Who writes structural specifications?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1790 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 - 01:27 pm:    For a majority of my projects, I write the structural specifications (concrete, steel, CMU, wood) with input from the structural engineer. That said I am having a change of heart. As structural codes and requirements get more complicated I would prefer to have the engineer put together these sections with review by the architect and specifier. Some structural sections are pretty straight forward, for example steel deck, structural steel, steel joists, cold-formed metal studs. There is little information that the architect needs to include, mainly primers and recycled content, maybe insulation for flutes for acoustic decks. AESS is a separate section written by the architect/specifier. Rough carpentry, sheathing and glulams are also pretty straight forward with little input from architect other than FSC requirements and appearance of exposed glulams. Concrete, on the other hand, will take a lot of coordination back and forth, unless I can figure a way to separate out architectural items such as finishing, flatness/levelness, sealers, curing compounds, etc. What do you do in your practice? David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 363 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 - 01:31 pm:    David, Perhaps this is a regional thing, but in New England we rarely prepare structural sections. I usually only do cold formed metal framing. I expect the structural engineer will prepare their own sections, which they rarely edit and usually conflict with their drawing notes. Sometimes projects with new sustainability requirements will spur the structural engineer into a detailed spec review and update. - Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 289 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 - 01:55 pm:    It's about 50/50 in my practice. I always give clients the option, suggesting that the specs are likely to be more clearly written, complete and coordinated if authored by me, but that the engineer retains responsibility for technical content. CIP Concrete is a section that is most likely to be generated by the engineer. When high-quality exposed finishes are involved, I will often produce a Section 033520 "Exposed Concrete Finishing" to address formwork and finishes, coordinated w/ provisions in 033000 for materials, curing, testing, etc. This is treated similar to AESS, where that spec focuses on visual characteristics and references 051200 for basic requirements. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA William C. Pegues Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 978 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 - 02:20 pm:    Before I retired (retirement is GREAT for general info!) I was with WDG for 37 years, with offices in both Dallas and Washington, DC. During that time, we did projects all over Texas and up and down the east coast as well as far afield as Ohio and Michigan. In many cases we worked with local structural engineers. I had a master system that I had developed over time, totally coordinated with all sections for terminology and drawing notes terminology. This included structural sections of all types and including specialty sections such as various structural glazing systems. What I would do would be to send those section masters to the structural engineer, and tell him that he should edit them as required, including verifying any standards, and making any additions that he required, just to send me text inserts to include. Never had a problem with that, and would make all their changes, though often putting information in the more appropriate parts and articles than they selected, sending them back to him for review and notes about why I might have it in a different location. I would then look up any of their references to assure they were correct (sometimes resulting in asking him to check again since I found conflicting or even discontinued standards/references). All of these inclusions, I would then keep in my master sections, along with notes about choosing different options (based on the different engineers desiring different options). After the review came back again, a full draft would be issued at about 75% drawing completion that they would then get to review and comment on. This all went very well. And the only times of having to do more work that usual was the first time with an engineer. After that, smooth sailing. Did the same with other disciplines like Landscape, Interiors, etc. The only sections we did not do this way was MEP. And those we let them use their own masters, but they were very closely review and marked up for coordination with appropriate section names/numbers, as well as terminology. Some may say this takes a lot of time. Yes, and no. It really depends on your working tools. I did not have a highly automated system, just a word processing on a computer. For the majority of my career, I had no assistant. On the other hand, perhaps success was based on my sport of choice, fencing. Nothing like after a trying or stressful day to go to the club and beat on someone with a metal rod -grin!! William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Jerome J. Lazar, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 2018 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 - 02:29 pm:    David, I prepare the specs for smaller structural firms, I require the Structural PE to read the specs and provide comments, I perform editing and than forward the specs to the PE who must take ownership of the specs for the specific job. Believe it or not I do this pro-bono. Its usually on projects with long time clients and as you said, standard spec sections. I have only had one project where the PE used the specs without my permission. In hindsight I wish I had charged a fee, a lot of potential fees were left on the table, and most of the engineers never said thank you. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 297 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2019 - 08:18 am:    A recent thread concluded with some incisive thoughts from Mark Gilligan on this topic. One idea he put forth suggested that the three-part format of specifying does not meld well with the way structural engineers put their work together (At least I think that was what he meant). This begs the question of with whom are we trying to communicate? Contractors, obviously, but should we adapt our communication style to their needs, or should we expect them to bend to ours? Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 495 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2019 - 01:45 pm:    To David's question about how well CSI spec formats and principles meld with the way structural engineers work; Specs don't meld well with architectural designers and drafters either. And that is well and good. If we all thought alike, we would all make the same mistakes. By looking at a project from different points of view, and with respect for each other, we just might make a decent building possible. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS 1-818-219-4937 www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 886 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, May 23, 2019 - 01:58 am:    I do not agree with the contention that the three part format does not work for structural specifications. This has never been a problem. Engineers need more training regarding the basics of writing a specification section. When I was young the local CSI chapter held classes on specification writing. Such classes should be advertised to engineers. I have pointed out that the need to accommodate each architects unique formatting requirements is counter productive. I believe that each structural engineering firm should maintain a master specification that it then customizes for each project. When the architect or specification writer presents the engineer with a structural specification to be edited it sends the wrong message. Working with a firm master has been much more efficient and made it easier to incorporate changes to the master. If working with an architects master the tendency is to minimize the changes thus resulting in a less thorough specification than if based on a company master. I have not been impressed by commercial master specification sections for structural work. Architects structural master specifications are not much bette in many cases. