Innovations

Think Outside the Box Regarding Drawing Sizes

Think outside the box regarding drawing sizes.

Have you ever stopped to think about why 99% of the plans we issue are either 40” x 32”, 48” x 36”, or maybe 24” x 36”? I suspect that if you did, your answer would be either:

– We’ve always done it that way.
– The drawing size was dictated by others.
– That’s what the permitting agency expects.
– That’s what fits on someone’s desk (or file drawer, or drawing rack, etc.)

Large Engineer Drawing Example

A better question might be “What size drawing best conveys our MEP information?

An even better question might be “Why do physical drawings even matter any longer?

Several trends are converging to lead Affiliated Engineers to question our allegiance to the traditional drawing sizes:

  1. Contractors have gone digital. Many projects are not built off physical drawings any longer. Contractors are using flat screens and tablets.
  2. Construction software advances allow immediate access to the most recent version of each drawing.
  3. Many permitting agencies are accepting (or even demanding) digital plans.
  4. MEP information in Revit is cluttered at 1/8th scale, leading us to use ¼” scale. These ¼” scale plans must be completely fragmented and broken up at traditional drawing sizes, leading to a maze of matchlines and an obfuscation of MEP intent.
  5. Bluebeam is being used much more often for both internal and external QC. The days of multiple hard copies of QC redlines are nearing an end.

In response to these factors, we went out on a limb on our recent Cone Women’s Expansion project (a true ILPD project) and issued our MEP plans at 60” x 84” at ¼” scale. We chose this size because it can be printed at half size on a traditional sheet for anyone uncomfortable with the large sheets and because it aligned extremely well with the size of our building at ¼” scale. Here are the benefits:Engineering digital drawing

  • MEP intent is extremely easy to follow, with entire floors on a single page. NO MATCHLINES!
  • On this project, our set went from approximately 500 drawings at traditional sizes to 120 drawings at 60” x 84”.
  • The owner only wants MEP as-builts in digital form. The physical drawing size is irrelevant.
  • Both our permitting agency and our contractor are fully digital. Only a single full-size hard copy was printed for display on the wall of the contractor’s trailer. Why would we base everything we produce on this single set of hard copies?

This solution isn’t for every project (or every architectural partner or client), but the stars aligned with our project to make a compelling test case for the future.


About the Author: Jeremy Jones

Jeremy has been fortunate enough to work in Healthcare MEP design for his entire career, starting in 2000. He has been working at Affiliated Engineers since 2010, starting in the Affiliated Engineers’ Houston office. He has since, relocated to Chapel Hill.

Contact Jeremy Jones

2 comments on “Think Outside the Box Regarding Drawing Sizes

  1. Bill Redmond

    This article directly addresses issues that I’ve had with recent projects. Thanks, Jeremy.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Zane Kuseybi

    Great idea. We are not limited today by printing by use of continuous paper so why not expand the field. Very useful for design coordination and presentation. What owner would not be impressed by a wall size drawing. For many the increased scale would be more “relatable.”

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: