Casework Plans

[ford347]

This may be more of a standards question, but I thought I'd address it anyway to see what others are doing.

When we do residential plans, I pretty much always throw 3d cabinets/casework in so that once it's done, I'm not worrying about if I've drafted something correctly somwhere. So for the most part, I have used the casework that came with Revit and have collected various pieces from Revit City and have built a few of my own to accomodate whatever I run across. But we aren't really in the business of actually designing the casework. We focus more on the space planning for such elemtents and make sure that those items work with their surrounding elements, i.e. appliances, general flow etc. So I've never been really worried about having pretty casework.

So with that said, I've never been worried about having a casework schedule since I don't really have anything specific to say about any particular item. So what I have done, which was quite some time ago, was create a bunch of keynotes that addressed the basic cabinet type and it's size. So the notes go something liket this:

27" Dbl Door 2 Drawer Base Cabinet
27" Dbl Door Sink Cabinet
18" Single Door Base Cabinet

Yada Yada. I thought this was a compromise between complete detail and nothing at all or just a few dimensions. Since we are Contractors as well, we usually leave the detail and cabinet design options up to a few trusted Cabinet shops in our area. They model, provide detail, can provide finishes, options etc. They are setup, so we let them do their job.

So I guess my question is, is what I have setup practical and a good method? I have spent quite a bit of time getting all those keynotes tied to each piece of casework, which works most of the time, until you get pinched for space and you have a couple of crazy cabinet dimensions that you probably don't have in your keynote database. Which is the reason I am questioning my method. Would it be better to just actually show an elevation for representation, and throw some dimension lines on all casework, or just the over-all area and just address heights, reveals etc. and just forget about calling out the dbl door base etc.?

Just curious to see if anyone can critique this process and give me some advice on how I could better improve how we present our space planning for our casework elements.

Thanks in advance.

Josh

I posted an example of what some of our call-outs for this has looked like.

[Mike Sealander]

Since you are working in California, let me suggest getting a copy of the WIC (Woodwork institute of California) binder, if you don't have it already. There is a supplement of standard casework types and nomenclature, and most cabinet shops in CA should be familiar with them, even if they are not WIC-certified shops.
What I am doing now is labeling the casework by type, and dimensioning them on interior elevations. This lets you graphically see what the casework dimension string is going to be, and you can dimension corner scribes as well. A dimensioned kitchen elevation is a pretty useful drawing.
For casework legends, you really then only need to show the type (three-drawer, etc).
The only oddball is if you have casework of varying depth. For this, I would include the depth in the type description.

[ford347]

Maybe you could post an example?


So when you say you are tagging the casework, then I assume you are also providing a casework schedule to report the width, height and depth? Then the legend is just placed to show single cabinet types, not specific sizes. I'm curious as to how you arrange or present that in your sheet set.

Josh

[cstanley]

Maybe you could post an example?


So when you say you are tagging the casework, then I assume you are also providing a casework schedule to report the width, height and depth? Then the legend is just placed to show single cabinet types, not specific sizes. I'm curious as to how you arrange or present that in your sheet set.

JoshThis is something I've been working on for quite some time. Use the WIC. It's there, they provide the revit models, and casework shops are familiar. There is a set of standards in place, yada yad. all you have to tell them is which piece (family) and which size (l x w x h.) that's all they need. you don't even need to show an elevation or section. the types are all there, for the most part. Our tags are set up to see the family (type 301, for example) and the type (the size, driven by type catalogs in the LxWxH format.) this eliminates the need to dimension if you follow a 3" incremental standard.

In addition, the AWI has also adopted the WIC standards as well, which is nationwide...

refer to this thread where I descride what we do as well as others: http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=62528

[aaronrumple]

Maybe you could post an example?


So when you say you are tagging the casework, then I assume you are also providing a casework schedule to report the width, height and depth? Then the legend is just placed to show single cabinet types, not specific sizes. I'm curious as to how you arrange or present that in your sheet set.

Josh
I wouldn't even do the schedule. I'd just use standard AWI nomenclature on the cabinets for the tags such as - WC2430. If as you say - you are worknig with a few select shops, then that should be enough for them to do the shop drawings.

[tc3dcad60731]

It might not be good form but I normally show a rough layout in plan and then call out an interior elevation to show the general feel for what we are wanting. Most of my clients do not want me to tie them down to anything and later go to custom cabinet shops or the design team at Lowes or Home Depot for cabinetry.

So I guess what I am saying is I pretty much do what Josh was saying. Show it in plan, interior elevation, and call out in leaders or text what the sizes are that we used for design purposes on the room.

[Mike Sealander]

You should base what you do on who is looking at the drawings. In residential projects, it's important to graphically show as much as possible, because residential clients are typically naive, and the more you show, the more they understand. From there, you can ratchet back on how much you draw. In theory, a designer can just provide product numbers based on WIC or some other system (think of punched windows; each manufacturer has a product number for every variation of window they sell). However, the graphical backup ensures against typographical errors, and the visual helps in communicating what everyone expects to see upon job completion.
I guess in the end I think it's not so much a Revit issue, but an issue with what the results need to be in the drawing set.