I'm drawing up a plan (to give to an electrician) for an extension to show
where I want 13A sockets, double 13A sockets, lights, switches (one way /
2way), etc.
Where can I find a list of symbols to represent the above. Some of the
sockets are required at differing heights, how do you represent this on the
plan? Is it ok to put a figure in mm by the symbol (e.g. symbol 1150mm
AFFL)
Thanks
Tom

Tom said the following on 19/11/2005 13:00:
I'm drawing up a plan (to give to an electrician) for an extension to show
where I want 13A sockets, double 13A sockets, lights, switches (one way /
2way), etc.
Where can I find a list of symbols to represent the above. Some of the
sockets are required at differing heights, how do you represent this on the
plan? Is it ok to put a figure in mm by the symbol (e.g. symbol 1150mm
AFFL)
Thanks
Tom



Symbols he

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technical/Symbols/Index.htm


Absolutely fine to say 1150mm AFFL (above finished floor level).

You could also say 300mm BFCL (below finished ceiling level), although
this useage is less common.


HTH

Rumble

"Rumble" .@. wrote in message
.. .
Symbols he
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technical/Symbols/Index.htm

Absolutely fine to say 1150mm AFFL (above finished floor level).

Just curious re tolerances on dimensions such as the above.

If not stated explicitly, what tolerances would be assumed; and if not met,
could be argued about?

Thanks
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

"Rumble" .@. wrote in message news:437f2de2$0$38039

Symbols he

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technical/Symbols/Index.htm


Absolutely fine to say 1150mm AFFL (above finished floor level).

You could also say 300mm BFCL (below finished ceiling level), although
this useage is less common.


"BRILLIANT" !!!!!!

Many Thanks

Tom

"Malcolm Stewart" wrote in
message ...

Absolutely fine to say 1150mm AFFL (above finished floor level).

Just curious re tolerances on dimensions such as the above.

If not stated explicitly, what tolerances would be assumed; and if not
met,
could be argued about?

Good point!!!, however, if one is dimensioning to the nearest mm, it could
be argued that one meant 1150 not 1151 or 1152. so plus or minus 1mm is more
than accurate enough for positioning domestic switches, sockets or lights.

Warm Regards
Tom

"Owain" wrote in message
.. .
Tom wrote:
I'm drawing up a plan (to give to an electrician) for an extension to
show
where I want 13A sockets, double 13A sockets, lights, switches (one way
/
2way), etc.
Where can I find a list of symbols to represent the above. Some of the
sockets are required at differing heights, how do you represent this on
the
plan? Is it ok to put a figure in mm by the symbol (e.g. symbol
1150mm
AFFL)

As long as you 'splain what you want. Post-it notes stuck to the walls
also work well.
Havn't got a wall yet :-( But I do need an estimate.

I would be inclined to do an opened-out floor plan showing both plan and
elevation showing sockets, lights, 1 & 2 way switching etc.
Good Idea



--------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| SKT |
| 1150 |
| | |
| | SKT |
| | 200 |
| | | |
------------------------|---------|--------------------------
| |300 900| | |
| | | |
| LIG SW1--------|\ | |
| SW2a | \ | |
| \ | \ | |
| \ | \ | |
| \ | \ | |
| \ | LIG1 | |
| \ | | |
| \ | |------LIGSW2b |
| \ | /| |
| \|------------LIG2/ | |
| | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------


(etc)


Owain

Wow,
Diolch
Tom

Malcolm Stewart said the following on 19/11/2005 14:18:
"Rumble" .@. wrote in message
.. .

Symbols he
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technical/Symbols/Index.htm

Absolutely fine to say 1150mm AFFL (above finished floor level).


Just curious re tolerances on dimensions such as the above.

If not stated explicitly, what tolerances would be assumed; and if not met,
could be argued about?

Thanks

Tolerances are almost never cited on architectural drawings. This is
due to the nature of the way buildings are constructed - i.e.
essentially by hand.

Often, there is opportunity for dimensional errors to be hidden. E.g.
in an office building, slab-to-slab height may be a nominal 4.5m and
finished-floor to finished-ceiling will be 2.7m. Any dimensional errors
incurred along the way will result in the height of the ceiling void
(between finished ceiling on this floor and the bottom of the concrete
slab forming the floor above) being somewhat more or less than nominal.

Obviously, surveyors, builders and tradesmen use appropriate tools and
instruments to assist in getting-it-right (theodolites, rulers, spirit
levels, water levels, string lines, lasers, plumbobs, etc), but usually,
in finishing work, the aim is to make it "look right" - e.g. if you have
a long wall with socket outlets all the way along, the sockets need to
"look" as if they are all the same height - if you take a tape measure
to them, they might vary in height by 2-3mm but still not look "wrong".

Having said that, many highly-skilled tradesmen can make it "look right"
just by eye. I have seen many examples of this, including chippies who
can squint down the line of a wall and then scribe the edge of an infil
panel which then fits perfectly first time - amazing.

Generally problems/arguments arise because of "signifcant" dimensional
errors, where things just don't fit because the "gap" is too small or
way too big. This could be due to the architect making a mistake on the
plans or an error in "setting out" - causing everybody to stand around
scratching their collective heads until someone comes up with an
acceptable plan to remedy the "mistake" - or it gets referred back to
the architect if there's a fundamental design error.

Often, in such cases it is pretty much out-of-the-question to "knock it
all down and start again" because:

1. nobody wants to pay for that and
2. it adversely affects the construction programme.

A good building project manager will conduct a "buildability" review of
the architect's and speicalist trades' plans before pricing the job -
just to satisfy him or herself that the design holds together and will
work - or can be made to work.

