Author Topic: developing cad standards  (Read 7438 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hornet

  • Guest
developing cad standards
« on: January 07, 2007, 04:58:35 PM »
We are trying to set up a cad standard and make it very simple to use, so that students can use it in schools, thereby bringing on a new generation of draughtspeople, but it must be robust enough so that the building industry will also adopted it.
It has been written to be incorporated into a “company’s cad standard manual”

What do you think of the "system" ? will it work?
constructive comments only please.

Basic Drawing Set Up
The whole concept of the CAD Standards is based on “what you see is what you get”, with light colours in the background and brighter colours to the foreground.  Technical building details that are in front of the main drawing plane, these details are to be picked out using a “phantom” line-type and coloured light grey.

There would be a Master prototype drawing, which will have some building elements already set out on their respective layers, the layers will include, line-types, colour, line-weight, and their own names, including dimension styles, already to use at the start of a new project.

The layers should have “D”, “H”, “T”, “Z”, text written on them,
D is allocated to Dimensions. 
H is allocated to Hatches
T is allocated to text.
Z is allocated to drawing symbols.
An example layer name is set out here,    by using letters pl-wall-T

 There should be 2 plot file provided, for The Company’s projects, to suit A1 drawings.
 One a full black ctb file the other is a mix of colour and black that should work with Autocad LT

All users MUST use the same properties as set out in the Master drawing; for example, all external “walls” are to be white, set at .35 line weight, the company must decide what colours are fixed to the building elements.
This way all The Company’s team members will get to know what the colour represents, standard building components, from the planning department through to the technical department.
(We are not sure if this is achievable throughout the UK)

Pen Colour , Line Thickness and Linetype Scales

Plotters have a physical lower limit of line thickness of 0.1, the thicknesses the human eye can recognise are 0.10, 0.18 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, with 0.7 being enough for our technical drawings, these thickness also match the ISO drawing standards. Planning drawings can be any thickness, by using Polylines, hatches and solid fills.

At the moment the first 10 colours are used by most Architectural practices throughout the UK for construction lines.

To make the new system as user friendly as possible, and much more flexible, a standard pattern has been developed using the pen colour numbers with the pen thickness/weight. When you want to print a thin line, you would use 0.1, 0.18, therefore, pen colours/numbers are as follows, you may notice below that, to produce a line with 0.1 thickness, the colour number ends, with a “0”. 
To produce a 0.18 line weight, the number ends with “1”, a line with a weight of 0.25, the colour number ends with “2”
I hope you can now see the pattern that should be easy to remember.


  1 = 0.1, 2= 0.35, 3=0.5, 4=0.18, 5 = 0.7, 6 =0.18, 7=0.35, 8=0.18, 9=0.1
  1 to 9 will print black, the other numbers would print colour on the mixed ctb file
                                       10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and so on = 0.10
                                       11, 21, 31, 41, 51 and so on = 0.18
                                       12, 22, 32, 42, 52 and so on  = 0.25
                                       13,14, 23,24, 33 and so on    = 0.35
                                       15,16, 25,26, 35 and so on    = 0.50
                                       17, 27, 37, 47, 57 and so on  = 0.70   

from 250 to 254 are the grey colours and reduce from 0.5 to 0.1, with 255 set to 0.25 for text.
Screening would help reduce the density of the line weights for A3 prints however this would introduce a third CTB file. 

If you want to produce very wide lines, convert it to a polyline, then add a width to it, you MUST NOT change the CTB file. WE will all be using the same file on all the drawings, thereby keeping the same standards through out the Company.
The line type scale should be set to 10 for all drawings ranging from 1:1 to 1:200 and 75 for drawings ranging from 1:200 to 1:2500.  Both scales use the Autocad ISO.lin linetype file, as stated above

In a multi-disciplined practice the M+E designers and the Architects are both required to produce drawings with thick lines, for the client, however when co-ordinating within each others drawings, they must be interchangeable.
The Architects want thin lines from the M+E designer and the M+E want thin lines from the Architects.   
There is an easy method to solve this problem.  (Look at your layer colour chart)


For example to change the printed output from 0.35 to 0.1 i.e. from thick lines to thin, the easiest way to achieve this is to change the colour in the layer manager by choosing a similar colour.
In the example, i.e. 0.35 to 0.1, just pick the colour two rows up, these will produce a thinner line thickness.
This system should also work with Autocad Lt restricted colours See below. 

