| Author |
Message |
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1476
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2016 - 12:49 pm: |    |
Woodwork Institute (WI) just came out with a new North American Architectural Woodwork Standard (NAWS). The interesting thing is this standard is NOT endorsed by Architectural Woodwork Institute (AWI) but it IS endorsed by the Architectural Woodwork Manufacturers of Canada (AWMAC).
http://woodworkinstitute.com/
Get your free download copy here: http://www.naaws-committee.com/
I am currently looking through NAWS 3.0 and seeing how it compares to Architectural Woodwork Standard (AWS) 2nd Edition. I like the addition of color and hyperlinks but I am very puzzled why AWI was excluded from developing this standard.
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Specifications Consultant
Axt Consulting LLC |
Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rbaxter
Post Number: 124
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2016 - 01:16 pm: | |
I was told by a WI rep that AWI recently split away from the other two organizations (WI and AWMAC) because AWI wants to change the AWS to integrate with international woodwork standards.
If I understand it correctly, the new NAAWS should be very similar to the AWS. I expect that AWI will be coming out with a new standard soon that integrates with European standards. I don't know if it will be a better standard, but I know that WI and AWMAC don't seem to think it will be. |
Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1398
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2016 - 01:19 pm: | |
Richard, I was going to say the same thing--it's as if we were in the same seminar together. 
Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Guest (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2016 - 01:30 pm: | |
Geezzz...back to two separate standards....that will probably, over time, morph into very differing standards, like before? |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 995
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2016 - 03:10 pm: | |
Hey, what do Europeans know about wood anyway?
At least we still have a single consensus-based building code for the entire USA. |
Heather Zertuche (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2016 - 02:56 pm: | |
I am the Director of Certification and Inspection Services for the Woodwork Institute (WI). In an effort to clear up any confusion regarding the release of NAAWS 3.0 I offer the following:
AWI chose to pursue ANSI accreditation independently, which resulted in the dissolution of the Joint Standards Committee.
WI and AWMAC believe the consensus nature of the ANSI process will result in a standard that while acceptable to a wide variety of stakeholders, will not be the highest quality nor as comprehensive in scope.
In the interest of producing the best possible standard, WI and AWMAC have continued their alliance to produce a comprehensive standard that upholds the quality and integrity to which we believe owners and design professionals are entitled — the North American Architectural Woodwork Standard. |
Ashley Goodin
Junior Member
Username: agoodinawinetorg
Post Number: 2
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2016 - 07:56 pm: | |
I am Ashley Goodin, AWI Technical Services Manager, contributing on behalf of the Architectural Woodwork Institute (AWI). The Institute is currently developing the next generation of a broad-based consensus industry standards for architectural woodwork through its ANSI-approved process. AWI firmly believes in an open, informed, and transparent process of standards development that involves input from subject experts, design professionals, manufacturers, project owners, and other stakeholders. Until our new Standard is approved by industry vote, AWI continues to support and utilize the jointly developed Architectural Woodwork Standards, Edition 2, 2014.
In October 2014, after publication of the Architectural Woodwork Standards, Edition 2, jointly developed with the Woodwork Institute (WI) and the Architectural Woodwork Manufacturers Association of Canada (AWMAC), AWI informed each association of its intent to develop future industry standards as an ANSI-accredited Standards Developing Organization (SDO). In the best interest of the woodwork industry and to preserve the partnership with WI and AWMAC, AWI offered leadership roles to both organizations. In an attempt to move forward with a jointly sponsored standard, AWI diligently negotiated throughout 2015 with both WI and AWMAC but sadly, agreement could not reached between the three industry associations.
The Architectural Woodwork Institute looks forward to the future when our industry’s standards will harmonize with other ANSI-approved standards. To aid specifiers and design professionals, AWI will coordinate its new ANSI standard with CSI’s Master Format sections. The Institute is partnering with related industry associations and continues its collaboration with many long time industry partners as we build robust standards to meet the needs of both woodwork manufacturers and the entire design professional community.
