File Naming Conventions: How do you name your CAD files?

I try to stay away from xrefs and manage single drawings through layers, paperspace layout tabs, and viewports. The later ACAD releases allow different color and linetypes in different viewports which adds a great deal to this method.

I get very frustrated when I deal with relatively small site plans from some of the “big boys” which are xrefed between surveyors, engineers, architects and LAs into (not kidding) hundreds of dwgs with many non matching redundancies and/or poor layer management thrown in as well. I had to set up a survey crew to stake out pavement patterns on a small recreation facility last year that had four different (although only slightly) building footprints in it. The patterns were to relate to the building. These were all very well known firms in Boston/Cambridge that most of you have heard of. This could have easily been done all in one dwg, but some people are a bit paranoid playing with others, I guess. I can not for the life of me figure out why there were over 100 dwg files.

I certainly see clear reasons to xref huge sites or between different professionals working on the same site, but until there is a huge level of complexity I just don’t see introducing the additional conflicts that can occur by breaking up a single plan into multiple drawings.

When it is necessary: job number -page number-description.

It depends where it comes from for the office I’m working at now. We save the original as a record and rename a working copy with our firm name in front, ie ‘TBG_surrounding base.dwg’. We usually keep the name as recieved it from the consultant unless its a really convoluted name. I’ve found that civils and surveyors in particular around here have a tendency to name their files really aweful cryptic names like 0001xgrad2 or whatever.

One thing I think we are really good about (due to my boss impressing this on me) is handing off clean files. We keep the site separate from the planting, grading, and sheets because the civil only wants/needs to see our site linework, ie concrete, scoring, walls, paving, etc. I have gotten in the habit of turning all layers on and deleting any outlying objects before I save and send a file to a consultant. Some consultants will just etrnsmit their entire xrefs and sheets to us when all we need is a utility plan.

I’ve tried renaming base files, but it can get more confusing–for example if we have three or more ’tiled’ bases to create our site base, which isnt unusual where we are and the type of work we do alot (master planning).

Is that what you mean?

It is very easy and each sheet is ready to plot every time you open the tab. I also viewport the titleblock information so that it only needs to be updated in one place and shows up on all of them. This method evolved from taking different practices from different offices that I worked at to make it as easy as possible to manage drawings. Viewport freezing is very easy and setting layer isolate to turning layers off instead of freezing makes it very easy to limit conflicts while excercising some modifications. The trick is to have every layer on and thawed in model space. We use an underscore as a prefix for layers with images to keep them at the top so that we can freeze those and thaw those in model space so that madel space can be somewhat clean if you have to duck into it. There are so many little improvements that directly support this method in the last few ACAD releases that are clearly responses to input from people doing this.

The instrument survey existing conditions plan is the mother of the base plan, but we get xrefs, arch drawings, and LA drawings that for some reason have decided that existing buildings are a diffent size or perfectly aligned with other features and then proceed to put additions on them and base all proposed work on an inaccurate reinvention of existing conditions. I have one on my desk top that I opened last night. I can not xref it because the proposed work will not be lining up with the existing building (car dealership addition). I will have to block out their addition and fit it on the existing building in our surveyed dwg (we will be staking the addition ncluding anchor bolts for the steel framing – civil office). The only thing worse than people moving existing things is if you can’t fix it because it is an xref.

First, I will warn you all that I am a Civil/Site Engineer that stumbled upon this site while looking for discussions on CAD layers. I have found this site to be very informative on the thought processes of LA’s and just wanted to return the favor but letting you know some of the thoughts behind CE’s madness.

We do name our files in the “cryptic” method, which I honestly didn’t question until I read this forum. On the outside looking in, I can definitly see how it appears as almost a random assortment of numbers and letters. A typical file for us could read “10-146.C3.0.GP.dwg” which is basically “project number.sheet number.sheet description.dwg”. We see no need for project name in the file because the names are typically large and the projects are organized in the server by folders titled with project number and project name. I have always assumed that if I am sending you a file that I would reference what project it is associated with in the e-mail.

Nick, I would actually prefer that you send me the planting and grading design because if I have to come back and add a lightpole or a sanitary lateral I would rather choose a path that doesn’t interfere with your design. In the same sense, typically I send the LA all the utilites (existing and proposed) and storm sewer info so they don’t put a tree directly above a storm inlet, water line, etc. It just cuts down on the revisions that each party would need to do, which keeps your costs and my costs down.

There were a few comments on xrefs and sending files out. My thoughts are that if I had nothing to do with the design, I dont send it out. Which means that if you receive a drawing from me it will not have the proposed building xrefd into it. It may have a single line outline of the building but that will be on a layer that doesn’t print.

I think almost all civils will be using xrefs. In my experience, I typically have at least 4 separate dwg files that we work in because they either have different data (i.e. demo plan requires a different base than the site plan) or have so much data it doesn’t make sense to load a single huge drawing for a small change. Also having a basic xref of the curbs, sidewalks, islands, etc. makes it easy for us to change plans if a client tells us they want to slightly change a curb line.

Sorry for the lengthy response.

Todd-

I’m glad that you joined and responded. It’s great to get a civils perspective.

On drawing the building–We’ve done it a number of ways. It gets complicated when we have site issues to work with. Like I said, most times we go with the civils plan in the end, but we work back and forth.

On separating files–I find it most efficient when the civil sends me separate site lineowrk and utilities and grading, so I/we keep planting and site separate. Again, we work back and forth with the civil and both react to eachothers work as appropriate.

File naming–I was wrong to say that civils and surveyors are the only ones that seem to name their files ‘cryptically.’ Archs and other LA’s do it as well. Sometimes it makes sense like you mentioned–project number, sheet number, …but many times we get stuff that must only be completely ambiguous..it is to us anyway.

Little things like naming the files we send out and rotating pdf’s so they open right side up for cinsultants is good practice in my opinion, but certainly not a deal breaker.

“I also viewport the titleblock information so that it only needs to be updated in one place and shows up on all of them.”

I love this idea. So, you put the info in your model and set up the viewports to catch it in all your layouts?
I describe my use of layouts below (in reply to Daniel Miller’s comment) and I get tired of putting the info in each one I use. Right now I have my titleblock on each layout page in paper space.

Because I use different paper sizes, I need to size the title block info appropriately. I’m still having some trouble getting annotated text right so it may be hard to keep the size correct.