Autodesk Technology Managers Forum
Share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage with fellow CAD/BIM Managers.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Drawing Revision Standard?

38 REPLIES 38
Reply
Message 1 of 39
michael.coffman
56522 Views, 38 Replies

Drawing Revision Standard?

Greetings!

My design group is in the midst of a debate regarding drawing revision standards. Some argue that each sheet has an independent revision record (i.e. rev 1 on one drawing may be different than rev 1 on another). Another group argues that a rev is universal across a drawing set, but only affected drawings are marked with the revision. Still another group argues that the entire set should be marked with the revision so that it is known that the whole set is current to that revision.

When I refer to "marked with the revision", I'm referring to placing the revision number, note, and date into the title block (architectural style along the right side), not necessarliy clouding and adding the delta to each drawing area.

What do you all prefer?

Sincerely,
Michael Coffman
38 REPLIES 38
Message 21 of 39
damo3
in reply to: michael.coffman

Any reason why the first example can't have revision clouds and markers as well? Can't only the sheets with clouds and markers be issued for that set?

Put the drawing transmittal in the cover sheet of the drawing set. Thats what we do, like you said, less documents to handle.
Regardless I think we should keep incompetence out of the debate because that will bring any system down, no matter how good it is.



________________________________________________________________________________
If you find posts have solved your problem, please don't forget to mark them as 'SOLVED' to help others with similar questions. - Thank you.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Message 22 of 39
jggerth1
in reply to: damo3


@damo3 wrote:
Any reason why the first example can't have revision clouds and markers as well? Can't only the sheets with clouds and markers be issued for that set?

Put the drawing transmittal in the cover sheet of the drawing set. Thats what we do, like you said, less documents to handle.
Regardless I think we should keep incompetence out of the debate because that will bring any system down, no matter how good it is.



Well, the primary reason is that these are contract drawings, legal documents that are part of the contractual agreement between design firm, client, and contractor.  If any sheet is changed at all, then it must be re-issued.  Even if that 'change' is just adding a new rev number in the border, with no design changes or edits to the content of that sheet.  That puts you back to printing multiple copies of all 111 sheets when only sheet 35 has a change.   Over the course of a construction job, that will get pricy (client needs two hard copies, contractor want one for the field, one for the office, and another one for each sub, plus your internal office copyfor your records -- all needing to be wer-ink signed and crimp sealed.

 

You really really really don't want to end up in court trying to explain to a judge or jury why you didn't bother to send the contractor or the client all modifications to the contract documents.....  That would be a great way to go out of business.

Message 23 of 39
damo3
in reply to: michael.coffman

Yeah i see what your trying to say but now we are getting into areas that we do differently. And every office is different. Contracts and printing. We don't print drawings like that anymore, havent for years. We print one contract set for builders and one for client at signing. Everyone else gets a digital copy for printing at there own discreation (if they want it printed that is) furthermore we don't issue hardcopy revisions. Only digital. Thats builders request by the way, which of course we advocate, saves paper waste and money.
Again its this moving with the times which is why i think there is avenue for improved methodology, perhaps this area just needs more time.

Cheers.


________________________________________________________________________________
If you find posts have solved your problem, please don't forget to mark them as 'SOLVED' to help others with similar questions. - Thank you.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Message 24 of 39
pkolarik
in reply to: damo3

We have an online "document provider" service that we begain using a few years ago too. Not all projects go up on there though. (I have no idea what decides if a project does or not.. I do know, however, that all of our municipal projects go up on there) I'd estimate around half of our projects go up on there.

We may print one set for the client at the same time the project goes up on the Service, but that's typically about it for those projects. The contractors all are required to go to this Service to get their planset. They can either download the planset and print it themselves or they can order prints directly from the Service (at a repro shop near the contractor).

 

When it comes to revised sheets, we do the revisions on a per-sheet basis, and we only upload the revised sheets to the Service. The contractor doesn't want to have to spend a ton of time sifting through 150 drawings in a new pdf when only 6 sheets have been revised.

Message 25 of 39
clarenceduvall
in reply to: Anonymous

Should be per package. Revision 1 should be in the triangle and revisions block for all the sheets that are going to be issued in that release. these are usually tied to ASI's or a CCD.