AWI invites and encourages anyone having suggestions, inputs, or perhaps those who might be interested in participating in AWI’s new Standards Development process to contact the AWI Technical Services Manager, Ashley Goodin, at agoodin@awinet.org. AWI is firmly committed to the principle of developing our new industry standard that fairly represents all architectural woodwork and interior industry shareholders. Won’t you join with us to build our NEXT Generation of architectural woodwork and interiors industry standards? |
Dewayne Dean
Senior Member
Username: ddean
Post Number: 40
Registered: 02-2016
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2016 - 10:25 am: | |
"I am the Director of Certification and Inspection Services for the Woodwork Institute (WI)." Hi Heather. Thanks for posting here.
I just downloaded the NAAWS 3.0 Standards Book. I was thrilled at the prospect of having a digital copy. I am disappointed that the PDF is not bookmarked. It would be so much easier to find the info needed. |
Guest (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2016 - 11:24 am: | |
Dewayne,
Note the navigation buttons on the left of each page. The top one will take you to the TOC and there are links to each section there. You can also page forward and backward, as well as return to previous pages, like a internet browser's 'back' button.
No, it isn't bookmarked, and while it would be nice to have both ... it still allows one to navigate quickly around the document.
Interesting to note that WI and AWI have slightly different versions posted above regarding the dissolution of the joint committee.
I, for one, am sad to see the diverging paths of these organizations (regardless of the cause). I enjoyed only having one standard to point to and understand ... I'm not looking forward to two different standards and needing to know the differences and similarities between both. Writing specifications is already complicated enough. |
Guest (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2016 - 11:29 am: | |
Apologies, the navigation buttons are on the right of each page. |
Heather Zertuche
New member
Username: heather
Post Number: 1
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2016 - 12:58 pm: | |
Thank you Dewayne. For further clarification, may I ask to what extent would you like the document bookmarked? Any changes or updates can be made with little ease. |
Dewayne Dean
Senior Member
Username: ddean
Post Number: 42
Registered: 02-2016
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2016 - 02:26 pm: | |
Heather,
If you would send me an email, I would share with you my suggestion. dewayne_at_nwlarchitects-dot-com |
Edward J Dueppen, RA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: edueppen
Post Number: 23
Registered: 08-2013
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2016 - 08:36 am: | |
I have downloaded and started reviewing the NAAWS 3.0 (thanks David for bringing it to our attention). I noticed there are standards for seismic installation of casework, including a couple of brief items for seismic fabrication. This is much different than the AWS which essentially defers to IBC and local codes for seismic concerns.
I checked IBC and could not locate anything related to seismic concerns for casework. My experience with code officials is that unless it is built-in they typically relegate casework to FFE and therefore do not control it under the building code.
I do occasional projects in seismic zones under IBC, but I have never included anything for seismic installation or fabrication.
Am I missing something? When does one need to include seismic fabrication and installation for casework? Any insights would be appreciated! |
Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: michael_chusid
Post Number: 150
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2016 - 11:09 am: | |
California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development has authority over construction of hospitals. It has been several years since I dealt with them, but they were interested in how casework was secured to resist quakes.
Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS
www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru |
Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP
Senior Member
Username: rich_gonser
Post Number: 125
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2016 - 12:59 pm: | |
It's a very simple thing to include the standard. Here in the "ShakeyTown" State, hospitals and schools require it's use.
This OSHPD pre-approval is a single instance where this application is looked at in detail by an agency structural plan reviewer. Then the results of which are published as a "Pre-Approval". Considering the depth of which we have to engineer items for approval in minute detail within this method, it simplifies the review process and creates one less thing to worry about. The added bonus is if you use the WI monitored inspection program, they check all the parts for compliance.
It also isn't a big deal for private projects. Local qualified fabricator/installers are aware of this standard. |
Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1399
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2016 - 01:03 pm: | |
Edward:
The requirements in the IBC are buried and not easy to find. Section 1705.12 addresses testing and qualification for seismic resistance, which references Section 1705.12.3 in subparagraph 3 for architectural components in SDCs C, D, E, or F. Section 1705.12.3 further addresses seismic certification for nonstructural components and references Section 13.2 of ASCE 7.