See below for pen numbers, colours and line weights.

 
          Full numbers and colours
   N/A = Not able to be used (you cannot see them on the screen)     
             
1   0.10   61   0.18   121   0.18   181   0.18   241   0.18
2   0.10   62   0.25   122   0.25   182   0.25   242   0.25
3   0.18   63   0.35   123   0.35   183   0.35   243   0.35
4   0.18   64   0.35   124   0.35   184   0.35   244   0.35
5   0.25   65   0.50   125   0.50   185   0.50   245   0.50
6   0.25   66   0.50   126   0.50   186   0.50   246   0.50
7   0.35   67   0.70    127   0.70    187   0.70    247   0.70
8   0.18   68   N/a    128   N/a    188   N/a    248   N/a
9   0.10   69   N/a    129   N/a    189   N/a    249   N/a
10   0.10   70   0.10   130   0.10   190   0.10   250   0.5
11   0.18   71   0.18   131   0.18   191   0.18   251   0.35
12   0.25   72   0.25   132   0.25   192   0.25   252   0.25
13   0.35   73   0.35   133   0.35   193   0.35   255   0.25
14   0.35   74   0.35   134   0.35   194   0.35   253   0.18
15   0.50   75   0.50   135   0.50   195   0.50   254   0.10
16   0.50   76   0.50   136   0.50   196   0.50   255   0.25
17   0.70    77   0.70    137   0.70    197   0.70        
18   N/a    78   N/a    138   N/a    198   N/a        
19   N/a    79   N/a    139   N/a    199   N/a        
20   0.10   80   0.10   140   0.10   200   0.10      
21   0.18   81   0.18   141   0.18   201   0.18      
22   0.25   82   0.25   142   0.25   202   0.25      
23   0.35   83   0.35   143   0.35   203   0.35      
24   0.35   84   0.35   144   0.35   204   0.35      
25   0.50   85   0.50   145   0.50   205   0.50      
26   0.50   86   0.50   146   0.50   206   0.50      
27   0.70    87   0.70    147   0.70    207   0.70       
28   N/a    88   N/a    148   N/a    208   N/a       
29   N/a    89   N/a    149   N/a    209   N/a       
30   0.10   90   0.10   150   0.10   210   0.10      
31   0.18   91   0.18   151   0.18   211   0.18      
32   0.25   92   0.25   152   0.25   212   0.25      
33   0.35   93   0.35   153   0.35   213   0.35      
34   0.35   94   0.35   154   0.35   214   0.35      
35   0.50   95   0.50   155   0.50   215   0.50      
36   0.50   96   0.50   156   0.50   216   0.50      
37   0.70    97   0.70    157   0.70    217   0.70       
38   N/a    98   N/a    158   N/a    218   N/a       
39   N/a    99   N/a    159   N/a    219   N/a       
40   0.10   100   0.10   160   0.10   220   0.5      
41   0.18   101   0.18   161   0.18   221   0.18      
42   0.25   102   0.25   162   0.25   222   0.25      
43   0.35   103   0.35   163   0.35   223   0.35      
44   0.35   104   0.35   164   0.35   224   0.35      
45   0.50   105   0.50   165   0.50   225   0.50      
46   0.50   106   0.50   166   0.50   226   0.50      
47   0.70    107   0.70    167   0.70    227   0.70       
48   N/a    108   N/a    168   N/a    228   N/a       
49   N/a    109   N/a    169   N/a    229   N/a       
50   0.10   110   0.10   170   0.10   230   0.10      
51   0.18   111   0.18   171   0.18   231   0.18      
52   0.25   112   0.25   172   0.25   232   0.25      
53   0.35   113   0.35   173   0.35   233   0.35      
54   0.35   114   0.35   174   0.35   234   0.35      
55   0.50   115   0.50   175   0.50   235   0.50      
56   0.50   116   0.50   176   0.50   236   0.50      
57   0.70    117   0.70    177   0.70    237   0.70       
58   N/a    118   N/a    178   N/a    238   N/a       
59   N/a    119   N/a    179   N/a    239   N/a       
60   0.10   120   0.10   180   0.10   240   0.10

2.3 Project and Site Drawing File Naming Conventions
The following outlines the file naming conventions.
When characters are not used they are to be missed out and not substituted.
X-Ref                  1
Job No                2
Site Name           3
MasterPlan/Zone  4
Building              5
Floor Level          6
Type of Drawing   7
Drawing  Number  8
Rev                     9