Message 26 of 39
bayard3k
in reply to: michael.coffman

It is all very simple, really.  The correct way to do it is per sheet.  The revision triangle is not tied to the "Revision number"  it refers to number of times that the actual drawings on that sheet were corrected.  The issue "name" or "description" will have the revision title.  These revision titles should only be, before contract is signed, "Addendum Number 1, 2, 3, or whatever", or after after contract is signed "ASI No. 1,2,3, etc", or "CCA No. 1,2,2, etc".  Really should be no other revision title, or description.  Therefore the only sheets that get re-issued, are the ones that are affected, then the contractor, or whomever, replaces that sheet in their current set.  Additionally there should also be a written narrative issued with the revision.  I have been doing this for over 35 years, and before computers people understood this concept and there was never any question as to how this worked.

Message 27 of 39
jggerth1
in reply to: bayard3k


@bayard3k wrote:

It is all very simple, really.  The correct way to do it is per sheet.  The revision triangle is not tied to the "Revision number"  it refers to number of times that the actual drawings on that sheet were corrected.  The issue "name" or "description" will have the revision title.  These revision titles should only be, before contract is signed, "Addendum Number 1, 2, 3, or whatever", or after after contract is signed "ASI No. 1,2,3, etc", or "CCA No. 1,2,2, etc".  Really should be no other revision title, or description.  Therefore the only sheets that get re-issued, are the ones that are affected, then the contractor, or whomever, replaces that sheet in their current set.  Additionally there should also be a written narrative issued with the revision.  I have been doing this for over 35 years, and before computers people understood this concept and there was never any question as to how this worked.

 

I'm going to comment on the underlined portion... and disagree rather strongly with the first part of that.

 

Specifically in regards to FDOT processes,  "revisions" only happen _AFTER_ the project has gone to bid.  That's the point at which the drawings become legally binding documents.  Anything that change prior to release for bid is immaterial to the contractor or the construction manager.  Anything that changes during the design process is in-house, and not germane to the contract documents [and should NOT be available for the contractor's legal department to delve into 🙂 ]

 

Issuing revised sheets as addendums, ASI, CCA etc is fine and a worthwhile endeavor, but they should be marked and clouded as REV 1 etc only after the set is released for bid.

 

I for some reason you have to track internal edits, and lack a real EDMS system, the use letters rather than numbers for rev tagging, and delete from the drawings prior to release for bid.

 

Message 28 of 39
bayard3k
in reply to: jggerth1

Addendum are for after the drawings are issued for bid, but before the contract is signed, but the asi, etc is for after the contract is signed.  That is what I meant and you are right that any changes prior to the issuing for bid is not relevant and should not be on the drawings when issued for bidding.  The main thing I was trying to say, is that the revision number in the triangle on the drawing sheet is unique to that sheet and does not relate to be the number of the addendum, ask, cca, etc.  For example the a sheet may be issued for "cca no. 3" but if that is the first time the sheet is revised, then the revision triangle should have the number 1, not 3.  I have worked with a number of people who would have used a 3 in that case.

Message 29 of 39
RobDraw
in reply to: bayard3k


@bayard3k wrote:

It is all very simple, really.  The correct way to do it is per sheet. 


There are two accepted ways that make sense and work. Revisions per project and revisions per sheet. Pick your preference. Just because you've been doing it only one way doesn't mean that there aren't other options that also work. 


Rob

Drafting is a breeze and Revit doesn't always work the way you think it should.
Message 30 of 39

I have seen the answer vary based on the industry you are in.

 

With Inventor (mechanical) files, revisions should be per file...since that is how Vault handles them.  The revision property is a file-related property.

 

If you think of a multi-sheet drawing as a single drawing that could be taped together to form a single drawing, then this makes sense.  Revision triangles and the revision description can indicate which sheets were revised.

 

On the other hand, I have seen structural or architectural teams use technologies such as sheet set manager where it was critical for each sheet to have its own revision, since the set could contain 30 or more sheets.

Message 31 of 39
willtownes
in reply to: jggerth1

Numbering revisions by sheet seems to create confusion.  A single change can show up in multiple views on different sheets. 

 

If, for example, the plan sheet has 0 revisions, the change would be labelled revision #1.  If an elevation sheet already had a revision #1, then the same change would have to be labelled revision #2.  That seems confusing. 

 

Revision numbering should be consistent throughout the set.    

Message 32 of 39
bayard3k
in reply to: willtownes

The Revision name and number has nothing to do with the triangle number on the sheet.  Such that “change order number 1” may revise a sheet that has been revised by “addendum number 1”, so the that if addendum 1 were the first change to a particular sheet the triangle would have a number 1, and with change order number 1 the change to the sheet is the second time, so the triangle would have a number 2 in it…it is really quiet simple and non-confusing

 

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

Message 33 of 39
ToanDN
in reply to: bayard3k

They are just two different systems. I've seen and used them both depends on projects. For permitting it the Issuance and Revision Numbering is normally per Project; for CA per Sheet.
Message 34 of 39
altribo
in reply to: michael.coffman

An old thread, but nonetheless an important consideration for anyone in industry trying to make it easier on the downline customer's or fabrication shop's understanding of specific detail changes.  I was searching online for popular practices and found this conversation.  It is never as simple as having one solution for all.  Absolutely depends on the project and the system maintaining it.  Seeing people replying/arguing over irrelevant details that are specific to their practices, or that theirs are better than others is saddening and humorous at the same time.

