Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Handling two sets of Revisions in a single project?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Handling two sets of Revisions in a single project?

    Question for you guys. Is there any way at all in handling two sets of revisions in a single project? A quick explanation:

    These days, I'm seeing a lot of design/build projects through the GC go down the route of hiring a mechanical sub-contractor who has an in-house engineer to both be the engineer and the installation contractor. This is a great process that I wholly agree with. This allows the BIM process to be in a more natural environment, where the set of contract documents "is" the shop drawing. However, for permit, we don't show all the detail and views that we normally would on a shop drawing. We keep it clean and simple to portray the design and for pricing purposes as any consultant design engineer would. We then use a separate titleblock and sheet numbering/naming system for the shop drawings. It has worked out very well, until revisions come into play.

    Basically there are addendums and revisions from the architectural team (which needs to follow their sequential numbering, description and date), and there are revisions for the shop drawings (to clarify to the duct manufacturer or equipment manufacturer necessary changes in the field). I cannot think of a way to handle both effectively on the same project.

    Any ideas on this at all? Thanks in advance!

    -TZ
    Tannar Z. Frampton ™
    Frampton & Associates, Inc.

    #2
    Do they need to both use numbers, or can you set one of the series to use letters? 1,2,3 for issuances and A, B, C for shop drawing revisions for example.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by chris.macko View Post
      Do they need to both use numbers, or can you set one of the series to use letters? 1,2,3 for issuances and A, B, C for shop drawing revisions for example.
      Yes, that would be perfectly acceptable.

      *EDIT*
      I should clarify: numbers for both would be preferred.

      Can I mix and match the numbers and letters?
      Last edited by tzframpton; January 12, 2017, 03:20 PM.
      Tannar Z. Frampton ™
      Frampton & Associates, Inc.

      Comment


        #4
        Something that you need to keep in mind, is that you might be hamstrung by the requirements of the Design Team as a whole.

        For instance, i prefer to do my Revision Numbering "By Project" instead of "By Sheet." Thats not really because of Revit, mind you, i just always felt that that By Sheet way of numbering revisions was, well, stupid. (Even working in AutoCAD). So, i bring that up because if you are numbering By Project, you are Golden. You can do exactly what Chris descibes, and set one series to Numbers, and one series to Alphabetic... Assuming the project team is cool with that.

        Unfortunately, my experience with... uh... a lot of Architecture firms, is that discussing "Revision Numbering" is one of those topics that will make them climb to the very top of their soap box, and build another soap box, that leads to a higher soap box, so they can build ONE MORE soap box, where they will order a megaphone to talk down to you about how *thats not how the industry works* and how "no contractor could manage to read and understand drawings that are numbered that way,* which is hilarious, since they are on so many soap boxes they cant even see the jobsite.

        My point is, if the Prime on the contract numbers By Sheet, chances are they are going to want you to number By Sheet as well. That might make it more difficult. At that point (as annoying as this is) i would consider a blank model, just for the sheets of the contract requiring lesser documentation. Link in the model, and then do the annotations through the link (tagging the linked model). It sucks, but its better than wrecking the model trying to make crap work.
        Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
        @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
          Something that you need to keep in mind, is that you might be hamstrung by the requirements of the Design Team as a whole.

          For instance, i prefer to do my Revision Numbering "By Project" instead of "By Sheet." Thats not really because of Revit, mind you, i just always felt that that By Sheet way of numbering revisions was, well, stupid. (Even working in AutoCAD). So, i bring that up because if you are numbering By Project, you are Golden. You can do exactly what Chris descibes, and set one series to Numbers, and one series to Alphabetic... Assuming the project team is cool with that.

          Unfortunately, my experience with... uh... a lot of Architecture firms, is that discussing "Revision Numbering" is one of those topics that will make them climb to the very top of their soap box, and build another soap box, that leads to a higher soap box, so they can build ONE MORE soap box, where they will order a megaphone to talk down to you about how *thats not how the industry works* and how "no contractor could manage to read and understand drawings that are numbered that way,* which is hilarious, since they are on so many soap boxes they cant even see the jobsite.

          My point is, if the Prime on the contract numbers By Sheet, chances are they are going to want you to number By Sheet as well. That might make it more difficult. At that point (as annoying as this is) i would consider a blank model, just for the sheets of the contract requiring lesser documentation. Link in the model, and then do the annotations through the link (tagging the linked model). It sucks, but its better than wrecking the model trying to make crap work.
          I always stick to By Project, for the same reasoning you've mentioned. And wouldn't it technically still work out if it's By Sheet, since the sequential order doesn't matter at that point, making the description and date being left as the common identifier?

          Thanks for the reply too.

          -TZ
          Tannar Z. Frampton ™
          Frampton & Associates, Inc.

          Comment


            #6
            We had a project that, very late into the game, was phased, with the first phase being built as a change order to project under construction and the second phase. It was too late to try to split the projects, and we don't use the "Issued To" or "Issued By" parameters, so I would use one to hold all the revision information and the other to report the desired revision number to the tag and sheet. If I didn't want the revision to show up I'd remove the text from the "Issued To" parameter and set the sequencing to none. A little hacky, but it worked for the project we had.

            I now use it as standard, because it makes it easier to control revisions where the first delta affecting architectural sheets is 6 - I don't have to create unused revisions to get the numbering right.
            Julie Kidder
            Architect + BIM Director
            Hartman + Majewski Design Group

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by tzframpton View Post
              I always stick to By Project, for the same reasoning you've mentioned. And wouldn't it technically still work out if it's By Sheet, since the sequential order doesn't matter at that point, making the description and date being left as the common identifier?

              Thanks for the reply too.

              -TZ
              If you have both on the same sheet it will group the letters and numbers together, so you can't have 1, 2, A, 3, B for example, but it doesn't sound like that would be an issue in your case. By project or by sheet shouldn't change how this works.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by chris.macko View Post
                If you have both on the same sheet it will group the letters and numbers together, so you can't have 1, 2, A, 3, B for example, but it doesn't sound like that would be an issue in your case. By project or by sheet shouldn't change how this works.
                Hmmm, that doesn't sound ideal. I'm just going to have to jump in and try this when I have a moment to see how this works.

                Thanks again for everyone's help.

                -TZ
                Tannar Z. Frampton ™
                Frampton & Associates, Inc.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
                  At that point (as annoying as this is) i would consider a blank model, just for the sheets of the contract requiring lesser documentation. Link in the model, and then do the annotations through the link (tagging the linked model). It sucks, but its better than wrecking the model trying to make crap work.
                  Although I despise the concept of a "documents model", IMO this is the least confusing way to handle it. There are workarounds but they're often too confusing to communicate to the entire team.

                  I understand Revit's limitations as far as the revision tool goes, but I wish Autodesk would improve it a little bit. Given the financial and legal implications surrounding this aspect of construction, I'm surprised at how it's so half-cooked.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The Link-into-blank-model method certainly works but it would be disastrous for some processes used for view manipulation on a Sheet View. Honestly, while a great concept, I cannot effectively use it as it would create more work in the end. Maybe, I could use it if I used the "Link by View" option for the design documents. They would be completely managed in the host project. Hmm, actually that may work out. But still.... lol

                    -TZ
                    Tannar Z. Frampton ™
                    Frampton & Associates, Inc.

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X