Structural Specs 3

[abusementpark]

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??

 

[JAE]

I've generally used Masterspec and gone through each of the major structural sections to edit out stuff I know won't be used by me for most general projects.

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.

 

[Ron]

I generally do similar to JAE. Sometimes I screw up and edit an edited version instead of the master....

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).

 

[JAE]

7. Cross check your specs against any general notes on your drawings.

 

[WillisV]

8. Realized that many contractors never open that odd thick book of bound paper in their job trailer known as the Specifications and be prepared to prod and remind as necessary.

 

[jike]

Whenever you run into a problem or something that needs clarification on a project, take care of the problem first and then UPDATE your specs and general notes to avoid that problem in the future. In a few years, you will have a pretty air tight spec!

 

[miecz]

First, you need to decide which information belongs in the spec and which information belongs in the general notes on the drawings. Some information could go either place. It's just not possible to put all the info in the general notes. But, as WillisV pointed out, many building contractors never open the spec book, 'till there's a problem.

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.

 

[youngstructural]

I whole-heartedly agree with Miecz; Number 8 is a world-wides issue... I have learnt to add as many notes as I think are reasonably necessary to build the structure without any major f*#$& ups, while including all the finer details and catch all clauses in the 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...

 

[dik]

I often use a fairly comprehensive set of notes plus a regular spec (and they're coordinated) with the intent being that after 20 years, it is often possible to find drawings, but no one seems to keep a copy of the specs.

Dik

 

[abusementpark]

I've noticed at my workplace, it is common practice to leave extraneous text in certain sections.

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?

 

[miecz]

I trim out all that I can. I believe that it saves me time in the shop drawing phase. I believe that a contractor is more likely to submit the proper materials if my spec looks like it was written specifically for the job. Who knows...

 

[BAretired]

For small projects, I included the specification on the drawings. It is amazing how much you can say in small print on a 24 x 36 drawing.

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

 

[JAE]

We don't leave much non-applicable stuff in our specs if we can help it. Just trying to do it right.

 

[jheidt2543]

Guys, this has been a very interesting thread! During my career as a Project Manager/Estimator for general contractors I can honestly say I've read every section of every project we bid prior to the bid. Mainly because those *!@#$% architects and engineers always hid little surpises in the various spec sections like:

- 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...

 

[JedClampett]

Our company has a set of "master specifications" that we are to edit for job specific requirements. We do a lot of concrete, so the specifications for that are pretty good. We do very little timber, so our master specifications for that are weak. And everything in between.
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.

 

[Lutfi]

I use Master specs and I also use SpecsIntact. I personalize either system to suite my needs. The SpecsIntact is a great system. They are free, compliments of the government, including the free editor. You can use all various master sections with SpecsIntact. The structural sections are very good and comprehensive and you do not have to pay the ridiculous annual fees for subscriptions.

SpecsIntact editor and master sections can be downloaded for free at the following web site:

http://specsintact.ksc.nasa.gov/

Regards,
Lutfi