ASCE 7, Section 13.2 covers "Applicable Requirements for Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical Components, Supports, and Attachments." For attachment of architectural components, ASCE 7, Table 13.2-1, references Section 13.5 for "Architectural Component Requirements," which includes Table 13.5-1. This table provides design factors for architectural components, of which cabinets are included. Also referenced in Table 13.2-1 is Section 13.4, which covers "Nonstructural Component Anchorage."
The ASCE 7 requirements are for structural design of component attachment and do not provide minimum prescriptive requirements. The NAAWS helps to simplify the requirements, but building officials will still likely want to see certification by the RDP on the construction documents as required per IBC Section 1705.12.3.
Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wayne_yancey
Post Number: 779
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2016 - 01:20 pm: | |
Thanks Ron,
Wayne |
anon (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2016 - 05:20 pm: | |
Yes, the IBC, by reference to ASCE-7, requires that cabinets be addressed for seismic movement but the problem is that there is no benchmark requirement for loading. Is the cabinet loaded with paper towels, reams of copy paper, or gallon jugs of cleaners? What cabinets, exactly, is another omission - wall cabinets only or base cabinets as well? And - again - to what load criteria?
Impossible to delegate design for this as we do with many ASCE-7 design requirements (cladding, curtain wall, etc.) without also providing load criteria. And so we say nothing about this in our specification section(s).
I am hopeful that the new WIC/Canook standard closes the loop on this... i might consider using/specifying to the standard for that reason alone. |
Curt Norton, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: curtn
Post Number: 237
Registered: 06-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2016 - 12:50 pm: | |
How can WI/AWMAC prove the claim on the cover that the NAAWS 3.0 standards book “meets or exceeds ANSI A161.1”. |
Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1400
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2016 - 01:11 pm: | |
Curt:
ANSI A161.1 is the standard developed by the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association (KCMA) for cabinets manufactured in accordance with their certification program.
Without getting into specifics, anyone reviewing WI, AWMAC, or AWI standards would easily come to the conclusion that those standards exceed that of KCMA.
Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Curt Norton, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: curtn
Post Number: 239
Registered: 06-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2016 - 03:44 pm: | |
Please consider this; the new standard was developed by a narrow group of stakeholders. There is nothing to suggest that it is a replacement for the AWS, 2nd Edition. This new standard does not include the AWI Quality Standards Certification. Be careful about changing your specs. You may be better off ignoring this one. |
WI Member and Licensee (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2016 - 07:33 pm: | |
Curt,
The new NAAWS manual is used for WI certification and Canadian Certification. The WI has been certifying and inspecting woodwork projects for over 50 years with full time inspectors. As a fabricator I think the WI represents the owner and specifier while taking in to account the best means and methods of the manufacturer to deliver a quality product.
The NAWWS manual was done by 6 of the 9 members of the same committee that developed the AWS so its not as narrow of an undertaking as it may seem and there are minimal changes to the previous standard with enhancements and features that make it a more modern electronic reference.
JD |
Ashley Goodin
Member
Username: agoodinawinetorg
Post Number: 3
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2016 - 02:35 pm: | |
With all due respect, the belief in an open and transparent process for standards development is where AWI differs from WI and AWMAC. There was no mechanism for public comment, input, or suggestion with this latest standards release. AWI was the only one of the three organizations that solicited open comments from members and the general public during the development of AWS Edition 2. AWI firmly believes that all stakeholders should have a voice and an opportunity for input in standards development including manufacturers, design professionals, and owners. Collaboration, communication, and a clear means of managing expectations between all parties is essential for success of project.
With the NAAWS, as has been stated in the post above, six committee members alone and without open comment or input were responsible for the content of the standard.
AWI believes that together we can build a better standard with the help and input of all stakeholders. |
Anon (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2016 - 04:51 pm: | |
Ashley,
Can you please let the group know what we should be referencing in the interim between what is available now as the current AWS standard, and the new ANSI AWI standard? Will we need to keep referencing the 2014 AWS until the new ANSI standard is ready? Or will the AWS be maintained/updated during the ANSI development process? |
Ashley Goodin
Intermediate Member
Username: agoodinawinetorg
Post Number: 4
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 06:46 am: | |
AWI as well as the AWI Quality Certification Program will continue to maintain and support AWS Edition 2, 2014 until the replacement ANSI standards are published.
