Carpenter (CAR)

Fourth Period Package (32 Modules) Comments

Date: 3/23/2020 2:25:12 PM
Module: 020401a
Version: 21.0
Page: 6
Comment: On page 5 it is referring to temporary stairs and then the graphic on page 6 is for permanent stairs complete with balusters. I suggest a graphic which represents temporary construction stairs as per OHS.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 2/19/2020 12:41:11 PM
Module: 020401g
Version: 9.0
Page: 8, 9
Comment: Page 8 - Figure 8 - left hand portion - dimension at top of kitchen base cabinets - suggest change "650 (25 1/2")" to "635 (25")" to better reflect actual counter top dimensions. Page 8 and 9 - Figure 8 and 9 - suggest adding drawer front and doors (lightly shaded) to the cabinet drawings to remove confusion that the cabinets dimensions possibly include them. Page 31 -sentence 1 under Figure 41 - European style hinges - omit the word "most"
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/25/2020 1:08:07 PM
Module: 020401g
Version: 21.0
Page: 9
Comment: The graphic showing the minimum height to combustibles should show 600mm to the combustible when the combustible is protected by a range hood or other non-combustible protection. The dimension line is the problem and the number to a lesser extent. Perhaps two separate graphics would help. 9.10.22.2. Vertical Clearances above Cooktops 1) Except as provided in Sentence (2), framing, finishes and cabinetry installed directly above the location of the cooktop shall be not less than 750 mm above the level of cooktop burners or elements. 2) The vertical clearance described in Sentence (1) for framing, finishes and cabinets located directly above the location of the cooktop may be reduced to 600 mm above the level of the elements or burners, provided the framing, finishes and cabinets a) are noncombustible, or b) are protected by a metal hood that projects 125 mm beyond the framing, finishes and cabinets.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 2/19/2020 12:41:23 PM
Module: 020401i
Version: 6.1
Page: 27
Comment: Page 27 - Top of page bullet list - suggest revising last bullet to this: "A typical shelf thickness of 19 mm (3/4") and supports spaced no more than 800 mm (32") apart is acceptable for most storage needs. In addition a 19 x 38 ........"
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/25/2020 1:07:46 PM
Module: 020401i
Version: 21.0
Page: 27
Comment: I think the concept of a shelf stiffener would be better shown with an isometric view, thinner trim, and a finishing nail that projects into a solid shelf.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/25/2020 1:07:56 PM
Module: 020401i
Version: 21.0
Page: 11
Comment: It may just be my personal experience but the arrangement of the rails and stiles on figure 11 is off. Back in the day I would run the top rail and bottom rail all the way to the outer stiles even splicing them if I had to and then any intermediate stiles would go in between them.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/25/2020 1:07:24 PM
Module: 020401j
Version: 21.0
Page: Various
Comment: I suggest removing the following information from the module: Anything to do with stripping and refinishing. Page 11-15 Chemical Stain page 17 Paste wood fillers page 22 Shellac page 25 Bleach info on page 40 Paste wood filler page 41 Shellac sealer info page 43 Other finishing systems page 44-46 Self test questions referring to these items
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/25/2020 1:07:35 PM
Module: 020401j
Version: 21.0
Page: 11
Comment: A better method for dent repair put forth by Bob Flexner is to use an eyedropper to put drops of water onto the dent and then allow that to soak in, and then use a damp cloth to heat the dent only and as little of the surrounding area as possible thereby reducing damage to the surrounding area.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/25/2020 1:07:02 PM
Module: 020401k
Version: 21.0
Page: 7
Comment: I think beech should be replaced by walnut.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 4/13/2020 10:46:37 AM
Module: 020401k
Version: 21
Page:
Comment: Figure 46 showing the western saw cutting the bottom of the door jamb—replace with updated existing graphic/photo of oscillating saw.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 2/19/2020 12:41:40 PM
Module: 020402a
Version: 8.1
Page: 11
Comment: Page 11 - Figure 10 Laying out the valley rafter at the fascia - the shortening is missing in the drawing - please add and adjust location of cheek cut to match.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 2/19/2020 12:41:48 PM
Module: 020402a
Version: 8.1
Page: 16
Comment: Page 16 - figure 16 - show shortening in graphic - text above mentions it and it is noted in figure 15 on the previous page.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/8/2020 7:01:49 AM
Module: 020402a
Version: 8
Page: 16
Comment: Layout of lower end of the Valley Jack Rafter. On Figure 16, step 2: "Measure back a distance equal to the required shortening and mark a second plumb line..." is not indicated in the image.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/8/2020 7:02:00 AM
Module: 020402a
Version: 8
Page: 11
Comment: Layout at the Fascia. Instructions miss a step. Step 2 should read: Measure back at 90 degrees the full thickness of the fascia measured from the layout. Figure 10 is also incorrect as it misses this step.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/8/2020 7:02:09 AM
Module: 020402a
Version: 8
Page: 9
Comment: Figure 8 shows the working point in the wrong position. The note at the bottom of the page contradicts the image.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/25/2020 1:06:20 PM
Module: 020402a
Version: 21.0
Page: 23
Comment: Figure 27 has a problem. The doubled header at the top doesn't work out well with those stub rafters coming into it. The top of the stub rafters for sure would not line up with the header top when the header is plumb and not perpendicular to the rafter. I suggest that the headers be placed perpendicular to the rafters.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/25/2020 1:06:51 PM
Module: 020402a
Version: 21.0
Page: 3-4
Comment: I think these two pages should be removed from this module as the information found in 020404d is much more comprehensive as it describes the issue with the projection and soffit heights. This ridge placement information has no context in the module.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 12/19/2019 7:51:25 AM
Module: 020402b
Version: 22
Page:
