Most common floor plan scale in the USA?
-
This thing with the USA being stuck in the 1500's is a bugger! I actually think changing to metric could have been one of the largest stimuli to their economy to be considered when it was crunch time!
So a question to the yankees - what is THE common scale used when presenting floor plans for domestic scaled projects? In the developed world it is 1:100 in the states it must be something close and have those little things after the numbers (' ") what do they mean anyway? The rest of us have forgotten!
-
1/4" = 1'-0" on 24"x36" paper or D Arch Templates.
-
' means feet. 5280' = 1 Mile
" mean inches. 12" = 1' -
Hi, Richard:
In the "undeveloped world" we use 1:96 for large building plans, or 1/8"=1'-0". This closely corresponds to your 1:100. For smaller buildings, 1/4"=1'-0", or 1:48 corresponding to 1:50.
1" is one inch and is equal to 25.4 mm. 12"= 1', or one foot or 304.8mm.
For quick conversions, I use 4" ~= 100mm. 1cm is very close to 3/8". Of course, relying on these little quick "rules" will result in cumulative errors.
The reason the Imperial system still lingers has to do with the fact that, in my area, for instance, those who work with measurements all the time are reluctant to change. This is due probably to not wanting to carry around two standards in your head--let alone two sets of tools.
However, a lot of automotive components are produced on the metric system. Not sure, but textile mills and other factories might use equipment developed on the metric system, because a lot of the machinery was developed in Europe, or elsewhere. -
Biggest reason the US didn't switch to the metric system was that the automotive industry would have to re-tool all its equipment and retrain its employees, not a small task. So they made sure their lobbyists kept the status quo.
I typically use 1/8"= 1'-0" for large building plans and 1/4"=1'-0" for all my residential projects.
-
@o2bwln said:
Biggest reason the US didn't switch to the metric system was that the automotive industry would have to re-tool all its equipment and retrain its employees, not a small task. So they made sure their lobbyists kept the status quo.
And here I was convinced it was the porn industry not willing to redefine length from inches to centimeters.
-
In the UK there's a whole generation who think in both metric AND imperial sizes.
I started off in school and then as an architect at the change over[s] - I did my early schooling in '/", lbs, gallons, F etc, then did most of my schooling in the cm/gramme system, which the authorities then decided to change in the last two years of school to the ISO m/kg system for science/engineering subjects only [with cm/gm still used in day to day measurements!], then at architecture-school the building-industry had just gone metric that year [using 'mm' NOT 'm' as the surveying-industry!] so confusion reigned [still does!]; then the year after we swapped from £/s/d to pounds/newpence too [with both systems coexisting for some years as the older coins were phased out] - so the UK was in a state of flux to say the least !
As a result I'll still say to a chippie that we need a length of "3m of 2x1" [i.e. meaning 50x25mm - but of course it's not that size if you were to measure it anyway, because it's likely been par/planed/regularized and will be considerably smaller all round] !
Because we have thousands of existing houses with imperial doors builders-merchants stock doors in several imperial sizes [2'6" etc] that are then useful for refurbishments/diy - while the 'proper' metric sizes have to be ordered/manufactured - indeed, most new houses are still designed using imperial sized door-leaves, whereas commercial building always have 'metric' ones specified... On face value these don't look too 'metric' either - e.g. a '826mm' door-leaf - however, it's sized to fit into a frame that fits into a hole that's '900mm' wide - the door-leaves stepping in 100mm increments to suit those 'even-figure' hole-sizes [which of course aren't that size anyway because of 'joint-tolerances' - so you'll dimension the [4-brick] 900mm hole to be 910mm wide and the adjacent [4-brick] pillar to be 890mm wide or if it's a pier coming off another wall it'd then be 900mm]...
A brick is 215mm long and 65mm high.
With a 10mm joint this gives a module of 225mm ['9"'] and a coursing of 75mm.
To confuse things a 'half-brick' is not 102.5 but officially 103mm [because no 'fractions' are allowed in general construction measurements - it's not rocket-science after all]: so it's easy to get running dimensions that get out of step as the half-mm are rounded up and make the individual dims add up to more than the overall dim ! In practice no one cares much, because the hole [or pier] is made say 4 or 4.5 bricks, and the wall the overall length as specified on the drawing. However, overzealous technicians can add too many dimensions and confuse the guys on site - they only need the minimum to set brickwork out - so if you want a 4-brick column say that, with a nom.890mm note - because bricks are made from baked clay and can vary in size by several mm, and perps that are much >11mm or much <9mm will look rubbish, and a good experienced brickie/foreman will know that and make subtle adjustments to make it look right...
