Wall Naming Conventions

[cwilrycx.109927]

Reviteers: We are trying to come up with the best way to standardize naming conventions for wall types. Presently we some man fangled nomenclature like EXTR/M/58cp/758b/112f/58gwb Thant translates into Exterior Masonry 5/8" Cementitious Plaster 7 5/8" Block 1 1/2" Furring 5/8 Gyp Wall Board.....There's got to be a better way! I'll take your comments off the air!

[sbrown]

There is no need to abbreviate the Wall type name. Come up with the format(see attached) and spell it all out. They type selector increases so you can read the entire name.

[twiceroadsfool]

Ours is a bit more rigid, but it makes them easy to identify in a long list very quickly.

[cwilrycx.109927]

Thank you.

[phyllisr]

Our method is a combination of the two previous methods.

For exterior walls, we use a descriptive name in real language. Provided the core component is first, we are not too picky about the rest. We have found that there is not a huge advantage to creating these families in advance and we cut sections from the model rather than using any drafting views.

For interior walls, we name the wall families to match our wall tag naming convention - we use an optional stacked tag or single line tag depending on the circumstances. Took awhile for our staff to develop a comfort level but now, pretty much everyone knows what an M8A or a W3B-S11 is. This method means that we only need one system that does everything - names the wall family, populates the tag and gives a name for the wall type drafting view. Everything matches. (Never mind the yellow highlight in the Wall Types PDF - these indicate changes and modifications since last posted to our intranet. Not relevant to the discussion.)

[twiceroadsfool]

Phyllis- I like it! :)

[phyllisr]

...I like it...
Credit where credit is due. Our former QC Manager Todd Wyatt worked very closely with me and Tony to get this system in place. Todd also bore the brunt of internal vilifying when we worked to develop some system that everyone could at least tolerate. Thought you might like his sense of humor when presenting the final system to our staff several years ago... This slide was his "perfect" solution to make everyone happy. Enjoy.

[jyoungner]

I am writing a manual for my office and am trying to figure out if i should include all the standard interior wall types in the manual. I have all of the walls and details completed. So it would be very easy to drop them into InDesign. Does anyone have a good reason to include them or not include them?

[phyllisr]

...a manual for my office...
Just one strategy but once we migrated to Revit, we abandoned the idea of a full-blown manual entirely. Hard copies are expensive to maintain when you make changes. We tried electronic manuals but no one wants to open a whole manual to find what they want. Even if searchable and bookmarked. That approach meant people were printing individual sections anyway.

We have also found that standards and procedures are so closely integrated into Revit training and process that it is difficult to draw a distinction. If we have standard wall type details, for example, where do we explain what to do? Is it a Revit issue requiring instructions for how to use Insert from File or is it a Standards issue that goes with some sort of naming convention document? We could see no point in printing and documenting a bunch of stuff that might change and was available to open and view from our intranet or library at any time.

We organized our intranet into various categories. We post short documents containing only critical information to support general questions. Clip shows the tree that gets you to our limited selection of standards. CAD Standards 2010 is three pages. The highlighted Wall Types document is one page

Hope this helps.

[Overconstrained]

And how is that information conveyed to Contractors Phyllis?

I assume you have something like a plan with wall types tagged, plus a schedule sheet, plus a wall sections sheet?

I've always struggled putting a system together that is as simple as possible for the guys on site to follow.

edit: On re-reading I see that you will have a plan sheet and wall sections sheet. IS that correct?

[phyllisr]

Your assumptions are basically correct but to some degree, it depends on the project. Our templates (we have two) have the most common families loaded and our template for quick turn-around TI work also has the drafting views loaded and placed on a sheet.

We were pretty careful with drafting views to ensure the extents for every individual wall type was identical so that dragging new views using Insert from File still maintained the same alignment. As much as we like legends in Revit for some things, we did not find them useful for wall types. Our output does not necessarily look a lot different from traditional hard-copy drafting simply for contract/liablity reasons. Contractors really do not care what system we use as long as they can see the tagged wall and it gets them to the correct detail view. Some systems are just to help us internally.