 

My company typically requires numerous revisions to multiple pages per drawing sets and it produces a lot of paper drawings.  I'm actively working to reduce the number of revs/improve this process, but in the mean time managing the many varied revisions effectively is a challenge.  Once a revision is made to the affected drawing, the rev number (and delta) is increased and a brief line text description is included in title block revision box.  The sheet rev matches the delta number.  (I read an earlier post citing this is not always the same, but I don't know how making them different makes sense.  But to each their own, if it works for you, then do it.)  When I revise a drawing, I highlight all changes locations on all drawings and highlight each drawing copy the same before I release them to my shop.  Only the affected drawings are revised and issued.  

I am using AutoCAD Mechanical 2019 for drawings now.  I am taking Inventor 3D this fall and will look at trying to draw them that way next.  Not sure how the revision process will change using Inventor.  If anyone has any tips for that, feel free to share.  Also they use a program here called Compass for some aspects of the design process that I'm hoping to learn.  It generates the drawing much faster than I can 2D draw it along with all of the connection/flange details and orientation views.  Any tips on Compass usage, feel free to share.  I have read some good ideas here that I can incorporate in my work, so thanks to all who replied.

Message 35 of 39
jggerth1
in reply to: altribo

There's a pretty big difference between revision control / management for widget makers, vs the AEC world that I live in.  Your organizations need are very different than anything I have to deal with.  But since you resurrected this post....

 

The ACOE recently issued a document on their required revision process, and it's similar to what I've been doing, with some tweaks in terminology.

a) There are no revisions before the project drawings go to bid.  The bid set is the legal contract document, so starts out with a clean revision block in the border.

 

b) After bid, but before contract signing, any changes required for an RFI response or other reason are termed 'Amendments' and issued with sequential amendment numbering and revision numbering.  Only sheets modified by an amendment are re-issued, so sheets issued as part of Amendment 1 would be tagged with a REV 1 Delta and clouded.  Further amendments increase the Amendment number, but a sheet that is only modified for Amendment 4 would have Delta 1 and clouds.  If that sheet had been issued as part of Amendment 1, 3 and 4, the correct Delta number for Amendment 4 clouds would be three.  If issued for Amendment 1 and 4, the current Delta number would be 2.

 

c) After contract signing, and during construction, any required changed are termed "Modifications", and the Modification number starts at one and increments.  (I believe that all clouds and Rev Markers are stripped out for the contract set.) 

The Delta however, changes to an alpha character, and increments from there.  Only modified sheets are issued, So while every sheet issued for Modification 1 would have Delta A, the current alpha character for subsequent Modifications will vary.  So a sheet could end up with Modification 15 and have an alpha Delta marker of A if that was the first time that sheet was modified..

What you will not get, ever, is a sheet whose revision block shows Delta A, Delta B, and Delta F.

 

I'm unclear if previous Modifaction clouds and/or delta markers need to need to be stripped - I had it done both ways.

 

I won't say it's the best way, but it's a real and officially documented process, by an organisation that has a couple of centuries experience handling construction projects.

Message 36 of 39
altribo
in reply to: jggerth1

That's great.  Thank you for sharing.

Message 37 of 39
john.damrathW3MUR
in reply to: Anonymous

Good information; I suggest revisions per sheet and the title sheet index listing revision numbers and dates for each sheet in the set.

 

The problem with adding a revision block to every sheet is you could have two drawings in the field with exactly the same content, but differing revision numbers, leaving people wondering what's different between the two.

 

Also, if you have a large plan set, that's a lot of sheets to have to add revision blocks to any time something changes.

 

Hope this is useful!

Message 38 of 39
kherrman
in reply to: michael.coffman

The main issue with revisions as individual sheet based, is Revit is not set up this way. Each revision number is associated with 1 date and 1 description.

Message 39 of 39
pkolarik
in reply to: kherrman

Very old thread, but there's a button right on the "Sheet Issues/Revisions" dialog box in Revit that lets you choose your rev numbering "per project" or "per sheet".

We do all our rev numbering per sheet, whether it's autocad or Revit.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Administrator Productivity


Autodesk Design & Make Report