Full inspection and reporting services will continue to be available via the Quality Certification Program for domestic and international projects.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. My direct line is (229) 942-1004 or you may email at agoodin@awinet.org |
Anon (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 12:56 pm: | |
I don't believe the above statement is consistent with previous AWI statements. The following quote was taken from a post on AWI's Quality Times Web page (March 8, 2016)
“The timeline for development of the standards is still under construction but it is expected to take between 3-5 years. Meanwhile, “all three of the former JSC partners agree to use the current Architectural Woodwork Standards, Edition 2 ‘as is’. All have rights, none can duplicate the AWS, and the AWS, Edition 2 will continue without any changes,” according to the terms of our current agreement. The existing Architectural Woodwork Standards, Edition 2 remain in effect until further notice.”
It would appear whatever agreement was reached between the 3 associations, maintenance of the AWS2 is not feasible. |
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1479
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 01:33 pm: | |
I hope that AWI and WI realize that their infighting is having ripples through the construction industry.
Which standard is the specification community supposed to use and enforce? How do we decide? How do we select manufacturers if they build their casework to two different standards? Can I insist that a WI manufacturer build casework to AWI standards? Will there be a comparison matrix so we can understand exactly how the two standards compare?
It is all very frustrating.
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Specifications Consultant
Axt Consulting LLC |
Heather Zertuche
Junior Member
Username: heather
Post Number: 2
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 02:18 pm: | |
David: WI would say that while AWI is coming out with their new ANSI standard and in light of the AWS2 not being maintained that you should specify the NAAWS 3.0 which covers everything that the AWS2 does as well as incorporates additional items and it is being maintained. As a side note, WI can, and we assume AWMAC and AWI should be able to inspect a project based on any standard. Use of NAAWS 3.0 is not limited and it is free to all. As a specifier, whatever you put in the contract document is what "rules". The manufacturer does not dictate what standard is used.
I have included a document covering the changes from the AWS2 and NAAWS 3.0
Hope this helps. |
Heather Zertuche
Member
Username: heather
Post Number: 3
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 02:22 pm: | |
My apologies the file was too large to include in my previous message. Here it is again. |
Ashley Goodin
Advanced Member
Username: agoodinawinetorg
Post Number: 5
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 03:29 pm: | |
To the unregistered anonymous poster above - Your quote from March 2016 was correct at that time. My statements are consistent with AWI's position, perhaps as a parsing of words, but we will maintain the AWS Edition 2 as AWI's recognized standard.
At this time, there is no mechanism for the Quality Certification Program to inspect projects based on the NAAWS.
I understand the frustrations of the design communities and manufacturers. We ask for your patience as well as your input as the new standards are developed. In the end, I think that you will find great improvements that will benefit all stakeholders. |
Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1402
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 03:50 pm: | |
I don't really see all the fuss about going to two different standards:
1) That's the way it was for many years before the AWS.
2) We deal with different adopted building code editions all the time.
3) An finally, nobody is complaining about SDI and NAAMM having different standards for metal door and frame construction.
Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Stephen Kelly Taylor
New member
Username: steve_taylor
Post Number: 1
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2016 - 06:08 pm: | |
David,
I agree with you that it would be better if the associations would play nice. As far as which standard to use; I think the NAAWS is an improvement on the AWS, but if you need to use the AWI quality assurance program you are stuck with AWS 2nd edition.
Full disclosure; I am an ex employee of Woodwork Institute. |
Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2016 - 12:40 pm: | |
Wasn't the WI originally a west coast organization (Woodwork Institute of California or something like that)?
If so, there's a good chance that the western states & Canada will use the new standard, while the rest of the US will continue with AWI. |
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1481
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2016 - 02:19 pm: | |
Paul,
Yes the "Woodwork Institute" used to be "Woodwork Institute of California".
