Tips on drawing review?

Project Related

I was wondering whether you guys had a checklist when peer reviewing CD's? I have been getting more and more requests to perform peer reviews of the drawings at my firm and was wondering what the most important items are to look at when reviewing my coworker's drawings. Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

This is my full, long list so far:

Ensure that the information presented is clear and legible. Some "checks" to perform are:

Ensure there are no overlapping annotation items.
Ensure text leaders are not crossing over one another.
Ensure text and tags are aligned.
There is a clear hierarchy for annotation items. For example, dimensions shall be presented in a hierarchical manner where items that get built first should be presented higher than the ones built later.
Ensure appropriate precision of dimensions based on view is maintained.

Ensure that the information presented match project standards. This includes:

Ensuring annotations types are consistent throughout the project: Make sure all annotation families are of the same type, unless otherwise noted.
Ensuring abbreviations match project standards: Have an abbreviations list that you check all abbreviations to using an advanced spelling checker.
Ensure no spelling errors: A more advanced spelling error check, including an autocompletion feature.
Ensuring scale of drawings is appropriate for the type of views.
Ensuring lettering sizes and types are consistent.
Ensuring drawing sheet sizes and types are clean. Flag missing fields.
Ensuring drawing sheet sequencing and numbering is consistent with project standards.

Check whether all portions of the drawings are referenced and consistent. This includes:

Ensuring all placed views have a parent reference.
Ensure wall types are coordinated between wall type details and modelled walls.
Ensure names of BODs are consistent.

Ensuring all building information has been captured:

Ensuring all important project elements have been referenced. For example, are all the walls dimensioned and keyed somewhere? Have all the rooms been tagged somewhere, especially in views where we want to see all room tags? Have all the doors been tagged? Have all the dimension strings been tied to some basepoint?
Have all standard sheets been included for categories that have standard details?
Are there any missing fields in schedules that shouldn't have missing fields?
Are all floors being shown on plans?

Check for coordination errors

Coordination with specifications.
Coordination with MEP
1. Have clashes been detected?
Coordination with the site
1. Has the building been located with respect to adjacent site/property line?
2. Is the building within setbacks?

Thank you!

in Architectsby sardarch

87%

29d

TheVoters

29d

I don’t find checklists with generalizations helpful. Saying “make sure there aren’t any MEP conflicts” doesn’t remind me to look at anything I haven’t already looked at.

Whereas a specific list of items that are easy to miss is helpful. As in “check structurals for all door masonry openings” or “verify electrical floor box locations” or whatever. Even “check floor drain locations” is helpful in reminding you that, oh yeah, we did add a laundry room in that one spot… should probably have a floor drain over there.

Anyway, it’s highly specific to the type of projects you do. My checklist isn’t likely to be helpful to anyone outside my office. But I do have one for field measures, drawing review, code analysis, etc. And if you need a checklist to remind you to look at setbacks you have bigger issues than missing these little items.

Seed_Is_Strong

Architect

29d

I was just thinking about floor drains! Learned that lesson recently…

sardarch

29d

Hmm that's an interesting point you bring about. I totally agree that these checklists are very specific to not only the firm, but the project as well. But I do see their value in being starting points for conversations.

galactojack

Architect

29d

This is a great detailed list and all, but most of it is overly detailed and not worth redlining all that. And frankly should just be expected to be up to the "clean documentation" level before a peer review (unless your reviewing role is more specifically about document cleanliness, then carry on).

You're more onto it in your last 2 paragraphs. Big picture stuff, looking for any risks and liabilities, and knowing what portions of the documents have enough information and which do not. A peer review is nice in the sense that a fresh set of eyes can test if the documents are not only clean but guide someone through efficiently without help. Funny enough, this will help you get lower contractor bids.

sardarch

29d

Thank you. Reading everyone's comments, I have realized that my use of the word "peer review" was probably inappropriate in this instance. I have mostly been focused on document quality in a more graphical sense.