A schedule is also available in the templates but we have not found that contractors use this very often - though this is essential to our internal QC. A lot depends on the contractor and our relationship and what our fee will support. Though not typically part of the "official" contract documents, we have found that filters with colors assigned based on the wall type can be a huge help in the field. Or even for internal QC. Even more than schedules...

For example, it is easy enough with our system to create a filter that looks for every insulated wall (filtering for an S in Key IV) and then applying it to a view that makes these walls red.

Did I answer your question or did I misunderstand?

[Overconstrained]

Thanks for the reply Phyllis.

You've just touched on what my problem is. Different contractors prefer different ways of having information presented to them, and while the internal system works well (with users becoming familiar with whatever system is in place), contractors often have to start from scratch with whatever documents and codings are presented to them.

I've gone done the coloured plan route only to have the contractor say no, basically because they weren't prepared to colour copy the documents :roll:. I've gone down the wall tag, schedule/wall section route, only to have the contractor complain about information spread across multiple sheets. I often find myself in a no-win situation and have yet to discover the best method for conveying wall type information.

lol......not really sure what my point is here......:?. I guess what I'm alluding to is it's one thing to have a robust internal convention, but it's quite another to get the contractor on side with it.

[phyllisr]

You are not alone. We struggle with accomodating contractors constantly. We have some spectacular relationships with contractors fully on board with a BIM/IPD delivery approach but not every project has that benefit.

Our dilemma is balancing what we are required to do contractually, what is truly a best practice, what limits our liability exposure and more against what the contractor wants. Do we "dumb down" our output because a particular contractor made a particular request? If we do not, are we going to pay the price during CA? Do we add extra information we know is risky (and duplicates information elsewhere in the drawing and spec) because we know a particular contractor has a tendency to overlook things? If the project is bid, what is our time commitment holding the hand of the weaker bidder versus the time commitment answering questions from a savvy contractor who is really skilled? Is it really our responsibility to name walls the way a contractor likes?

In my finer moments, I understand the pressure on the construction industry as a whole. Unfortunately, my "finer moments" are increasingly rare.

[twiceroadsfool]

The answer to that one is simple: If the contractor isnt my client, they certainly arent dictating how my documents get done. Period, and end of story. If they FEEL they are lacking some information, or that some information wasnt made available enough, i am MORE than happy to point them in the right direction. But no way are we tailoring a process to them *not liking how my drawing set is put together*.

Phyllisr- The wall type standardization you have is great. Im sure youve seen it already, but i would consider the "previous phase legend" for your wall types instead of the drafting views, though. In the rare occurance (LOL) that someone deviates from the office standard, it even updates the partition schedule automatically. :)

[phyllisr]

...the "previous phase legend"...
Was not familiar with this - looks like it has real possibilities. Did a quick search and briefly read some of the posts and have one concern. May be buried in the discussions but I did not see it. When using this method, how do you make it possible to bring this information from a master network source project into a new project to avoid rework?

Keep in mind that not all teams are created equal and often, anything that requires more than three steps (documented with pictures and screenshots and lots of bold text with colors) generates a glazed expression... :)
Just open a master project and copy/paste? Or do you keep all this stuff in the start-up template? If it is in your template, how do you decide which of the hundred of walls to include? What about the less commonly used walls not in the template? How do you bring that information into a new project?

Thanks in advance.

[Overconstrained]

The answer to that one is simple: If the contractor isnt my client, they certainly arent dictating how my documents get done. Period, and end of story. If they FEEL they are lacking some information, or that some information wasnt made available enough, i am MORE than happy to point them in the right direction. But no way are we tailoring a process to them *not liking how my drawing set is put together*.

While I agree with the sentiment here Aaron, I don't think this attitude is always the most productive one in practice. Any set of construction documents is put together for the contractor's information and use is it not? I'm always keen to see how our drawings get used on site and I'm a big advocate of sitting down with a contractor at the end of a project to discuss how we can improve our documentation or what the contractor thinks we do well. At the end of the day the contractor is the end user and they have to be comfortable with the information they receive. The easier I make it for them, the smoother the construction process goes, the happier the client is. That's my philosophy.

