Standards for ceiling heights annotation

[james.levieux]

Hi all,

We are an interiors firm doing hotel work.  We work with two different types of architects;  architects that place the top of structural slab slightly below the level to account for floor thicknesses, and architects that put the top of slab at the same as the level.

With the former, I'm perfectly comfortable using the traditional "AFF" notation after the ceiling heights, but for the latter, it's not correct (when using true Revit elevation tags).  I've toyed with an alternative abbreviation like "ARL" (Above Reference Level), but I'm wondering if there is any consensus among the AEC community on how to address this.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

James

[ryan_t_ralston]

Are you working directly within the architect's model or do you have a independent interiors model with the architectural model linked? If it's the latter, do you have the ability to modify your model's project base point in order to adjust for the offset at floor? Alternatively, can you create levels for your interiors use only and then create your ceiling plans with tags which reference that level as opposed to the slab level?

[james.levieux]

Architect's model linked.  I'd like to use the same levels as used by the rest of the team to avoid confusion.  I'm even more motivated to Revit tags that accurately reflect the current elevations relative to these levels.  The only problem is, calling that measurement "AFF" is not correct and another name for it must be chosen.  Currently, the best solution that I can think of is "above reference level (ARL)".  I like this terminology because it doesn't refer to anything physical (like the slab or floor finish).

I'd rather not use some dodgy term that I made-up if there is already some consensus on this in the BIM world.

Regards, 

James