Field 1: X-Ref (1 character only when used)
When the drawing is a model file it is to be preceded with the character X to donate that it is an X-Ref.
The xref layers are then forced to the bottom of the layer manager, thereby placing the working layers at the top of the list thereby making the layer manager easier to use for everyone.
Field 2: Job Number This should only be used for the folder/directory and in the
           title block of a plotted drawing.
          The name having four numbers but could be 6 alphanumeric characters
          but under special circumstances the suffixes may be included. This could
         also be a Client or Contractor code if required.
         (By keeping the file path name short, it is easier to see, a file in Window
         explore, when searching for that drawing).
Field 3: Site Name Site name; shown in the drawing title block only
Field 4: Master plan/Zone drawings (2 characters) i.e MP, A, B, etc (see below)
Field 5: Building (1 characters normally but can be unlimited if required) 1, 2,
           etc, a zone within the building has a number,  but can be unlimited if
           required)
Field 6: Floor Levels  BA= Basement, G00= is ground floor, L01= First Floor,
           L02=Second floor this includes mezzanines levels etc.
Field 7: Type of Drawing sets (2 characters max)
Field 8: Drawing No
Field 9: Rev


Field 4  Master plan/Zone drawings
Code   Description
MP   Masterplan
   
S0   Site
S1   Site Zone 1
S2   Site Zone 2
   
A0   General Building (for whole building)
A01   Building A Zone 1
A02   Building A Zone 2
A03   Building A Zone 3
   
B0   General arrangement of the Building (for whole building)
B01   Building B Zone 1
B02   Building B Zone 2
B03   Building B Zone 3

Field 6: Floor Levels (3 characters)
Used to identify the floor, elevation or section reference
Table
Code   Description
B02   Basement 2
B01   Basement 1
G00   Ground Floor
L01   First Floor
L02   Second Floor
L03   Third Floor
….   ….
RL---   Roof Level (to be used at the highest level on split roof designs)


If you can improve on the above "system" please let me know
A complete document with coloured images is available on request

I hoping to get intelligent replies

all the best

Regards
Hornet


























      
For the Alphabetical naming layering system with filter system on the left ,  see below for some different fields

GA for General Arrangement, PL for Plans, EL for Elevations, SC for Sections, SI Site, CE Ceilings, RF Roof, DR, Drainage, FU Furniture, LA Landscaping, EE Electrical, HE Heating, AH Air Handling, ST Structural,
FS Foundations/Slab, RD Room details, DDA Disabled, FR Fire Strategy, SU Security, AC Accoustic, WT Wall Type, DE Details, WC Toilets, VSW Vertical StairWell, etc.


   




uncoolperson

  • Guest
Re: developing cad standards
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2007, 10:12:19 PM »
...I hoping to get intelligent replies...

 :lmao:

jonesy

  • SuperMod
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 15568
Re: developing cad standards
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2007, 02:27:01 AM »
Can I ask a question?

How much research have you done to find out what is already out there? If you are trying to make it "stick" and be adopted by many companies you will need to be clear and concise with layering. Cad standards should not be confusing, if they are people simply wont use them.

Teaching people to "CAD" is only half the battle. There is a MAJOR lack of proper drafting skills in the UK. People simply arent taught how to set out a drawing correctly. I currently audit the drawings for our company, and I'm always amazed at the lack of knowledge about how to produce a good drawing.

I have been using CAD for well over 15 years. Most companies I have worked for have used the pen settings that relate to the old style drawing pens. (red=0.18, white=0.25 etc) In fact I think the only company that didnt were Microstation users.

And I would be interested to see the complete document, and will PM you me email address :-)
Thanks for explaining the word "many" to me, it means a lot.

Josh Nieman

  • Guest
Re: developing cad standards
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2007, 01:37:34 PM »
I have been using CAD for well over 15 years. Most companies I have worked for have used the pen settings that relate to the old style drawing pens. (red=0.18, white=0.25 etc) In fact I think the only company that didnt were Microstation users.

This is really showing my green and youth, but I've only used Solidworks and Autodesk products, nothing from Bentley, even Microstation.  When you say "(red=.18, white=.25)" are you saying it's obsolete to use colors that dictate line thickness?  Why?  Autocad is set up conveniently and fully able to use color tables.  This combined with the method of layering makes it an almost intuitive reasoning to make lineweights printed by color.  This way if you need an overridden lineweight for any special case, the special case stands out and is immediately distinguishable by the user, as a benefit of using colors.  Using lineweights is not as easy, in this way, as Autocad has never, as I've seen it, been able to display lineweights practically enough for visual reference.

What is your alternative within Autocad?  Lineweights by layer?  This would mean that color means nothing, and color is a big visual reference when using Autocad.  How would you go about it?

Also, please sate my curiosity... how does Microstation handle such things, I wonder?  I know little of microstation...

hornet

  • Guest
Re: developing cad standards
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2007, 02:54:26 PM »
I completely agree about the lack of draughting skills in the UK. That is why I have been asked by the B.S.I to find out what you lot think of the "system" of using almost the full range of the Autocad colours.  (note the lineweights fixed to the "range" of colour numbers)
With the printers now available to everyone, the younger generation do not have any idea what pen plotters are, so why stick to with the old pen settings.

The second reason to use this type of "system" is; if you upgrade from standard Autocad to ADT or Revit, I can see you may need a lot more colours to produce drawings/models in all the different views, yet still produce good looking paper plots, using the same lineweights.

By the time the new generation are out in the job market, 3D modelling will be the norm.

I have already asked Bentley for their intelligent comments and opinions.
I am given to understand they can use the same layer/colour range as Autocad.
I'm hoping to get a reply next week.

I would be interested find out if the "system" would work in Solidworks.

keep in touch
Hornet

Avanti

  • Guest
Re: developing cad standards
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2007, 03:33:52 PM »
I've used a dozen CAD systems over the last 29 years.  IMHO the simpler the better.  You will go through a lot training to find a couple of stars that actually follow the standards and stay with you.  Personally I started with this and reworked it to fit our company.  With time it continues to develop.

http://www.upo.harvard.edu/pr/standards/Csg-8a.pdf

sinc

  • Guest
Re: developing cad standards
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2007, 09:10:44 PM »
What is your alternative within Autocad?  Lineweights by layer?  This would mean that color means nothing, and color is a big visual reference when using Autocad.  How would you go about it?

Yes, lineweights by layer is what we do.  Color isn't meaningless, however - it just no longer equates to the lineweight.  Instead, we can choose similar colors for logically-related items.  It's also possible to do things like make water lines some shade of blue, sanitary sewer lines some shade of brown, etc.  In addition, most things tend to be in the middle colors.  More-important things are in the brighter colors, and jump out.  Less-important things are in darker colors, and fade into the background.  Net result is a drawing that is much easier to use and look at than a standard CTB-based drawing, which tends to have almost everything set to red, yellow, green, blue, or magenta (at least the way most people usually do it).

This has a lot of benefits.  For example, we can XREF a "reference drawing" into another drawing, and then turn all the XREF layers to a funky color, so it's easy to see what's in the XREF (or so that the XREF fades into the background on the screen, depending on the user's desires).  This has no effect on the lineweights, however, so the XREF still prints correctly, with all of its lineweights intact, even though all layers are the same color on-screen.

As for making color prints vs. black and white, we manage that through Plot Styles.  We use Named Plot Styles, and our Plot Styles are things like "Black", "Color", "Grey", "Lt. Grey", "Red", "Screen 40", and a handful of others.  Items with the "Black" plot style will print in black on paper, regardless of what color they are on-screen.  Items with plot style set to "Color" will print on paper using the same color as on-screen.  Items with plot style set to "Red" will print on paper in red, regardless of what color they are on-screen.  And so forth.

Net result is we have extreme flexibility to quickly and easily do many neat things that are impossible with CTB files.

All our standard layers are setup in our templates, along with their correct lineweights, so individual users need to do little thinking to maintain the standard.  They simply need to always use a template to create new drawings, and then make sure they put things on the right layers (which is pretty straight-forward because of the way we name and describe layers).  This goes along with our standard policy of setting things up so that "Standards Happen" - i.e., instead of giving our users a book of standards, we make it harder for them to violate the standards than to follow them.  We count on laziness to enforce the standards, and try to do things in such a way so that the easiest and fastest way to perform the task results in drawings that automatically follow the company standards.