Back to 'scales'
The nearest to 1:100 is 1/8":1'0" [1:96]
and 1:50 is is 1/4":1'0" [1:48] etc as stated...I still have my wooden imperial UK scale-rules in a drawer [they are never used now].
When the UK 'went metric' in the early seventies you could get three sided scale-rules with both metric and imperial measures on opposite edges, so you'd have both 1:100 and 1/8" on one side [opposite edges]. Eventually when everyone became more accustomed 'metric-only' scale-rules became the norm.
In the early days there were also scale-rules in metric measurements [mm] but set for imperial scales [1/8" etc] - so you could easily scale off in 'mm' from an 1/8" scale drawing sheet - which of course were still commonly available as record drawing etc from some years beforehand...
Some UK property surveys stuck with scales to measure in 'feet' from metric scaled sheets [!], because they let floor-space by the 'square-foot' even when the drawings were metric-scales.
Even today when the UK's 'measurement-code' says that they must measure/report in hectares/sqm they are allowed to have alternative units in brackets [(acres) and (sqft)] and will invariably talk in those units anyway. Reporting areas on drawing-sheets in the UK is still usually done in sqm/sqft [and/or hectares/acres] - this is relatively easy to do with CAD - simply because the letting-agents/clients invariably insist on it.
Iindeed it's a units setting option in my AreaTag tool specifically for the UK market - to report areas in dual units, with the sqft shown in brackets below the sqm...
10.0 sqm
(108 sqft)
etcOne other confusion that imperial scales usually had [have in the USA?] is that the initial marks at the left-hand end don't start at 0, the first 'foot' is subdivided into inches [with a longer central mark at 6", and perhaps at 3"/9" depending on the scale] and then the actual measuring '0' starts to the right of that, with whole feet for the remaining marks running off to the right.
That way you slide the ruler so what you are measuring ends on a full 'foot' mark at the right-hand, and then the inch part can be read from the start left-hand end, so if it's on 12' on the right-end and the left-end is on 9", it's 12'9"
-
@unknownuser said:
One other confusion that imperial scales usually had [have in the USA?] is that the initial marks at the left-hand end don't start at 0, the first 'foot' is subdivided into inches [with a longer central mark at 6", and perhaps at 3"/9" depending on the scale] and then the actual measuring '0' starts to the right of that, with whole feet for the remaining marks running off to the right.
That way you slide the ruler so what you are measuring ends on a full 'foot' mark at the right-hand, and then the inch part can be read from the start left-hand end, so if it's on 12' on the right-end and the left-end is on 9", it's 12'9"Precisely.
And as Tig stated, The big reason for not changing over is that we've built more homes than probably any other nation and they are all in Imperial. What's more all the industries that provided that work and those materials have tooled in Imperial. All of our standard sizes for things such as Plywood, 2x4's, Sheet Rock, to things like Plate Heights, Countertops, Hallway widths and Stair Head way Heights. All have the same imperial standard measurement that would need to be converted and would not convert out nicely. So you have a massive industry like construction with this Imperial system imbedded incredibly deep with in it. Several of these industries count on the others to have these standard sizes and when they don't you end up with more work cutting things to fit.
Have no fear though it is happening. Millwork companies are almost all switched over to metric, Thanks to Europe providing some of the most advanced and profitable machinery for it. Iron and Steel are mostly converted. Surveying uses decimal feet so they are "closer"... Slowly but surely the efficiency and simplicity of metric is permeating the industry. However it will be some time before that encompasses the Entire U.S.
And besides... There's a certain elegance to 8' 1 1/8" that just can't be found in 2.466975...
-
I remember a long time ago British Gypsum used to sell plasterboard with a sash banner proudly proclaiming Metric Width Imperial Height.
To resolve cultural clashes chippies used inch b' deep and twice b' twice for their two by ones and twos.
And OT posh people liked to have their bath panels fixed with cranium plated screws.
-
1:1 (1" = 1") works well, because you can use it for construction directly, without having to scale the drawing.
Just lay out the sheet, place the 2 x 4s on it and start nailing away.
Al Hart
IRender nXt from Render Plus -
I don't see the US changing anytime soon, and the only two items I've encountered (in architectural practice) are neon tubing and Haffele cabinet hardware. The imperial system, with a few minor exceptions, is used throughout our weights and measurements standards, wether it be building products, food, land, speed and distance measurements, etc. I think most in the U.S. don't see the need to change.
