Structural Specs
Structural Specs
(OP)
I am just getting into specs and I am curious what the typical practice is around the country.
Are the specs that you use based off of Masterspec with your own personal touches??
If so, is there anything specific that you would recommend adding to the common specifications that might not be so intuitive??
Are the specs that you use based off of Masterspec with your own personal touches??
If so, is there anything specific that you would recommend adding to the common specifications that might not be so intuitive??






RE: Structural Specs
For larger or more unique projects I start with a non-edited section.
CSI used to have a spec system that I didn't care for because it was so additive based (it had all sorts of blanks you had to fill in). Masterspec is more "subtractive" based in that it includes everything and you delete out what doesn't apply and edit what needs changing.
We do include some various provisions that we prefer over the base spec provided, but when you get updated specs it is a hassle to update your "masters" each time. Therefore we try to include our preferential items in plan general notes instead.
RE: Structural Specs
One thing to remember...don't worry about pirating...I'm convinced there is no "original" spec! Almost everything is public domain when it comes to specs (though the MasterSpec system is a "purchased" system...and a good one). JAE is right about the subtractive approach...much easier to deal with than trying to figure out what you've left out.
A few tips...
1. Say it once...only once
2. Cross-check related specs...don't leave hanging references or blind references.
3. Specify what you want, what you expect to get, then get it.
4. Know what your reference standards mean...don't just reference something because someone else did. It is also good to actually have a copy of anything you specify as a standard...not always possible, but try.
5. Make sure your references are the relevant ones to the code. Don't reference the latest version of an ASTM or other standard if an earlier version is the code mandate.
6. If it is not a code-referenced standard, use the latest version.
A pet peeve of mine (OK...admittedly I have quite a few) is that I still see specifications referencing ANSI A58.1 for structural loads (it was replaced in 1988 by ASCE 7).
RE: Structural Specs
RE: Structural Specs
RE: Structural Specs
RE: Structural Specs
I generally try to avoid putting the same information into the spec and the general notes. My criteria for what belongs where is this: When the building needs to be renovated, the engineer may be lucky enough to find the drawings, but will almost never be lucky enough to find the specs. Put all the info he will need for renovation on the drawings and not in the spec.
For buildings, I keep my own "master" specs and delete what isn't relevant to a particular job. It's a little more work keeping the referenced specs up to date, but it gives me more control over what I think belongs in the spec.
RE: Structural Specs
This makes numbers 1 and 7 not just important, but essential.
Cheers,
YS
B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...
RE: Structural Specs
Dik
RE: Structural Specs
For example, we may do a wood-framed job that has a few steel pipe columns at isolated locations. Hence, we need to include a steel section in specs. Our common practice is provide our standard, unabridged steel specification, that references practices geared towards conventional steel-framed buildings. At times, we may trim out a few things, but there is certainly a lot left in that is not relevant.
I can see the logic that what isn't present on the project drawings should be taken not to apply in the project specifications (i.e. the contractor should ignore any statements about steel beams if there are none on the project). I cannot see how it could be construed otherwise. However, I am cautious to think that the aforementioned cannot lead to any problems at all.
What say you guys?? Do you always trim out the extraneous text?
RE: Structural Specs
RE: Structural Specs
For larger projects or government clients, it was difficult to avoid using a spec. I found that most specs were repetitive, wordy and extremely boring to read. It was hard to stay awake while reading such a document. But for those projects, I used a Master Spec, often provided by the client because he wanted it in a particular format. Ho hum!
BA
RE: Structural Specs
RE: Structural Specs
- Section by section allowances to be included in the bid.
- GC is to provide sealed design calcs. with the shop drawings for stairs (had a big fight on this one, the drawings showed stringer sizes for a monumental, but calcs. proved they were too small so we fought over extra cost because the designer was afraid to really design the stairway in the beginning).
- Specified materials no longer available for the past FIVE years!
- included all three methods of laying ceramic tile in a project that only had thin set tile.
I do agree with the general theme that specs should be job specific as much as possible. I had one multi-million dollar courthouse project where the architect used "canned" specs and left all of the directional verbiage from the publisher on how to use the documents in the specs - he just printed it straight out of the can!
I guess my point is that contractors, just like A/E's, are not all created equal - there are good ones and then...
RE: Structural Specs
Much of the repetition and boredom is a creature of the CSI format.
We usually give physical requirements for each item and a manufacturer and model for the item with "or equals" allowed. A problem with this is keeping up with the model numbers and properties. So we get an "or equal" submitted and find out the model we specified didn't meet our requirements. This makes it very hard to enforce the specification. But keeping then specifications up to date takes a lot of time.
RE: Structural Specs
SpecsIntact editor and master sections can be downloaded for free at the following web site: http://specsintact.ksc.nasa.gov/
Regards,
Lutfi