Hello, I recently received corrections for a set of plans I submitted. in the past I usually just correct the items and return them with the response list.
my question is, should I be using revision clouds to show the corrected items on the set of plans? Is this the standard that other draftspersons or architects use? thanks for your input!
andrew
Gelöst! Gehe zur Lösung
Gelöst von ToanDN. Gehe zur Lösung
It depends on the revision submittal requirement established by the authority having jurisdiction. And in most cases, yes.
Hi usually depending on the client I will illustrate the key points in the revision and cloud new items if requested. However not all clients require this.
hope this helps
Revision clouds, in the formal sense, are for tracking changes made to the drawings and indicate an area of change. They are a part of the documentation for a design change to a set of documents and are usually accompanied by an addendum or bulletin in the form of a narrative explaining exactly what the change is.
In less formal usage they are used to draw attention to a certain area for a variety of reasons and are not printed on the formal drawings. For instance, when an architect sends a plan to the MEP consultants they might cloud an area that has had changes that have an impact on the MEP design.
It sounds like you are a drafter working for a designer or engineer and developing a set of drawings. This process does not usually require clouds but rather a set of marked up plans (or verbal direction) for furthering the development of the design but are not being issued as a part of the drawing set. Instead of clouds, usually the markups are highlighted to indicate the work has been done. The workflow for this situation can vary quite a bit and is driven by the design team and/or company standards.
Back when i was working in an architectural office, revision clouds were used for changes made to "contract documents". If drawings had been issued and out for bid, or in the process of construction and we needed to make a change, we would cloud the change and issue an addendum to the contract documents. Those needed revision clouds.
For change in the office or just communications to the client during the development of the project, those changes were typical NOT clouded unless there was a real need to draw attention to something.
That's not the same kind of cloud.
I know this is an old topic but I don't agree entirely with the responses.
Industry practice seems to be to cloud each change and use revision deltas from start to finish. The following revision will turn off the clouds of the previous and leave the deltas on.
What gets clouded depends on the stage of the drawings and the extent of the change. A typo, misaligned or random floating line, scope/viewport clipping change that doesn't show new relevant information; are examples of things that do not get clouded. If the change, in any way, affects what or how something is constructed then that constitutes a revision and therefore a cloud. A typo (miss spelling, not incorrect size) alone should not constitute a revision.
Now, understanding the progression of drawings from schematic, to design development, to construction documents; revisions should start over when you transition from one of these stages to the next due to who is typically involved up to each stage and who may have seen the documents. My office typically combines the design development and construction documents stages with particular clients using % coordination sets leading up to the first time we sign and seal a set of plans which becomes our rev 0. Regardless of submission for permit, our document is dated from the original rev 0 (when we first S&S the document and sent to our client), and subsequent revisions are based off that unless the client tells us otherwise.
It is important that we cloud each revision as we release them so that anyone who may have already seen the documents can quickly note what has changed. Being a structural firm, we do not typically disseminate document changes to anyone other than the architect or contractor unless specifically requested and we are almost never made aware of who has seen what and what revision they have seen. For this reason, it is important for revision deltas to remain in future documents so that you can backtrack when, where, and why a change occurred. I have drafted both engineer of record drawings and shop drawings and I have learned that you don't always receive the latest or a complete set from the architect, contractor, or structural engineer. The best we can do is base our drawings off what we've received. We note the referenced plans and the date on them in our drawings to protect ourselves from dispute, but I've seen plans where no clouds are ever used, where each sheet has it's own revision order/date, where no revisions are ever noted even though I have multiple S&S versions of the same plans with a multitude of changes.
Bottom line, if a change affects how something is going to be built, then yes you should cloud it.
Industry practices vary widely depending on who you are talking to.
This needs context of the entire information you provide inc. supplemental paperwork outside the plan sheets. I have 2 types of official (as in legally binding) changes. During bidding we issue addenda and during construction construction bulletins.
For both we have a written document giving some explanation. For example it will say "changed type of boiler. Re-issue sheet M120 and M400". To this we add the new sheets M120 and M400. Those sheets have the revision could highlighting those changes (like the boiler location, or the boiler schedule). the clouds get tags (numbered by sheet) and also has a table that shows which cloud is which addendum or CB.
When Addendum 1 is issued, this becomes the new legal bid document. Once we issue Addendum 2, we remove the revisions clouds for addendum 1. You can argue if that is right or wrong and we typically don't have more than 1-2 addenda. For construction bulletins we could have a dozen to hundreds. For those I sure remove old CB clouds since the whole sheet may be full of revision clouds.
After we received bids and sign a contract, all addenda revision clouds will be removed and all the addenda changes become the construction document. So, it becomes a new clean set and will then be altered by construction bulletins. We have a "design-bid-build" situation. I understand many people may work in a "design-build" environment. So take what I say with a grain of salt.
There probably also is a reason to use clouds during design for revisions. But we use ACC/Bluebeam for reviews. So the revisions cloud for us are just used for legal documents. YMMV
The word "entirely". The above response comments had talked about doing what I would consider to do for In-House, round table, review sessions where a print set is provided but not a submitted set. Those types of review can be handled through highlighting, bluebeam comments, and such but I consider the term "submit" to mean provide a completed set that is likely digitally signed or finalises a revision, possibly going to a permit office.
Regardless of asking for clouds, it is preferable to provide them over not.
@tj6TCQ5 wrote:
The word "entirely". The above response comments had talked about doing what I would consider to do for In-House, round table, review sessions where a print set is provided but not a submitted set. Those types of review can be handled through highlighting, bluebeam comments, and such but I consider the term "submit" to mean provide a completed set that is likely digitally signed or finalises a revision, possibly going to a permit office.
Regardless of asking for clouds, it is preferable to provide them over not.
Let's put these "In-House, round table, review sessions" aside because the OP did not ask about them. What do you disagree with regarding responses to permitting issuances?
I have been asked "when to delta", rarely "when to cloud".
Asking your coworker is the best option. You will get different ideas in this forum which are not always matching your office std.
The answers given were to not provide clouds unless specifically asked. I disagree. I gave an explanation as to why as well, instead of glossing over the concept.
Please limit your critique to something productive.
@tj6TCQ5 wrote:
The answers given were to not provide clouds unless specifically asked. I disagree. I gave an explanation as to why as well, instead of glossing over the concept.
Please limit your critique to something productive.
Perhaps try to read and comprehend the answers in their entirety instead of nitpicking just the "not" part and run away with it. Here they are:
Quotes:
"It depends on the revision submittal requirement established by the authority having jurisdiction. And in most cases, yes."
"The clouds are for the reviewers to spot the changes on the drawings more easily and more visually without having to read a paragraph of explanation. With that said, if they do not ask for them then you do not need to show."
@tj6TCQ5 wrote:The answers given were to not provide clouds unless specifically asked. I disagree.
That was a small percentage of the answers given and it is a valid response. You can disagree but it is a common practice for drafters working on markups from designers or engineers.
@tj6TCQ5 wrote:I gave an explanation as to why as well, instead of glossing over the concept.
Your "explanation" is based on industry standards. You failed to mention the industry and there is no industry standard. That's why the answers vary so much.
@tj6TCQ5 wrote:Please limit your critique to something productive.
Hmmm... By saying that, you've also gone off topic. Take your own advice.
Sie finden nicht, was Sie suchen? Fragen Sie die Community oder teilen Sie Ihr Wissen mit anderen.