-
The US is already metric in many respects... or inching towards becoming metric...
You have had 'decimal' money forever.
You buy coke/pop/juice in 'liters'.
Your wine bottles are metric [75cl]
Your cars have engine sizes in 'cc'.
The US Army measure horizontal distances in 'meters' [but then heights in 'feet' - as do aircraft the world over!].
Most complex science is already conducted in 'metric'.
I expect that much of the US space-program is 'metric' too - after some disastrous unit errors of yore.
Nutrition values on food labeling are all in metric units.
Photography is metric [35mm etc],.
Even bullets come in metric sizes...Now if only we can get you into using a few metric dimensions for lengths and drawing-scales...
It's not like we are trying to get you to adopt a decimal time or calendar systemI find it surprising that given the US's break from Britain, just as the French were pushing their newfangled 'metric' system, that the US didn't adopt that too, since much of the rest of the world did...
-
@tig said:
The US is already metric in many respects... or inching towards becoming metric...
You have had 'decimal' money forever.
You buy coke/pop/juice in 'liters'.
Your wine bottles are metric [75cl]
Your cars have engine sizes in 'cc'.
The US Army measure horizontal distances in 'meters' [but then heights in 'feet' - as do aircraft the world over!].
Most complex science is already conducted in 'metric'.
I expect that much of the US space-program is 'metric' too - after some disastrous unit errors of yore.
Nutrition values on food labeling are all in metric units.
Photography is metric [35mm etc],.
Even bullets come in metric sizes...Now if only we can get you into using a few metric dimensions for lengths and drawing-scales...
It's not like we are trying to get you to adopt a decimal time or calendar systemI find it surprising that given the US's break from Britain, just as the French were pushing their newfangled 'metric' system, that the US didn't adopt that too, since much of the rest of the world did...
Our cars are actually in Liter and CI cubic Inches... Like my truck is a 5.4 liter Triton with a 334 cubic inch engine. Motorcycles however are in CC.
@unknownuser said:
1:1 (1" = 1") works well, because you can use it for construction directly, without having to scale the drawing.
Just lay out the sheet, place the 2 x 4s on it and start nailing away.
Al... lol
-
Didn't the US try liters for gasoline (petrol) and had a huge backlash from consumers? (or was that orchestrated by suppliers?).
-
In Europe car engines barely creep into more than a few litres so saying you car engine is 1500 cc sound better that 1.5 litres - the 'number' is just bigger - I'm surprised the US didn't opt for the 'big' option! Most European cars are only four-wheeled motorcycles after all
Expensive cars are say '3 litre'... but most of us never get out of the 'teens' !In the UK we now buy fuel in 'litres' - but most people still consider a car's economy in 'xxx mpg' [miles per gallon], which is undoubtedly easier to grasp that "xxx litres/100kilometre" or whatever the alternative EU standard is... we still measure road distances in 'miles' anyway !
-
They do love the size of the Liter too. badges on the sides of the cars or at least the faster one's love to boast the big number. My mustang was a 5.0 and cop cars had a 5 liter engine and were thus called Five Oh. Back all the way to the 70's the Trans Am lovers had the 5.7 and 6.6. Like Tig was saying you would think Americans would like the larger numbers of cc.
-
Oh and while we're on this topic one of the most incredible things in history to me is the use of measurements while building things such as the Parthenon. 3 different cultures coming together to build an incredible piece of design work and melding their measuring systems together... outstanding.
-
Thanks guys for all the responses! Funny you are away for the weekend here (SCF) and you get back to a wealth of learning on monday!
We still use inches for somethings in discussion - over shorter lengths it is certainly easier to visualise. So in any discussion it wont be unusual to hear inches and metres used in the same sentance
@unknownuser said:
And here I was convinced it was the porn industry not willing to redefine length from inches to centimeters.
Yeah I don't think those parts will change - if a woman were to say to me "wow that must be 8" long - I'm not going to correct her with "no it's actually 203mm" but rather I'm going to exclaim "yeah sorry - it is a really cold day"!
Thanks again guys - it's just for some Layout scrapbooks so I'll go along with 1/8":1' (1:96) as it is probably more appropriate. BTW 1/4":1' that's a dam big representation of a floor plan!!! We are trending here for all domestic work to be on A3 size sheet (297x420mm) so 1:50 would most times would fill the sheet.
Advertisement