Often when 3-D "flythrough" models of new buildings are commissioned,
the 3-D guys have to go back to the architects and give them the bad
news - i.e. when you take the 2-D plans and try to make a 3-D model, the
plan drawings contradict the elevation drawings. oops.

HTH

Rumble

"Rumble" .@. wrote in message
.. .
Malcolm Stewart said the following on 19/11/2005 14:18:
"Rumble" .@. wrote in message
.. .

Symbols he
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technical/Symbols/Index.htm

Absolutely fine to say 1150mm AFFL (above finished floor level).


Just curious re tolerances on dimensions such as the above.

If not stated explicitly, what tolerances would be assumed; and if not
met,
could be argued about?

Thanks

Tolerances are almost never cited on architectural drawings. This is due
to the nature of the way buildings are constructed - i.e. essentially by
hand.

Often, there is opportunity for dimensional errors to be hidden. E.g. in
an office building, slab-to-slab height may be a nominal 4.5m and
finished-floor to finished-ceiling will be 2.7m. Any dimensional errors
incurred along the way will result in the height of the ceiling void
(between finished ceiling on this floor and the bottom of the concrete
slab forming the floor above) being somewhat more or less than nominal.

Obviously, surveyors, builders and tradesmen use appropriate tools and
instruments to assist in getting-it-right (theodolites, rulers, spirit
levels, water levels, string lines, lasers, plumbobs, etc), but usually,
in finishing work, the aim is to make it "look right" - e.g. if you have a
long wall with socket outlets all the way along, the sockets need to
"look" as if they are all the same height - if you take a tape measure to
them, they might vary in height by 2-3mm but still not look "wrong".

Having said that, many highly-skilled tradesmen can make it "look right"
just by eye. I have seen many examples of this, including chippies who
can squint down the line of a wall and then scribe the edge of an infil
panel which then fits perfectly first time - amazing.

Generally problems/arguments arise because of "signifcant" dimensional
errors, where things just don't fit because the "gap" is too small or way
too big. This could be due to the architect making a mistake on the plans
or an error in "setting out" - causing everybody to stand around
scratching their collective heads until someone comes up with an
acceptable plan to remedy the "mistake" - or it gets referred back to the
architect if there's a fundamental design error.

Often, in such cases it is pretty much out-of-the-question to "knock it
all down and start again" because:

1. nobody wants to pay for that and
2. it adversely affects the construction programme.

A good building project manager will conduct a "buildability" review of
the architect's and speicalist trades' plans before pricing the job - just
to satisfy him or herself that the design holds together and will work -
or can be made to work.

Often when 3-D "flythrough" models of new buildings are commissioned, the
3-D guys have to go back to the architects and give them the bad news -
i.e. when you take the 2-D plans and try to make a 3-D model, the plan
drawings contradict the elevation drawings. oops.

HTH

Rumble


Great post. The fun about accuracy really begins when you're working on a
really old building, and sometimes things need to be deliberately inaccurate
to "look" right. If the floor and ceiling in a room both have a slight
slope, anything installed level looks wrong.

As a designer/contract supervisor, I often have to think carefully about the
position of sockets and switches, but normally (apart from indicating
whether sockets are above or below worktops for example) it is not necessary
to give setting out dimensions on a drawing. The only times I get picky
about the setting out is when I want to get the accessory in the centre of a
tile or a granite upstand etc, when there's going to be an unusually deep
skirting or wide architrave, or when regulations require definite heights -
for example in disabled situations or in hospitals and care homes.

Peter

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:51:37 +0000, Rumble .@. wrote:

Tom said the following on 19/11/2005 13:00:
I'm drawing up a plan (to give to an electrician) for an extension to show
where I want 13A sockets, double 13A sockets, lights, switches (one way /
2way), etc.
Where can I find a list of symbols to represent the above. Some of the
sockets are required at differing heights, how do you represent this on the
plan? Is it ok to put a figure in mm by the symbol (e.g. symbol 1150mm
AFFL)
Thanks
Tom



Symbols he

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technical/Symbols/Index.htm


Absolutely fine to say 1150mm AFFL (above finished floor level).

You could also say 300mm BFCL (below finished ceiling level), although
this useage is less common.


HTH

Rumble

Do these figures refer to the bottom of the socket or the top or the
middle ....?...I'm imagining it means the bottom for height from the
floor and top for the distance to the ceiling but again,maybe not .
Stuart..




--

Shift THELEVER to reply.

Stuart said the following on 20/11/2005 15:38:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:51:37 +0000, Rumble .@. wrote:


Tom said the following on 19/11/2005 13:00:

I'm drawing up a plan (to give to an electrician) for an extension to show
where I want 13A sockets, double 13A sockets, lights, switches (one way /
2way), etc.
Where can I find a list of symbols to represent the above. Some of the
sockets are required at differing heights, how do you represent this on the
plan? Is it ok to put a figure in mm by the symbol (e.g. symbol 1150mm
AFFL)
Thanks
Tom



Symbols he

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technical/Symbols/Index.htm


Absolutely fine to say 1150mm AFFL (above finished floor level).

You could also say 300mm BFCL (below finished ceiling level), although
this useage is less common.


HTH

Rumble


Do these figures refer to the bottom of the socket or the top or the
middle ....?...I'm imagining it means the bottom for height from the
floor and top for the distance to the ceiling but again,maybe not .
Stuart..




--

Shift THELEVER to reply.

For electrical switch/socket plates it means either:

1. The same as any existing items (which may have been measured to the
bottom, middle or top!), or

2. To the centre line (i.e. middle) in a new-build.

If in doubt assume that the sparky will measure to the centre line (middle).