Now that we have our drawing templates setup, our typical users generally do not need to worry about lineweight at all.  They simply work.  Then they print.  And all the lineweights are correct, automatically.  The way it should be.   :-)

BTW, Civil-3D Styles make this even easier, since the Styles basically incorporate the company standards.  In many ways, they serve the same purpose as a book of standards, except with benefits.  For example, they are an active part of the UI, and as such we don't have to worry about whether or not our users are actually reading the standard doc.  And it's easier to keep a drawing template up-to-date than to keep Standard documentation up-to-date, which makes my life easier.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2007, 09:21:23 PM by sinc »

sinc

  • Guest
Re: developing cad standards
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2007, 09:18:19 PM »
We are trying to set up a cad standard and make it very simple to use, so that students can use it in schools, thereby bringing on a new generation of draughtspeople, but it must be robust enough so that the building industry will also adopted it.

I have to wonder why you are worrying about industry adopting a standard you are designing for students.

While can be some benefit to standards, there is considerable debate as to whether the whole idea of an "industry-wide standard" is even possible, let alone desirable.  So rather than get lost in that debate, it seems you'd be better served by just concentrating on teaching your students, and forget about industry.  ...Well, you should probably see what's going on in industry, so you can teach something compatible, but it seems pointless to hope to convince the industry to adopt the standard you devise.

For example, we've been reaching the conclusion that Standards documentation is for the most part a waste of time - the docs are always out-of-date, and end up being a constant time sink if you try to keep them current.  Then people tend to ignore them.  All in all, we've decided that more proactive approaches are better and more-productive.

JohnK

  • Administrator
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 10646
Re: developing cad standards
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2007, 09:29:23 PM »
Reads like a book. Don't do that; `the company standards' should read like a reference not like a book. (Later its harder for people to find the information they are looking for.)

For example: Check out this excerpt from a GNU man page generator (The program isn't important, just the format of the ``help'' page.)
Quote
    NAME
           foo - manual page for foo 1.1

    SYNOPSIS
           foo [OPTION]...

    DESCRIPTION
           GNU  `foo'  does  nothing  interesting  except serve as an
           example for `help2man'.

    OPTIONS
           -a, --option
                  an option

           -b, --another-option[=VALUE]
                  another option

           --help display this help and exit

           --version
                  output version information and exit

    EXAMPLES
           foo    do nothing

           foo --option
                  the same thing, giving `--option'

    AUTHOR
           Written by A. Programmer.

    REPORTING BUGS
           Report bugs to <bug-gnu-utils@gnu.org>.

    COPYRIGHT
           Copyright (C) 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
           This is free software; see the source for  copying  condi-
           tions.  There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY
           or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

    SEE ALSO
           The full documentation for foo is maintained as a  Texinfo
           manual.   If  the  info  and  foo  programs  are  properly
           installed at your site, the command

                  info foo

           should give you access to the complete manual.

This format is very clean and straight forward. This isnt a method that was thought up in one sitting, study how it `flows' and it will help you make a better `standards book'.

BTW, I am currently re-writing my company's standards and i choose a format similar to this.
TheSwamp.org (serving the CAD community since 2003)
Member location map - Add yourself

Donate to TheSwamp.org

JohnK

  • Administrator
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 10646
Re: developing cad standards
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2007, 09:36:14 PM »
You will not get a whole industry to adopt anything... Each company has its own standard. Besides there are tons of standards out there; ANSI, ISO(ish), AIA, (each US govt agency has a variant.), etc.

The standards you wrote are WAY to specialized for the whole industry to adopt. For example, you spoke of CTB files. (What if i and my company uses STBs?) And the first ten colors being used for construction lines. (Ive been at companies that only use the first 10 colors.)
TheSwamp.org (serving the CAD community since 2003)
Member location map - Add yourself

Donate to TheSwamp.org

Arizona

  • Guest
Re: developing cad standards
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2007, 09:49:36 PM »
I agree with what Seven said.
Make your cad standards easy to understand and follow.
Automate where you can.
And don't make the standards so hard to follow that you bind the hands of the drafters.

I work in a company that uses both acad and microstation. Our standards (that I wrote) are not platform specific but our specific to what the final product must meet.
This allows the standards to provide the consistency that we need without restricting (too much) the methods in which the technicians reach this end. :-)

As a large company, we set our own standards and all of our sub-contractors must meet our standards (at least if they want to get paid they do). :?
We don't care/worry about industry standards, since most standards do not fit the utility industry that encompasses many combined disciplines.