Working Drawings Handbook
In other words, the breakdown is into the primary facets
of CI/SfB Table 1, and only in one or two instances is it
sometimes necessary to go any deeper. The reasons for
this are apparent from a common-sense appraisal of the
reason for elementalising the general arrangement floor
plan in the first place—the desire to produce simple
uncluttered drawings upon which different types of
information will not be laid unidentifiably and confusingly
one upon the other. If you consider the possible
sub-divisions of the primary element facet it will be
apparent that any drawn or annotated information about
(21) external walls is unlikely to conflict with information
about (22) internal walls or (23) floor construction. The
different elements are physically separated on the
drawing and complete legibility may be maintained even
though they share the same sheet of paper. Similarly,
(31) external openings are unlikely to conflict with
(32) internal openings and both may appear on the
same drawing under the generic coding of (3-).Refer back to 1.14, 1.15 and 1.16 in Chapter 1, where
the basic plan illustrated in 2.1has been utilised as the
framework for various elemental plans—in this case
primary elements, floor finishes and secondary elements.The project of which these drawings form part was a two
million pound office and workshop complex with a
reinforced concrete frame. In practice both the reinforced
concrete structure and the electrics would have been
carried out by other consultants, as in 2.2and 2.3.This project will be used throughout the book to illustrate
various aspects of working drawing practice.Finishes With regard to finishes generally, the practice
of laboriously covering the floor plan with descriptive
wall, floor and ceiling finishes on a room-by-room basis
is not to be recommended. It is impossible for the plan to
give detailed enough information without exhaustive
(and exhausting) annotation. (See attempt made to
convey this information about room 1/9 in 2.4.) A system
of coded reference back to a written schedule is a more
practical alternative, as shown in room 1/18 in the same
illustration. The references A /7, B/3 and B/2 relate to a
vocabulary of finishes given separately in written form,
where the repetitive nature of the relatively few types of
finish involved makes it possible to record them in detail
without too much time-consuming room-by-room
annotation.Non-graphical room-by-room scheduling is a more
satisfactory alternative. It is easy to produce and to refer
to, and a lot of information may be conveyed by it. It has
its disadvantages, the main one being the difficulty of
relating the written description to an actual wall area
or door surface, but on the whole it is a reasonably
effective method (2.5).*(2-) Primary elements (walls, frames, etc.)
(3-) Secondary elements—possibly sub-divided into:
(31) secondary elements to external walls
(windows, etc.)
(32) secondary elements to internal walls (doors, etc.)
(35) suspended ceilings
(4-) Finishes—possibly sub-divided into:
(42) internal finishes
(43) floor finishes
(45) ceiling finishes
*(5-) Services—possibly sub-divided into any or all of the
various constituent services
*(6-) Installations—possibly sub-divided into:
(62) power
(63) lighting
(64) communications
(7-) Fittings—possibly sub-divided into:
(74) sanitary, hygiene fittings (WCs, sinks, basins)
(76) storage, cleaning fittings (shelving, window
rails, etc.)
(8-) Loose equipment.* May well be produced by other than the architect.need to be separated into most or all of the following: