simply because another drawing in the set has changed.  That could conceivably imply that a specific sheet has been revised over and over when in actuality it has never been touched.


The method of "set" revisions leaves the ultimate end user, the contractor standing out in the field wondering why a drawing has been "revised" umphteen different times yet no obvious changes have occured.  That leaves them scratching their heads as they must now scrutinize each sheet to figure out what actually changed.


Never forget that the time the contractor spends scrutinizing drawing sets is far more valuable and expensive than the extra time the design team spends managing sheet-by-sheet revisions.  Anyone who chooses set revisions over sheet revisions is simply lazy.

Distinguished Contributor
Posts: 123
Registered: ‎12-11-2011
Message 19 of 24 (116 Views)

Re: Drawing Revision Standard?

09-13-2014 04:15 AM in reply to: jest2525

I googled this topic, hoping to find some answers to best practise regarding this topic. Some interesting info going around. The last regarding laziness was amusing. Since when is trying to be efficient with time, interpreted as lazy? Lazy is a lack of effort or care. So I find those looking to do things a little more efficiently hardly not caring! 


Anyway, I digress and throw a dilema into the mix. We are using Revit in our office. 100 sheet project, 30 or so of those sheets go out for regular coordination issue. About 20 - 30 minutes to get a set of revisions together each time. This is due to Revit not allowing revision updates through schedules. Stupidist thing ever. So its one sheet at a time. If this was a project set revision, I could use shared parameters and it would take me less than a minute to update sheets. So as one user wrote, why is moving with the times and going with a method that is more efficient seen as such a stupid thing? 


What difference does it matter if the sheet has A, B or C on it previoulsy issued or not? A revision is simply and indication that is preceeds another does it not? A reference that you are looking at the same revision as another individual ie builder & project architect coordinating.

I also put this forward, why if when a project set gets revised, must the assumption be all sheets get issued? Why not just send the sheets that are relevant to the issue? The other thing know-one has mentioned yet is drawing transmittals. Doesn't anyone use these? We send these out with every revision issue. It nominates how it was sent out, when it was sent out, to whom, which sheets and the associated revision. It is this register used as a master reference to track outgoing revisions and everyone gets a copy with each issue for record. So regardless of which process is used, doesn't this document clarify what is going on with the revisions for users? 


my two cents in an effort for a little further discussion. 

*Expert Elite*
Posts: 2,226
Registered: ‎12-05-2005
Message 20 of 24 (111 Views)

Re: Drawing Revision Standard?

09-15-2014 06:29 AM in reply to: damo3

Efficiency vs laziness:  If being efficient with my time in the climate controlled office, results in an increase in confusion and wasted time in the field, then I'm being lazy, not efficient.    It always costs more on the job site than it does in the office, and having a crew of laborers, carpenters, equipment operators, standing around waiting on the job site foreman  to figure out what, if anything, changed on Rev 6 set, Sh 35 of 111 is expensive.


On the flip side, having Sheet 35 of 111 as Rev 6, and issued only with other Rev 6 sheets, is rather indicative that sonmething did indeed change, (and hopefully revclouds and delta markers were used to indicate just what)


Transmittals are great - very helpful.  but --- they will ge lost and separated in the field.  When the office space available to the field guy is the hood of his pickup, random sheets of letter size paper get misplaced a whole lot faster than a 22x34 set of drawings.



Post to the Community

Have questions about Autodesk products? Ask the community.

New Post
Manufacturing CAD & IT Manager Resource
Additional information for installing, licensing & deploying Inventor, the Product Design Suites and Factory Design Suites.