Component, sub-component and assembly drawings
There is the straightforward list of items, complete in
itself, which adds nothing to information which may be
obtained elsewhere in the drawings or the specification.
What it does is present this information in a more
disciplined and readily retrievable form. A list of lighting
fittings, collected on a room-by-room basis, is an
example, providing a convenient document for the
electrical contractor who has to order the fittings and a
useful check list with which the architect can reassure
himself that none has been overlooked.
Schedules of manholes, of sanitary fittings and of
ironmongery are others of this type, as indeed is the
drawing schedule.
Such schedules, carrying descriptive rather than
graphical information, are better typed than drawn and
their natural home is more likely to be within the covers
of the specification or bills of quantities than the
drawing set.
The other type of schedule is also component-oriented
but in addition to being a list it provides an essential link
in the search pattern information by giving pointers as
to where other information is to be found. Such
schedules are of the type envisaged in 1.9and
commented upon in Chapter 1. A useful format is
shown in 3.21.
Note that what is shown is neither a door schedule nor a
window schedule but an ‘openings schedule’. It is
important to maintain this concept if the drawing set is
being structured using CI/SfB, because CI/SfB
acknowledges only ‘openings in external walls’,
‘openings in internal walls’, ‘openings in floors’ and
‘openings in roofs’. All components filling such openings
require to be treated as part of the opening and hence
are scheduled accordingly.
Even if use is made of some other elemental form of
coding, however, it is still of advantage to follow the
same pattern, for it enables information to be included in
the schedule both about openings which are filled by no
component—an arched opening, for example, or an
unsealed serving hatch—and about openings filled by
components which are neither doors nor windows—
ventilator grilles, for example.A form of schedule best avoided is what might be
termed the ‘vocabulary schedule’. An example is shown
in 3.22. The basis of this type of schedule is the vertical
tabulation of a list of components or rooms, and the
horizontal tabulation of an exhaustive list of ancillaries.
The disadvantages of this method are two-fold. It is not
always easy to be exhaustive in assessing at the outset
the range of possible ancillaries, with the result that the
subsequent introduction of another item disrupts the
tabulation. And the use of dots or crosses to indicate
which ancillary is required is visually confusing and
prone to error.A more rational way of dealing with this ironmongery
schedule would be to collect the individual items of
ironmongery into a series of sets and to indicate which
set is required against the individual door or window
component in the openings schedule illustrated in 3.21.
The listing of ironmongery sets would then be as shown
in 3.23, and the addition to the schedule would appear
as in the ‘Ancillaries’ column in 3.24.Pictorial views
The use of perspective sketches, axonometric and
exploded views should not be overlooked as a means of
conveying information which might be difficult to
document in more conventional forms. (The ability of
CAD to produce three-dimensional information is of
obvious benefit here.) Nor should the value of pictorial
elevations, perspectives, photo montages and models
be discounted as an aid to the contractor. Photographs
of existing buildings are invaluable to an estimator when