TheSwamp

CAD Forums => CAD General => CAD Standards => Topic started by: Krushert on April 06, 2010, 02:07:32 PM

Title: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: Krushert on April 06, 2010, 02:07:32 PM
Is the following statement doubling up in calling it an angle?

Quote
CONT. L4x4x.25 STEEL ANGLE
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: nivuahc on April 06, 2010, 02:08:27 PM
Is the following statement doubling up in calling it an angle?

Quote
CONT. L4x4x.25 STEEL ANGLE


Is an ATM Machine an Automatic Teller Machine Machine?  :wink:
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: Bob Wahr on April 06, 2010, 03:21:19 PM
Not only is the word Angle redundant, I think that the word steel is in this case.  IMO, it's safe to assume steel unless called out otherwise.
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: Kate M on April 06, 2010, 03:44:23 PM
Is the following statement doubling up in calling it an angle?

Quote
CONT. L4x4x.25 STEEL ANGLE


Is an ATM Machine an Automatic Teller Machine Machine?  :wink:
Sure, just like your car has ABS brakes.  :-)
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: M-dub on April 06, 2010, 03:47:27 PM
Similar to, but not the same as Tuna Fish.
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: Krushert on April 06, 2010, 03:53:15 PM
Not only is the word Angle redundant, I think that the word steel is in this case.  IMO, it's safe to assume steel unless called out otherwise.
With this crazy project, we have Steel, Stainless, Galvanized, painted steel, Steel with special trademarked coatings.  So calling out steel in this example is correct; in our crazy thinking anyway.  :|

If it gets any crazier with materials, I going to say I am back in the shipyard.  :cry:
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: deegeecees on April 06, 2010, 04:07:02 PM
L4x4x.25 STEEL

Would be correct in my office.
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: Bob Garner on April 06, 2010, 04:13:26 PM
AISC Sez:  L4x4x1/4

Tradition says materials should (shall) be identified in the specs, but if you are crazy with lots of materials and it clarifies the contract, go for material callouts on the drawings.  As long as someone will sign and agree to your contract, you're good to go.

Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: t-bear on April 06, 2010, 04:40:46 PM
L4x4x.25 STEEL

Would be correct in my office.

Steel callouts here are by type...
SS=Stainless Steel
ASTM=mild Steel etc...

So what we have is.....

L4x4x1/4 SS-304L = stainless steel Angle
W10X39 ASTM-A36 = mild steel W-Beam
C10x20 ASTM-A36 = Mild steel Channel

The "L" identifies the structural designation, just like "W" stands for Wide beam or "C" means Channel...no need to repeat that.
Call out standard material types at the end of the structural identifier.....simple!
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: LE3 on April 06, 2010, 05:10:44 PM
do not know if has something to do this here...

normally in the architectural drawings you add an abbreviation or the whole word in the stairs of "UP" or "DN" and also draw an arrow pointing the run direction.

there was a PA in one of the projects jobs I worked and she put a note into the stairs:

STAIR TO GO DOWN
STAIR TO GO UP

those were notes into a 30 stories hotel building   :roll: yeah!

that was the fun part of architorture....
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: Bob Garner on April 06, 2010, 05:22:35 PM
Or the stair callout: an arrow with the word "heaven"
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: LE3 on April 06, 2010, 05:27:26 PM
Or the stair callout: an arrow with the word "heaven"

He he...
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: Krushert on April 06, 2010, 05:34:13 PM
do not know if has something to do this here...

normally in the architectural drawings you add an abbreviation or the whole word in the stairs of "UP" or "DN" and also draw an arrow pointing the run direction.

there was a PA in one of the projects jobs I worked and she put a note into the stairs:

STAIR TO GO DOWN
STAIR TO GO UP

those were notes into a 30 stories hotel building   :roll: yeah!

that was the fun part of architorture....
Long story but we had a PITA of job super on a projects that was an almost rubber stamp from job to job.  This was the architects attempt to stop the phone calls.  He failed becuase he forgot spec material.  The job super called with will that be brass, stainless ... ... ...   :-D
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: LE3 on April 06, 2010, 05:39:07 PM
wow  :-o  :lmao:
 
Long story but we had a PITA of job super on a projects that was an almost rubber stamp from job to job.  This was the architects attempt to stop the phone calls.  He failed becuase he forgot spec material.  The job super called with will that be brass, stainless ... ... ...   :-D
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: deegeecees on April 07, 2010, 10:37:32 AM
L4x4x.25 STEEL

Would be correct in my office.

Steel callouts here are by type...
SS=Stainless Steel
ASTM=mild Steel etc...

So what we have is.....

L4x4x1/4 SS-304L = stainless steel Angle
W10X39 ASTM-A36 = mild steel W-Beam
C10x20 ASTM-A36 = Mild steel Channel

The "L" identifies the structural designation, just like "W" stands for Wide beam or "C" means Channel...no need to repeat that.
Call out standard material types at the end of the structural identifier.....simple!

Ah yes, it's been a while since working with true structural drawings, (Patrick Engineering, Inc.). Here, the only people that see my construction drawings have no clue as to ANSI, ASTM, ISO, or any other standard drawing notation practices. So, I cater to their ignorance. It kind of scares me to think that if I ever have to go to work for someone that knows what they are doing again, I'll be lost.
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: t-bear on April 07, 2010, 03:47:03 PM
L4x4x.25 STEEL

Would be correct in my office.

Steel callouts here are by type...
SS=Stainless Steel
ASTM=mild Steel etc...

So what we have is.....

L4x4x1/4 SS-304L = stainless steel Angle
W10X39 ASTM-A36 = mild steel W-Beam
C10x20 ASTM-A36 = Mild steel Channel

The "L" identifies the structural designation, just like "W" stands for Wide beam or "C" means Channel...no need to repeat that.
Call out standard material types at the end of the structural identifier.....simple!

Ah yes, it's been a while since working with true structural drawings, (Patrick Engineering, Inc.). Here, the only people that see my construction drawings have no clue as to ANSI, ASTM, ISO, or any other standard drawing notation practices. So, I cater to their ignorance. It kind of scares me to think that if I ever have to go to work for someone that knows what they are doing again, I'll be lost.

Have no fear....just come work here!  It's kinda half-assed with notation....we *don't* use welding symbols...but it's a pretty good gig. How's your 3D?
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: deegeecees on April 07, 2010, 03:54:10 PM
S'all I do. From concept to construction drawings, it's all pulled from my 3D models. Would be a "Bear" of a commute tho...

 :wink:
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: t-bear on April 07, 2010, 05:15:49 PM
S'all I do. From concept to construction drawings, it's all pulled from my 3D models. Would be a "Bear" of a commute tho...

 :wink:

LOL....know what you mean.  I'm pulling 100 miles a day as is...can't imagine your drive!
Sure could use a decent 3D drafter with some mech background here...otherwise I'll NEVER get out-a here!
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: mjfarrell on April 07, 2010, 06:54:26 PM
S'all I do. From concept to construction drawings, it's all pulled from my 3D models. Would be a "Bear" of a commute tho...

 :wink:

LOL....know what you mean.  I'm pulling 100 miles a day as is...can't imagine your drive!
Sure could use a decent 3D drafter with some mech background here...otherwise I'll NEVER get out-a here!

my 3d is awesome...and I'm virtually everywhere  ;)
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: deegeecees on April 08, 2010, 11:56:53 AM
S'all I do. From concept to construction drawings, it's all pulled from my 3D models. Would be a "Bear" of a commute tho...

 :wink:

LOL....know what you mean.  I'm pulling 100 miles a day as is...can't imagine your drive!
Sure could use a decent 3D drafter with some mech background here...otherwise I'll NEVER get out-a here!

I'll take you up on that when I decide to relocate. (It may really happen).
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: jaberwok on December 07, 2010, 05:51:10 PM
I guess 12,700 miles each way would be a bit much. :)
Title: Re: Po-ta-to vs Po-tat-o
Post by: mondes on January 04, 2011, 04:53:11 PM
Should be annotated as: "CONT. L4x4x1/4"