Schedule formatting

[SHCanada2]

I'm endeavoring to move off spreadsheets, but I cannot get the formatting to work in the schedule.

I am trying to return multiline in one row.

 

I tried using tabs in a macro to try and align two columns within one column. That didnt work, see below

I tried to different columns, but the numbers dont seem to line up

 

I suppose I could use a uniform character font and type out the spaces, but do not really want to do that. any other ideas?

[SHCanada2]

NVM, putting the multiline text in the note text field, while putting the multiline numbers in the "comment" field works

[SHCanada2]

actually that only works if there are numbers in the text, which I do not want. back to any ideas?

[SHCanada2]

nvm, there was an extra carriage return on the RSI numbers, at the bottom of the list, athough no idea why that would impact it

 

[robdyck]

Hi Jason, I'm curious as to how you're applying this into your plan set and what the benefits are. I only use text boxes with the data derived from my spreadsheets.

I take it you're using a prescriptive method for that project. Is that normal for you and your clients? Prescriptive is my go-to method.

[SHCanada2]

...well it is still a work in progress...trying to see how much could be automated. I tend to do tradeoff because you can easily add insulation to the attic, and R22 /24 is considerably more money than R20. R24 is like double the price. That being said  I also rarely do full houses to the level of calculating the efficiency. And computing all the areas is a pain, so I decided to put some effort into seeing how much can be moved to CA for the prescriptive method,..and if it could be done easily, and hopefully automated somewhat. Plus I see a lot of other plans, and I wanted to take the best of what I saw. Some of the larger builders just put down every wall/floor ceiling type in a table, and then they mark the section with callouts. I saw one that was like yours and then there was another table attached with the cladding type, and 3 resulting total RSI numbers. 

 

Some background, my details are for the most part controlled by global variables, so I have a variable called DET-CLADDING that I set and then all of the details change the text to whatever that is set to, Stucco, vinyl, etc. That part works fine. But the question is how to get the details to convert to the RSI calculation automatically. As such I wanted something that was dynamic, which is why I chose the note schedule. 

 

So what I did so far was to put what you see into 2(unfortuantely had to be 2 because it could not format) variables, DET-W1.1-26-Stucco and DET-W1.1_RSI. And then the note callout has those two in two different fields, and then I created the schedule, I was going to try and copy the Canadian Wood Council naming convention for wall assemblies, but it gets fairly extensive.

 

Anywho, my end goal was to try and create one global variable for each of the assemblies which auto generates the wall RSI, based on the original detail. so instead of DET-W1.1-26-Stucco, it would be just DET-W1-WALL(TYP) and DET-W1-WALL(TYP)-RSI , which is what the note is named. And then my plan was inside the DET-W1-WALL(TYP) macro do a $x="EXTERIOR AIR FILM"+"\n"+DET-CLADDING +"\n"...

 

and then do the same for the RSI. Which is why if I could format it properly, it would be better to just have one variable. ..although the RSI would probably be some sort of lookup..havent sorted that out yet

 

so if I got it all working, for a new plan, I would set the detail variables, and then put a note callout on the wall section, and do nothing else. the schedule would just shows the ones on the plan. Plus floors like those over garages would have to be done manully anyway

 

Are yours predetermined text boxes grouped as a CAD object and then you just have all of them on a single layout sheet? or how are you managing the changing stud spacing, insulation, and cladding?

 

I also thought about getting it out of the wall type itself, but that doesnt help with ceiling and floor. I suppose if the callout could get the room info, it might be possible, but i dont think that can be achieved from a macro in cross section.

 

[robdyck]

8 minutes ago, SHCanada2 said:

Are yours predetermined text boxes grouped as a CAD object and then you just have all of them on a single layout sheet? or how are you managing the changing stud spacing, insulation, and cladding?

Yes. I have a few groups of assemblies saved for the most common applications , like a builder's preferences for example. This keeps my naming convention (code like 'W1 or W2) as close to the same as possible across various plan sets and climate zones. The section view callouts can be saved in a block for quick reference.

 

I also show the RSI and R values because really, who knows RSI values? It's like asking someone how tall they are in meters. So including the R values makes it easier for trades.

 

About 9 years ago I created a fairly comprehensive spread sheet to do all the calculations for the most frequently used assemblies. Then I could just copy/paste rows to create new assemblies. I used that to create the text boxes. I found it faster to manage my assemblies with text boxes and callouts manually when compared to managing the macros (and I don't speak Ruby). But even text macros to do wholesale changes was a PITA. 

 

Most of my clients prefer the prescriptive method because it's cheaper and shh... it takes no effort on my part. 

As for the cost difference between R22 and R20 fiberglass batts: where I live R22 is $1.40 / sq ft and R20 is $1.25 / sq ft.   Yes, R24 is a lot more, and usually only needed in climate zone 7B. For most homes the R22 will only cost about $180 more. And in most climate zones, you'll only need R22 in the exterior walls, not the garage-to-house wall or the basement frost walls.

