Injunears - who needs them!!!
Wait, I are an Injunear!!!
I am just as angered by Engineering Firms inserting "Boilerplate" Blocks and XREFs on Plan Pages, as you guys are!
And don't get me started on the attitudes of some Injunears! That is an all day tirade - full of hot air and flames!
There are some Engineers out there, they still exist and do competent work.
As to the subject of CAD - vs - Hard Copy work:
While I use a CAD Application to create my Designed Project's Plan Sheets, I do not use it for Engineering.
The CAD Application is only a very compact Drafting Tool, much easier to use as compared to the Hard Copy work I performed many years ago!
The Tools I use for Engineering are mainly custom Spreadsheets, developed over the years.
The information and data resulting from the Spreadsheets' work is entered into the CAD drawn Electrical Sheets + Databases.
As to the use of Common Drawings (Blocks or XREFs) for things like Pole Bases, we have archived about 30 different Pole Base details for various Poles that are commonly used on our Projects, per the normal Wind Load zones.
If we deal with a Pole that is different than "normal" - be it taller than 25 Feet, has an unusual Fixture layout, or will be installed for a higher Wind Load Zone, I will obtain the required data and edit an existing Detail Block - saving it as a new Block.
Hence the evolution of more and more Blocks!
Don't get me wrong - I fully identify with the issues discussed in this thread!!!
Back in 2005, I was given a Design to include an optional Diesel Generator.
Was asked to perform the Concrete pad Engineering + Drafting too.
Went through many texts to arrive with the necessary Seismic design criteria regarding the Pad and the Generator's anchoring.
Planning Dept. would not accept my work, because I did not have the appropriate Stamp (PE Stamp).
The Planner really wanted to accept it, because it was clearly drawn, properly noted, and exceeded the minimum compliance - but without the Discipline Specific Stamp, it was merely a well drawn party favor!
Had to commission an Engineer to submit the properly stamped documents - which were nothing more than Building Department Hand-Out Bulletins on one page, and the results of a Spreadsheet on the other page.
The Engineering Firm charged the Client $4,500.00 for Three Stamped sets, mailed to me (not submitted by them to Planning).
I supplied them with the necessary information.
Their calcs just barely complied with the minimum requirements.
I submitted the Documents to Planning (same Planner, whom was sickened by the entire story).
My price for the _COMPLETE_ Plan Set work (Concrete, screening, Seismic Calcs, Electrical drawings, Vendor consultation and Plan Check Submission):
The Engineering Firm price for 10 minutes of work, use of the copy machine, and mailing 6 documents:
Talk about Pissed-Off!!! I am definitely in the wrong Business, as far as generating profit!
Nevertheless, through the many somewhat similar scenarios encountered in my career, my "Drafting Ethics" along with my Engineering Ethics are still the same -
* Put as much information possible in the Plan Set;
* Keep the information concise and understandable (not an easy task for me!!!
* Include relative notes;
* Draw things so they can be seen (avoid hiding things);
* Call-Outs for relevant information and details made so they point to the proper items,
* Detail Sheets with details that are used on project (not several sheets with every detail known to Man, lacking the ones really needed);
* Panel + Circuit numbers at each device / load;
* Fixture type Call-Outs at each Fixture;
* Fixture Schedules with "useful" information, along with quantity;
* Panelboard / Distribution Schedules with proper detailed information - including device quantities, ratings and specifications;
* Scope of Work details on cover page;
* Building layout with locations of Panelboards, Transformers and Service Equipment (along with Building related information such as rated corridors, room numbers, specific rooms, etc.);
* The information people in the field really need!
My intentions are to generate the most accurate set of Plans, which are easily read + interpreted by all involved - which includes the following:
A: The Plans Examiner (this is where code issues need to be discovered and rectified - not in the field!);
B: Estimators (smooth take offs and quotes generated - this includes myself, plus 2 others at the Office);
C: Project Managers (includes myself once again!!!);
D: Our Superintendents;
E: Field Fore persons;
F: The Journey persons in the field.
Things get better with each Plan Set.
OK, Tirade over, and stepping off the Soapbox!