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Specifications Consultant
Axt Consulting LLC |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 944
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2016 - 03:26 pm: | |
There are a good number of long time woodworking members of AWI from the west, and I know a number of west coast architectural firms that have always used AWI. Though in both instances, they were often members of or users of both standards depending the wishes of the client.
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate
WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX |
Stephen Kelly Taylor
Junior Member
Username: steve_taylor
Post Number: 2
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2016 - 04:14 pm: | |
There are currently 3 AWI QCP licensees in California: Caseworx, Heppner Hardwood, and Plastic Tops. The presidents of all three are or have been board members of Woodwork Institute. The president of Plastic Tops is the current Woodwork Institute President, and the president of Caseworx is a past president.
There are 7 AWI QCP licensees in Arizona, Nevada has one, and Oregon has 7. Their membership is mostly east of the rockies.
Woodwork Institute has 86 accredited millwork firms (licensees) in California, two in Arizona, and two in Oregon. There is a scattering of licensees in other states, but most are in the far west. Unlike AWI, the Woodwork Institute programs allow non licensee shops to participate, but their work has to be inspected by WI staff.
I know it's a pain to allow for two standards and two quality assurance programs, but using NAAWS and WI Certified Compliance in the west, and AWS and QCP in the east remains the best option. |
restabrook@awiqcp.org (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2016 - 11:04 am: | |
Steve, the AWI QCP will inspect work by non-licensee firms on registered QCP projects. These projects may not be eligible for labels/ certificates, but the stakeholders are able to receive a copy of the detailed inspection report.
Randy Estabrook- QCP Exec Director |
Stephen Kelly Taylor
Member
Username: steve_taylor
Post Number: 3
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2016 - 01:29 pm: | |
Randy,
I'm sorry if I misrepresented AWI QCP's inspection policy.
Steve |
Ashley Goodin
Senior Member
Username: agoodinawinetorg
Post Number: 6
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2016 - 01:48 pm: | |
I do have a question regarding WI and AWMAC compliance program inspections....If a specifier/design professional continues to reference the AWS Edition 2 in their specifications, will WI and AWMAC continue to inspect to that standard?
If yes, then I think that continuing to specify the AWS Edition 2, 2014 would be the best option since it allows for all three quality assurance options. Based on the list provided above, I struggle in seeing the additional value of specifying the NAAWS while excluding over 500 AWI QCP licensees located in the US, Canada, and abroad. The AWS Edition 2 is and will continue to be a valid industry standard. |
Heather Zertuche
Intermediate Member
Username: heather
Post Number: 4
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2016 - 04:35 pm: | |
WI’s policy is that if AWS2 is specified on a project bid before July 1, 2016, WI will inspect to it. For a project bid after July 1, WI considers NAAWS 3.0 to be the successor, replacement and latest edition of the Architectural Woodwork Standards.
NAAWS 3.0 incorporates everything in the AWS2, as well as all “future edition” errata (which could not be addressed because there wouldn’t be an AWS3 in light of AWI’s ANSI initiative), incorporates a myriad of additional information – reclaimed and non-traditional materials, laboratory casework, seismic casework installation, cabinet hardware, antimicrobial surfaces – and harnesses the latest technology with colorized visual aids and a number of interactive features. So, of course, we would recommend that specifiers use NAAWS 3.0.