 

I always tell people that they are better off to spend an extra $200 for more insulation instead of $800 on some sheets of paper (energy advisor fee) that prove they don't need the insulation. 

 

[robdyck]

If you wanted to quickly follow the CWC calculator, you can copy/paste the text from various walls into a spreadsheet. The text formatting goes with it! Also, you can copy the image generated for the wall if you wanted to include a visual detail as well. 

 

 

 

[robdyck]

37 minutes ago, SHCanada2 said:

I tend to do tradeoff because you can easily add insulation to the attic, and R22 /24 is considerably more money than R20. R24 is like double the price. That being said  I also rarely do full houses to the level of calculating the efficiency. And computing all the areas is a pain,

No area calculations are needed for the prescriptive method. No trade offs are needed. All you need is assemblies that meet the criteria. It's a one and done process! Takes no time at all.

[robdyck]

In the example I posted, the exterior wall doesn't reference a cladding type. This simplifies my labelling process and and keeps me from needing to identifying walls based on cladding. I can save exterior finish callouts / notes for exterior elevations.

[SHCanada2]

2 minutes ago, robdyck said:

And computing all the areas is a pain,

yeah thats why I dont do it for whole houses.

 

[SHCanada2]

1 minute ago, robdyck said:

In the example I posted, the exterior wall doesn't reference a cladding type. This simplifies my labelling process and and keeps me from needing to identifying walls based on cladding. I can save exterior finish callouts / notes for exterior elevations.

once you get to a tall wall, arent you going to need the RSI of the cladding to make the requirement?  or do you put in R24?

[SHCanada2]

13 minutes ago, robdyck said:

I always tell people that they are better off to spend an extra $200 for more insulation instead of $800 on some sheets of paper (energy advisor fee) that prove they don't need the insulation. 

good advice

[robdyck]

1 minute ago, SHCanada2 said:

yeah thats why I dont do it for whole houses.

Maybe you misunderstood me. No area calcs are needed for a prescriptive method. If you ever feel like chatting about this or other things let me know. I love talking about Chief and home design and all that stuff.

[robdyck]

1 minute ago, SHCanada2 said:

once you get to a tall wall, arent you going to need the RSI of the cladding to make the requirement?

Not an issue if the tall wall is 2X8. If 2x6 then a bit trickier depending on climate zone. No problem in zone 6. 

[SHCanada2]

38 minutes ago, robdyck said:

Maybe you misunderstood me. No area calcs are needed for a prescriptive method. If you ever feel like chatting about this or other things let me know. I love talking about Chief and home design and all that stuff.

i am concurring with you. i.e. figuring out the areas required for the tradeoff is too time consuming. I did it once for a whole house, it was a PITA.

 

37 minutes ago, robdyck said:

Not an issue if the tall wall is 2X8. If 2x6 then a bit trickier depending on climate zone. No problem in zone 6. 

right ... I didnt think to go 2x8. 

 

zone 7A for 2x6 requires R24 and the RSI of the cladding to make 2.97. I just looked and zone 6 is the same, 2.97.

 

Throw on another layer of gypsum  to make it to 2.97 for 2x6 tall walls if you arent including cladding in your calc? or add exterior insul? exterior stone? 2 ply gypsum would be unconventional but would get to the number: ...would just have to remember to get a different window thickness

 

EXTERIOR AIR FILM	0.03
CLADDING	0
WATER RESISTIVE BARRIER	0
3/8" OSB SHEATHING	0.09
2X6 (12" O.C) C/W R24 INSULATION	2.6
POLYETHYLENE VAPOUR BARRIER	0
1/2" GYPSUM BOARD	0.08
INTERIOR AIR FILM	0.12
ASSEMBLY EFFECTIVE RSI	2.92
ZONE 7A (W/HRV) ABC 9.36 REQ	2.97

 

 

 or if the tall wall has no windows, calcualting the actual area of the studs instead to the 25.5%?

 

or is it a well kept trade secret ?

 

 

[KristjanM]

A bunch of random comments -

I'm located in BC so have had to supply the thermal assembly calculations on permit drawings for some time. I've used a spreadsheet for this with about 30 tabs for most of the common assembles. I just delete the unused ones for a given project and then export a pdf which I drag into Chief. Pretty easy. I also have a sheet in Excel for the trade off calculations which is quite easy to use once set up. I takeoff the areas in Chief and put the numbers into Excel. The biggest reason for doing this was twofold - builders hate the cost of R24 batts and the drywallers don't like how stiff the R24 batt is in the wall. In my climate zone (5) with Hardie board siding, R22 doesn't give me a good enough number so had to go the trade off route to make the assembles work. In BC now, we have gone to the step code which requires an energy advisor's analysis. This is coming to the National Building Code in a couple of years. The prescriptive method is going to be retired except in very specific cases. I'm also qualified as an energy advisor now and am working through a process to do my plan takeoff in Chief. It's working well so far.