[twiceroadsfool]

While I agree with the sentiment here Aaron, I don't think this attitude is always the most productive one in practice. Any set of construction documents is put together for the contractor's information and use is it not? I'm always keen to see how our drawings get used on site and I'm a big advocate of sitting down with a contractor at the end of a project to discuss how we can improve our documentation or what the contractor thinks we do well. At the end of the day the contractor is the end user and they have to be comfortable with the information they receive. The easier I make it for them, the smoother the construction process goes, the happier the client is. That's my philosophy.

Phyllisr- Theyre Model Groups, saved out as projects, and "Load File as Group'd". So they can bring them in one wall type at a time, or multiple together, but theyre loading Files as groups. The model group gets placed in the annotation phase in a specific spot, the detail group embedded in it gets placed, and all in one shot the wall type is laoded for use, and the partition schedule is filled out.

It seems complicated when youre explaining or reading about it, but really: I tell them "go to this view to load new wall types. Load as group, pick the right ones. Place them in the box, and check the box for the detail group.

For the entry level user, its the same as Insert from File.

Overconstrained- I dont disagree in principle, just in practice. One thing i cherish the most about my job is going out in the field, and getting good, honest, no-pulled-punches feedback from the guys who are stuck with my drawings after im done. I do NOT believe in being one of those designers/architects who comes up with a concept then disengages after SD, or even CD. Its mine til its done, from reward to responsibility.

So when i come across something in my *standards* that isnt clear and concise, or needs rework, im more than happy to discuss it. Actually, my current role in my current office as BIM Manager has been SOME Revit and SOME BIM, but more OFFICE standards manager, meeting with management to retool and validate "exactly whats ina set of drawings."

With that, if the drawings are "clear, consise, and constructable," and different contractors just disagree on "what a partition schedule should look like," well thats just too d*mn bad. Were trying to adhere to some global standards as much as possible to eliminate these types of things, but there are a few phrases that (flat out) are not in my vocabulary:

1. Thats how ive always done it.
2. Thats not how we used to do it.
3. Im not doing that because im not used to it.

Believe me, hard-lined as i sound, im ALL ABOUT making the "machine" (architecture) as concise and buildable and describeable as possible. And i find offenders in both contractors AND architects alike, who are *just used to it their way.* If your way has a particular logic and/or rationale that makes it a better method of documentation, im fully engaged and at the table. But if someone comes to me and its just *i dont like seeing it that way,* they can pound sand. LOL. :)

[twiceroadsfool]

http://www.aaronmaller.com/partitionschedule.mp4

[Overconstrained]

Overconstrained- I dont disagree in principle, just in practice. One thing i cherish the most about my job is going out in the field, and getting good, honest, no-pulled-punches feedback from the guys who are stuck with my drawings after im done. I do NOT believe in being one of those designers/architects who comes up with a concept then disengages after SD, or even CD. Its mine til its done, from reward to responsibility.

So when i come across something in my *standards* that isnt clear and concise, or needs rework, im more than happy to discuss it. Actually, my current role in my current office as BIM Manager has been SOME Revit and SOME BIM, but more OFFICE standards manager, meeting with management to retool and validate "exactly whats ina set of drawings."

With that, if the drawings are "clear, consise, and constructable," and different contractors just disagree on "what a partition schedule should look like," well thats just too d*mn bad. Were trying to adhere to some global standards as much as possible to eliminate these types of things, but there are a few phrases that (flat out) are not in my vocabulary:

1. Thats how ive always done it.
2. Thats not how we used to do it.
3. Im not doing that because im not used to it.

Believe me, hard-lined as i sound, im ALL ABOUT making the "machine" (architecture) as concise and buildable and describeable as possible. And i find offenders in both contractors AND architects alike, who are *just used to it their way.* If your way has a particular logic and/or rationale that makes it a better method of documentation, im fully engaged and at the table. But if someone comes to me and its just *i dont like seeing it that way,* they can pound sand. LOL. :)

lol......well I couldn't agree more with all of that statement.......:beer:

[jyoungner]

Just one strategy but once we migrated to Revit, we abandoned the idea of a full-blown manual entirely...

Thank you Phyllis! I will take your ideas into account.

[Alex Page]

1. Thats how ive always done it.
2. Thats not how we used to do it.
3. Im not doing that because im not used to it.



My thoughts exactly - and my response to those answers are

1. I'm not interested in normal practise, I'm interested in best practise.
2. I'm not interested in normal practise, I'm interested in best practise.
3. You can do it a different way if you can convince me the outcome will be better - refer to 1. and 2. above.