Comment: In the new 4th period Curved Stair Module 020402d page 15, again it stats, “The run divided by number of treads equals the unit of run of the inside stringer.” The calculation it’s referring to in the unit run at the walk line and not the inside stringer. Earlier on the page it also references the run of the inside stringer while talking about Walk line.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 12/20/2019 7:06:13 AM
Module: 020402c
Version: 22
Page: 8, 9, 10
Comment: In the New Winder Stairs module 020402c, version 22. Page 8 has a walk line radius calculated as 506.11. This is rounded up to 507. On page 9 a walk line radius is calculated at 487.013 this one is rounded down. Page 10 Walk line radius is calculated as 534.76 and it’s rounded up. Examples continue throughout the module. Previously these values were always rounded up. We either need to use basic rounding rules or have a standard.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 12/20/2019 7:06:25 AM
Module: 020402c
Version: 22
Page: 9
Comment: In the New Winder Stairs module 020402c, version 22. Page 9 has a walk line radius calculated at 487mm and the note below it stats “Since the walk line is always considered to be 450 from the inside of the stair, the layout point for the winder nosings cannot be less than 450. Therefore the walk line radius = 450 With the new minimum unit run code of 255mm, a calculation that is less than 450 is no longer possible and these notes can now be deleted.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 5/31/2019 11:17:03 PM
Module: 020402d
Version: 4.0999999999999996
Page: 6
Comment: Module refers to min radius for curved treads of 1620. Where is this information from? is there a code reference?
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 12/19/2019 7:48:40 AM
Module: 020402d
Version: 22
Page: 11
Comment: In the new 4th period Curved Stair Module 020402d on page 11, it stats, “The run divided by number of treads equals the unit of run of the inside stringer.” Although this statement is true the calculation it’s referring to in the unit run at the walk line and not the inside stringer. Earlier on the page it also references the run of the inside stringer.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 12/19/2019 7:49:00 AM
Module: 020402d
Version: 22
Page: 20
Comment: In the new 4th period Curved Stair Module 020402d page 20, it calculates the inside unit run as 137.2mm. Code minimum at the narrow end is 150mm. I feel using the 150mm to start the calculation would be a better way and then once calculated verify that the walk line unit run exceeds 255.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 1/8/2020 2:57:58 PM
Module: 020402d
Version: 22
Page: 11
Comment: In the new Curved Stair Module 020402d page 11 the calculated answer for walk line unit run is 375.87mm. This exceeds the private code maximum unit run of 355mm.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 1/9/2020 3:46:36 PM
Module: 020402d
Version: 22
Page: 2
Comment: In the New Curved Stair module 020202d on page 2 when listing code requirements for curved stairs, it stats; • The minimum dimension allowed at the narrow end of the tread is 150mm The 2015 National code book 9.8.4.3 stats, tapered treads shall have a run that is not less than 150mm at the narrow end of the tread. The module should be changed to match the actual code.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 1/10/2020 8:47:41 AM
Module: 020402d
Version: 22
Page: 7, 11, 19, 32
Comment: In the New Curved Stair module 020202d on page 7 it stats we will set up and solve ratios by cross multiplication. Page 11 when we should be setting up the ratio that step is seeming missed. Turn/360 = Partial Circle/Full Circle This same ratio set up can be used for calculations on page 19 where we’re given another set up and then again on page 32 where the students are presented a third set up where the ratio is flipped over for the same calculation. Consistently would help keep things clear for the students.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 1/10/2020 10:35:32 AM
Module: 020402d
Version: 22
Page: 28, 29
Comment: In the New Curved Stair module 020202d on page 28, it calculates the inside unit run as 314.2mm. Top of page 29 in a note, it stats; “In this example, because the inside unit run is already more than the minimum unit run (255mm) required at the walking line, you do not need to calculate the walk line unit run.” When you do check the walk line unit run it exceeds the maximum of 355mm. If this were public stairs it would be fine but the note would have to say (280mm) for public minimum.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 2/19/2020 12:41:33 PM
Module: 020403aA
Version: 5.1
Page: 15
Comment: Page 15 - sentence 1 under Development Permits heading - should read : "... issued when the proposed construction does not meet the current zoning bylaws."
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/25/2020 1:06:05 PM
Module: 020403d
Version: 21.0
Page: 38
Comment: NBC 2015 handrail height is now 865-1070. Change figure 31 to reflect. 3.4.6.5 (7) and 9.8.7.4 (2)
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 2/19/2020 12:42:02 PM
Module: 020404d
Version: 9.0
Page: multiple
Comment: page 7 - figure 1 - label 7 in graphic - change "lockout" to "lookout" page 36 - question 4 answer - does not deduct for 19 mm finish fascia (noted in figure 2 on page 8) if deducted at both ends answer should be 13 524 - 38 = 13 486 mm Page 37 - answer to question 32 should be "42"
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/25/2020 1:06:39 PM
Module: 020404d
Version: 21.0
Page: 18
Comment: The process on this page only works for unequal slope roofs where unequal height or projection of the soffits is NOT an issue. On the following pages the process is described for equal projection/consistent soffit height. There should be a statement to that effect on page 18 to make it more clear that it works only when soffit height/projection consistency is not necessary. I often have students confused by that description and image when we build an unequal slope rafter project in shop.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 12/19/2019 11:58:57 AM
Module: 020404e
Version: 22
Page: 34/34
Comment: The process of rounding up the walking line radius calculation is not consistent in the questions. Objective 1 Q. 1-4 has the answer rounded but in q 5 and 6 it is done differently in each question. Also Page 3 the answer to unit run is 245. It should have the answer at or above the code min. 255.
Status: Approved for Review


Archived Comments

There are no archived comments to view for this package.