Super_dupa2

Architect

29d

Make sure it’s clear who’s doing what work and if something’s unknown the good ol” (V.I.F) is good

sardarch

29d

That's true, especially when dealing with existing conditions. Thanks for the reply!

TyranitarusMack

29d

Also “by others”

Super_dupa2

Architect

28d

One time I marked up a drawing that said “by otters”

TyranitarusMack

28d

lol I saw a junior add a label on something that said long term barking

Volgyi2000

29d

A lot of these items, especially those related to maintaining company graphic standards, are things you'd check over from someone fresh out of college and should be handled by whoever's overseeing those responsible for drafting. IMO those kinds of inconsistencies shouldn't even be making it to your desk if you're doing an actual peer review.

To me, a peer review involves making sure the set is properly coordinated and meets code compliance. Checking things like making sure dimensions and text are the right size means there's a a failure in the drafting process or system somewhere much earlier.

sardarch

29d

I guess I used the word "peer review" a bit too casually. I am a younger designer so my reviews have mostly focused on graphical standards and consistencies. I agree that the point of a peer review is not to go into such detail. Thank you!

EntropicAnarchy

Licensure Candidate/ Design Professional/ Associate

29d

Honestly, although ensuring your submittal has good graphic standards (like dimensional hierarchy, text styles and sizes, alignments, etc) is a good habit the reviewer won't really care (some may, but not their job to review graphic standards, except for legibility, and overlaps that prevent legibility, etc).

Some jurisdictions may have their own requirements for graphic standards, so it will be good to review compliance with those.

Reviewers are mainly looking at the content and its compliance with local, state, federal, and international codes.

Your list is a good start. I would break those points down to be more specific.

Has the building been located with respect to adjacent site/property line?

Is the building within setbacks?

Honestly, these should be your number 1 priority.

sardarch

29d

I had no idea that some jurisdictions may have their own graphic standards. Could you expand on that?

EntropicAnarchy

Licensure Candidate/ Design Professional/ Associate

29d

Some jurisdictions have requirements/preferences for sheet size, text size, sheet order, line weights vs. styles, filled region/hatch patterns, color vs. b/w prints, drawing scale, etc. Depends on what the city has adopted.

You can go to the permitting website and check for any drawing/graphic standards requirements they may have.

Luckily, we digitally upload permits now because back in the day, they had restrictions/requirements for how you fold your set (cough Denver cough) and would reject it if not folded correctly.

Volgyi2000

29d

NYC has its own set of drawing standards and sheet naming standards you have to follow. They're actually not that bad or restrictive, but we did have to overhaul our library to accommodate them when they were implemented.

moistmarbles

Architect

29d

I do plan reviews for a large state agency. I use the codes themselves as my checklist. I go down through each major section in sequence. It’s a good double check that I’m not missing anything. I put the zoning/historic stuff back on the original architect if I can’t find it online

sardarch

29d

That's a very good point, thank you. I am going to include code review as part of this checklist. Thank you

office5280

28d

As an owner, and former architect, I am flabbergasted how low on your list verifying actual architectural design is.

It is far more important to design the building right than spelling errors. Or even placing. Dimensions. If a drawing is to scale a dimension can be added, but if you drew a 2x4 wall and needed to draw a 2x6. Only one of those RFIs add cost to the owner.

Always remember the drawing sit in a drawer when the project is done. They are important to bind cost and ensure it can be built, but the prettiness is secondary.

sardarch

28d

As mentioned in my other comments, I used the word "peer review" too lightly. In my office, I am tasked with working on graphical consistency of drawings more so than architectural. The full architectural review is usually done by licensed architects in the office. Thank you for the insight though.

office5280

28d

Only architects worry about graphical consistency. Every other profession worries about how to get the building built, including architecture subs (engineering, MEP, etc.). Line weights don’t save an owner a change order. Multiple sections and proper explanation does. I’d rather an architect show a video of a waterproofing detail, or rather just admit that they are at the whim of what the window and flashing subs warranty will allow, than the proper line weights or fonts in a set of drawings.

And we wonder why the profession never has enough $.