[DzineN]

I realize this thread is a little old but I thought I would throw in my 2 cents anyway.

So far, this is what we have come up with for wall naming conventions. It is not all that different from what we were doing in AutoCAD.

Essentially, it is just shorthand for the Materials & Sizes. It is really not that much different than just spelling it out. Whenever possible we reduce the number of characters for a material down to 2 or 3. Here is an example:

EXT CO || BV1 - A8 <10> A4 - MS/3.6 - G4 - G4

Translation: Exterior Wall (EXT); Concrete (CO). Brick Veneer Project Type 1 (BV1) over 1" Airspace (A8); 10" Concrete Core <10>; 1/2" Gap (A4); 3 5/8" Metal Stud (MS/3.6); 5/8" Gyp (G4); 5/8" Gyp (G4);

We always read Left (Outermost Material) to Right (Innermost Material). The < > is the core structural component thickness. The pipes ( || ) are just to make it easier to read.

Our walls only include elements that have substantial thickness to them. We don't include vapor barriers etc. and we don't include insulation unless it adds to the thickness. Fire rating; R-value; STC etc are all included as extra data that is project & wall specific after inserting.

Every major material has a code & subcode. Such as: MS (Metal Stud) with 1.5; 2.5; 3.6 etc to designate the width. For some elements like Furring we have a standard that we only use specific products, so it is not necessary to list the size. We will use: HC for 7/8" Hat Channels; ZC for 1/2" Z clips or CS for 2 1/2" C-studs.

For finish materials, like Gypsum Board, we use a simple designator "G" followed by the thickness of the product (measured in 1/8th inch) ie: G4 is GypsumBoard that is 4/8" thick or (1/2"); G5 is 5/8" thick. We do the same thing for Plywood, Cement Board & OSB.

All this sounds way more complicated that it really is. As I said earlier, it is really just shorthand and abbreviations.

If anyone actually cares I would be happy to post a pdf.

Cheers.

(Always welcome your comments. Always looking for a better/faster way to do things.)

[Mike Sealander]

We do sim to Phyllis. Exterior walls are given a functional or application name: "Addition CMU wall" or some such that is project-dependent. Interior walls are named by their tag name. Our system has three fields: Core material (wood, metal stud, CMU, cheese cake), layers of GWB (which is by far the most pervasive interior wall sheathing), and then a field for differentiating custom sheathing. We used to have a field for wall top condition, but now just use sections.

[kblaese]

How would you handle rated walls in your system. Do you have a modifier?

[Mike Sealander]

Yes, we have a modifier for ratings. You can also create a unique material (with a unique cut pattern) for rated wall cores.

[jmqrsq]

"Overconstrained- I dont disagree in principle, just in practice. One thing i cherish the most about my job is going out in the field, and getting good, honest, no-pulled-punches feedback from the guys who are stuck with my drawings after im done. I do NOT believe in being one of those designers/architects who comes up with a concept then disengages after SD, or even CD. Its mine til its done, from reward to responsibility.

So when i come across something in my *standards* that isnt clear and concise, or needs rework, im more than happy to discuss it. Actually, my current role in my current office as BIM Manager has been SOME Revit and SOME BIM, but more OFFICE standards manager, meeting with management to retool and validate "exactly whats ina set of drawings."

With that, if the drawings are "clear, consise, and constructable," and different contractors just disagree on "what a partition schedule should look like," well thats just too d*mn bad. Were trying to adhere to some global standards as much as possible to eliminate these types of things, but there are a few phrases that (flat out) are not in my vocabulary:

1. Thats how ive always done it.
2. Thats not how we used to do it.
3. Im not doing that because im not used to it.

Believe me, hard-lined as i sound, im ALL ABOUT making the "machine" (architecture) as concise and buildable and describeable as possible. And i find offenders in both contractors AND architects alike, who are *just used to it their way.* If your way has a particular logic and/or rationale that makes it a better method of documentation, im fully engaged and at the table. But if someone comes to me and its just *i dont like seeing it that way,* they can pound sand. LOL. "

I agree 100%