[SHCanada2]

18 minutes ago, KristjanM said:

I takeoff the areas in Chief and put the numbers into Excel

how do you do this for rimboard, floors above garages, cantilever floors, walls partially above grade, etc. polyline apoolza?

 

19 minutes ago, KristjanM said:

I'm also qualified as an energy advisor now and am working through a process to do my plan takeoff in Chief. It's working well so far.

interesting, I had thoguht one needed somne sort of software to do this, good to know you are able to do it (I assume with not too much effort) in CA

 

[KristjanM]

The actual energy model is done in Hot2000, Natural Resources Canada's software. I take off the areas and volumes in Chief and create schedules for windows and doors which list sizes, type, width of overhang above and distance to the overhang. As part of the process, you have to show the house drawings and outline where you are getting measurements from. Chief is proving to be a good tool for this. "rimboard, floors above garages, cantilever floors, walls partially above grade, etc. polyline apoolza - Hot 200 has check boxes to identify where things are located, ie. a cantileverd floor is an exposed floor, wall between house and garage is buffered (next to an enclosed area). What province are you in? This is all coming your way in the future.

[SHCanada2]

Thanks, I'll take a look. Alberta, but we also have our own version of the NBC. So it will be interesting to see if we adopt it

 

 

[KristjanM]

BC also has their own code but I believe the long term goal is to harmonize all the provinces under the NBC. The 2025 NBC (think the year is right) will incorporate a version of the step code with increasing targets for thermal and mechanical effficiency. 

[SHCanada2]

15 hours ago, KristjanM said:

BC also has their own code but I believe the long term goal is to harmonize all the provinces under the NBC

 

i heard from a transpanted cribber than no one else but alberta uses a "ladder", so that will be interesting to see if it is adopted in the NBC

 

2) Except as provided in Sentences (3) to (6), anchorage shall be provided by a) embedding the ends of the first floor joists in concrete, b) fastening the sill plate to the foundation with not less than 12.7 mm diam anchor bolts spaced not more than 2.4 m o.c., or c) embedding in concrete two 38 mm by 89 mm sill plates placed on edge and separated by blocking spaced 1.2 m o.c

 

c) is alberta

 

and the whole "suite" thing is different between provinces. 

 

I'm not holding my breath that they will be harmonized...maybe the just the energy component 

 

[KristjanM]

Embedding the floor joists in the concrete wall is definitely a prairie thing. Never seen it in BC. If nothing else, all this stuff keeps your brain ticking over.

[SHCanada2]

39 minutes ago, KristjanM said:

Embedding the floor joists in the concrete wall is definitely a prairie thing. Never seen it in BC.

not really the floor joist,. it gives a nailer instead of using an anchor bolt to put the wall on. They nail the 2x4 boards into the form before pouring, and then they just put the nails out and leave the 2x4 on edge. blocked every 48". it actually makes for a nice cribbing job because they take a flat tool like an ice scraper and just scrape off the conrete using the 2x4 on edge embedded in the top of the wall. Very level and mostly flat

 

[SHCanada2]

On 9/28/2023 at 3:23 PM, robdyck said:

About 9 years ago I created a fairly comprehensive spread sheet to do all the calculations for the most frequently used assemblies. Then I could just copy/paste rows to create new assemblies. I used that to create the text boxes. I found it faster to manage my assemblies with text boxes and callouts manually when compared to managing the macros (and I don't speak Ruby). But even text macros to do wholesale changes was a PITA

 

after playing around, I forgot that text macros are just text, and there is no real way to create a macro which does a if %DET_CLADDING%=="STUCCO" then %RSI%=2, as ruby macros cannot read text macros or write to text macros (well they can read in a round about way but then you have to manage the global variable problem between plans, and because these show up in cross sections, that is harder to do), but even if it could read them, it would write to a global variable, and then I would have to manage them between plans ...or start writing to files. Anywho, maybe I'll come back to it another time

 

so I think in absence of doing the Kristjanm method of the model (whiich I will put on my "try this out list"), I think the master spreadsheet and copying either to text boxes, or notes is the way to go. Notes have one advantage in that one doesnt have to place text boxes, one just keeps the notes in the user library, and put the note on the section. If there is a new wall assembly, then create a new note, which I assume is similar to your text box blocks. ...not a whole lot of difference

 

However, the note method is also not as pretty as having the wall assembly graphic next to it, which, especially the 3D ones, have the wow factor.

 

so a chocie between a little quicker, but less pretty .

 

I suppose the note method would also guarantee the wall number in the cross section matches, where if using text boxes there would be a possibility of putting a W2 label on a wall in the cross section, and then the text box actually has W1. But my guess is, there is always the same numbering, W1 for above grade W2 for below grade, W3 for garage etc..