Isometric Plumbing layout

[tezw1]

You do need to prove that the plumbing won't hurt the structure at the deisng stage. Once the framing is up its too late to change the joists to I-beams so holes can be cut or get a steel beam re-engineered so a hole can be cut through it. As a builder I've seen too many designs that have no allowance for getting the s**t out of the building.
However I think the council should be able to figure that from 2D drawings and notes. If the person processing the plans can't visulise in 3D are they really right for the job? The monolply of local goverment stikes again.
A schematic, isometric drawing is useful for checking the flow of the system, but what rate would we need to charge for a full 3D of the building with pipes as to be installed?

My Mitek details are in my chief libarury drawn as CAD files. Do you also show what fixings go where on the Plan? ie - type 1 lintel , type 2 stud fixings.
If we can get this standardised then the Mitek precut factories can be told that if they what to use that system (as oppossed to NZS3604) then they can put the b****y plates on as well. These companies are currently only placing 2/90x3.15 Gun nails in the top plate, which conforms to the Mitek Alternate solution(but not to 3604 which requires 3/ 90 x 3.33), but not the required plates where needed. Thus unless the builder places an extra nail in the top plate (yeah right) the frames do not comply with code until the extra plates are fixed.
Sorry to hijack the tread a little, but it is kinda related to council requirements

BTW Zacabbey the 3D picture looks like the easiest way, just tried it on a plan, thanks

[zacabbey]

Fabricators should be putting the lintel connection plates on as they place bracing (both metal and ply)

Most of the openings we have greater than I think it was 1.6m fall within the type c fixing. On rare occassions type d. I therefore specify all opening to type c.

The top plate on I leave up to the builder as they see where trusses are loading.

Question:
Now that the councils require any change to the plan to have an amendment sent in, will the same apply if the builder changes the fixing type, or the plumber changes all the falls and wastes we have shown to make the council happy. Council believe we should.

The industry is getting harder to comply with. The dollar keeps going up and we are expected to do the work for nothing.

That is my 2c, sorry 10cents worth (2cents outdated), of which I will have to add to next job.

[BuildingDesign]

Tzw1
That diagram was only a sample of the presentation that I copied of another thread. Not a specific to anything in NZ

I can see how the councils want us to make sure we don't endanger the entedgrity of the structure and that's is fair enough. But they seem to want us to re-present the building code and now the plumbing code with every permit. And every council wants different bits depending on their beaf, at that time
I don't think we should be responsible for specifying how another registered trade will do their job. They should have to supply an asbuilt if this is the case like in drainage, or we will be taking any decision making they can do, during the job, out of the job. And we will constantly get "I did it his way see him, don't talk to me about it" And thats not what we want in our building projects.

[tezw1]

zacabbey - I really think that all that is being fostered onto us by the DBH is just a load of ....
Councils have a part to play and unforturnatly they are falling on the side of caution. The requirement for addmnedments to the building consent are part of the Building Act 2002. Some stupid Goverment burecarct idea of a joke
It should be as it was - If it complies with the building code at time of building inspections and code compilance then its fine, as long as no substansial changes have been made.
This is why every New Zealand person involed in the building industry needs to have there say on licniceing, otherwise some completly stupid goverment burecarat will have their way with us.
I agree that we are getting more and more work to do on a plan, but nobody wants to pay extra.

Rick, I agree those trades doing the work should take resopnsabilty for that work. As designers we supply the intent and other people do the work. However sometimes we need to show how we intend for things to be done to comply with the building code. IMO Plates and nailing patterns, in general, are not one of those. Properly trained tradesman should know where to use a Joist Hanger, a bracket, fix braceing straps and bracing panels, what size pipe to use and how to vent the system, which wire is earth, phase and negative, etc

[zacabbey]

Back to drainage details:

Just got a letter back from council requiring stack vent sizes, discharge pipe sizes, gradients of sewer and stormwater lines from house to connections, and even the size of infinity hot water unit and position (even though it was on floor plan and elevation.)

Not only do we have to check pipes are not cutting through joists but have to prove system meets codes.

I had better sign up for the night school classes in plumbing and drainlaying.

[lbuttery]

James:

Can you request/hire the plumber to fill out those details and then attach to the layout for permit ?

Lew

[ChiefChris]

I many times will have the plumber that is doing the job simply create the diagrams/details - if he doesn't do the job, he'll charge a few hundred for his diagram....

[BuildingDesign]

James there is a plumbing code and a drainage code that covers all of these issues.
You have to use a registered drainlayer to get the drainage passed so there will be an onsite inspection. Same with the plumbiing. It is the registered tradesmans job to install the correct fittings at the correct falls for each application. And the inspectors job to make sure it conforms to the relevent code. All they are trying to do is take that responsability away from themselves and put it onto you, and that is very wrong.

That is rediculous. I would tackle someones boss about that or you'll have to do it for every plan. And take resonsability for the: "its not my fault I would have used a 65mm not a 55mm but its on the plans, go see the designer" when someones moved the basin to the other side of the room anyway. There has got to be some flexibility in the system for the client, the plumber and the inspectors to vary things for each particular job. Its stupid.

Don't forget the new registration and laws make you personally responsable, as the designer, not your company. We will have to carry our PI (professional Indemnity) insurance on for a long time after we close the doors now.

[NZDrawingBoard]

One of our City councils are asking for an Isometric plumbing layout over two stories showing falls of the pipes etc.
Believe it or not I've never had to do one in Chief but I know some of you have.

What is the best way to go about this.

Your help might save me a hours of puddling about.

>>>
G'day from Algies Bay,NZ. It seems like most (if not all) councils are asking for this now. I'm using the CAD tool to draw it, but must admit that it takes quite a while - was actually hoping that Chief could include it in X1.. If you do find an easier way to do this, please let me know.

Regards,
Christo

[zacabbey]

I think by the time licensing comes into effect I might retire. Everyone wants to blame someone else and not pay for the extra work involved.

Try tell the councils that the plumbers/drainlayers are registered and licenced and they still want us to provide info. As I have said earlier we are having to take the responsibilty for everyone else. Starting to get really difficult.

The isometric schmatic is fine for part of the plumbing process but councils also want to see floor joists so you can prove big holes are not going through joists.

Will keep looking for a continuous pipe detail program, someone must have developed something.