Regarding quality assurance programs and standards, all 3 of our organizations have our own unique certification programs. WI’s certification programs (CCP, MCP, CSIP) easily allows for participation and certification of any millwork subcontractor regardless of affiliation with any organization or lack thereof. Thus AWI’s member would not be excluded from either bidding a project with our certification programs or the new standard. NAAWS 3.0 is free to download and is easily accessible on our website, www.woodworkinstitute.com, (direct link: www.naaws-committee.com/ ). |
Ashley Goodin
Senior Member
Username: agoodinawinetorg
Post Number: 7
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2016 - 05:40 pm: | |
Heather - just to be perfectly clear on this, even if project documents specify compliance to the AWS Edition 2, 2014, WI requires compliance to another standard not referenced in the project documents? This would be for projects where the millwork package bid date is after July 1, 2016. Is that correct? WI policies would override the direct specification of a standard without the knowledge or consent of the owner or design professional? |
Heather Zertuche
Advanced Member
Username: heather
Post Number: 5
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2016 - 08:24 am: | |
Thank you Ashley. That is a good question. We are not inspecting to "another standard" but an updated and improved standard that we believe any owner or design professional would appreciate and accept, just as we believe they would not expect us to inspect to an older, outdated standard if inadvertantly specified. For contractual requirements the standard specified would still govern and we will make sure the client is made aware of any improvements between outdated and current standards so they can make an informed decision during this transitory period. |
WI Memebr and Licensee (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2016 - 11:45 am: | |
If the specification language is latest edition, a WI member will use NAAWS, if the specification language is use 2nd edition of AWS it will be to the second edition, the specification and contract documents are always the controlling documents. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1414
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2016 - 06:49 pm: | |
Just a note to Stephen Taylor's comment above: there are no Rocky Mountains in Oregon, Arizona or Nevada. Cascade and Sierra are the appropriate mountain ranges. And WI was used extensively in coastal California because it had two things that AWI did not: seismic anchoring and laboratory casework. We do rely on the fabricator to adequately anchor their boxes to the wall. |
Heather Zertuche
Senior Member
Username: heather
Post Number: 6
Registered: 05-2016
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2016 - 11:33 am: | |
NAAWS now available in print edition and still available as a FREE PDF. The North American Architectural Woodwork Standards 3.0 is now available. Please click on the link below
https://www.naaws-committee.com/ |
Justatim
Senior Member
Username: justatim
Post Number: 92
Registered: 04-2010
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2016 - 07:52 am: | |
I've tried twice to download the Standards, but the system is unresponsive... just twirls the "loading" icon for 15 or more minutes.
I'll try again this afternoon before giving up. |
Justatim
Senior Member
Username: justatim
Post Number: 93
Registered: 04-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - 08:13 am: | |
At last, it worked! |
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1520
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2016 - 04:38 pm: | |
I received my hard copy of the North American Architectural Woodwork Standards (NAAWS) version 3.0 yesterday. Although, I have not done a thorough comparison between NAAWS and American Woodwork Standards (AWS) Edition 2, here are my initial observations:
1. NAAWS seems to include all the information from AWS and yet NAAWS is about 50 pages less.
2. NAAWS seems be easier to use. The use of color illustrations and color photographs convey information well.
3. AWS seems to have a lot of repeated information and tends to read like one long spreadsheet. NAAWS tends to be written more in a paragraph form.
I am curious as to other people's thoughts on NAAWS versus AWS.
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Specifications Consultant
Axt Consulting LLC |
Robin E. Snyder
Senior Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 687
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 06:03 pm: | |
Curious is there are any updates from specifiers on this? What are people referencing now in their specs? |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wayne_yancey
Post Number: 825
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 06:23 pm: | |
AWS Edition 2. |
Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP
Senior Member
Username: rich_gonser
Post Number: 140
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 07:16 pm: | |
Here in California it is NAAWS. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 1081
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 10:05 pm: | |
NAAWS for California, high seismic zone, and laboratory projects; AWS typically. |
Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI
Senior Member
Username: dwhurttgam
Post Number: 143
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 07, 2020 - 01:57 pm: | |
I would like to revisit this thread. I see that ANSI / AWI 0641-2019„ŸArchitectural Wood Casework Standard was released earlier this year. ANSI / AWI 0641 took effect June 1, 2020, and succeeds, replaces, and supplants Section 10 of the Architectural Woodwork Standards, Edition 2 (2014) as the most current version of the AWI Standards for architectural wood casework. Is anyone familiar with this new standard. I do not see much published about AWS vs NAAWS since 2016. Is the AWS primarily being used in the mid-west and east and the NAAWS in the west and west coast? or is the use of these stds. not region based? Would be interested in learning more about this. |
4specs.com Home Page
NAAWS 3.0 vs AWS2