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 298 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Thursday, May 23, 2019 - 08:28 am:    Thank you for clarifying, Mark Gilligan. In the thirty-odd years I have been around this business, most structural engineers seem to get along just fine putting all of their requirements on their drawings. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 290 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Thursday, May 23, 2019 - 08:48 am:    It would be wonderful if more engineers took the interest in specs that Mark Gilligan does. I don't recall ever encountering this in 30 years of consulting. The reality is that spec writing seems to be a low priority for all types of engineers. Involvement of an experienced consultant can at least help to produce something that clearly conveys requirements, even if based on commercial masters that might be lacking. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Jerome J. Lazar, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 2019 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 23, 2019 - 10:41 am:    Ditto Jeffrey, Mark G has certainly provided some insight from the viewpoint of the Structural PE that has been helpful. Kudos to you Mark. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, May 23, 2019 - 12:07 pm:    I'm an in-house specifier for an architectural firm and my experience has been more along the lines of what Mark Gilligan outlines ... each structural engineer has masters (commercially available like MasterSpec or SpecLink, or some type of custom office master) that they work with to produce their own specifications. Occasionally, I've run into engineers who don't have access to a master for a particular section, and I've sent them one of ours to edit, but that has happened as infrequently as approximately once every few years. The "bigger issue" I have with structural engineers is getting them to produce specifications for the "small jobs" where the consultant has probably not included this scope of work in their fee. This is usually resolved by pointing to our agreement with them that indicates they will produce specifications in the format that we require. This is standard language in many Architect-Consultant Agreements (see AIA C401-2017, Paragraph 2.5 for an example). To David's other point about coordination of concrete finishes, I've had success in pulling those requirements out of the concrete section and writing a separate section to cover them. I tell the engineer to take those requirements out of their section and refer to mine, and they are usually happy to oblige. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 887 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, May 23, 2019 - 04:14 pm:    I agree with the practice of decoupling the structural specifications from provisions dealing with painting of steel and concrete finishes. There still needs to be some coordination so the engineer and the specification writer need to talk. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 771 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, May 24, 2019 - 11:27 am:    I do both. When I send the structural engineer sections to edit, I include a disclaimer that they are being sent as a courtesy only, and the SE is solely responsible for the structural related content etc. An (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, May 24, 2019 - 12:13 pm:    I can't understand why we treat specifications so differently than drawings when it comes to things like this. Do the architects and specifiers who send structural sections for the engineers to edit also send the engineers templates for the structural drawings and details for them to edit? Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 888 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, May 25, 2019 - 02:32 pm:    I agree with the Guest. The problem exists in part because engineers have no training regarding the writing and use of construction specifications and because the practice of sending the engineer specification sections to edit creates pressure on the engineer to accommodate the architect.. This allows the engineer to avoid taking ownership of the specifications. The engineer has a natural desire to accommodate the desires of his client and when the architect presents a specification section for review this puts the engineer in a position of either rejecting the offer from the architect or compromising on the edits. Early in my career, mid 70's, before the wide availability of word processors I made considerable edits to a structural specification provided by the architect which caused the specification writer to request additional fee to make the edits which were more than expected. The Architect then suggested that we should pay for this additional cost. My principal then politely requested that I decide what were the minimum edits that should be made. This had a negative impact on the quality of the specification section. William C. Pegues Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 979 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Saturday, May 25, 2019 - 03:16 pm:    I disagree. My career goes back just as far. I was always an internal specifier to an architectural firm. 1976 to 1983 with SOM in DC where they did not have a structural in-house group, and it was office policy to always send the our structural sections to the engineer. Again, it was stated that they would take ownership of them, and that if they found something they disagreed with or wanted added, we would do so. We never had a problem working with across that time some 6 different structural engineers. From 1983 - 2017, with WDG in DC and Dallas and with projects variously around the country and often with structural engineers from the local area, I couldn’t count the number of structural groups we worked with. Again, ultimately no problem. Some expressed concern, but when they saw the product we sent and that all the edits would be input on our side, they all agreed, no reservations. In addition, we always considered that a cost of doing business, not an extra. It was always known that there might be some extra effort with a new engineer, but it never became an issue. Perhaps its the difference between sending something for review as opposed to sending something that states ‘we want to use this as a baseline.’ And, letting them know up front that anything they want to add we will do it for them. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP An (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 11:50 am:    William, I can't understand why your approach is that much better than having the engineers write their own sections. Seems like a more efficient approach to let the engineers work from a base master they are familiar with and understand rather than making them learn your office's master. Not only that, but making an edit to the specification is much more straightforward if the entity responsible for the content is responsible for changing the content. Was there ever a situation in your 40+ years where the structural engineer wanted you to make an edit you disagreed with? What was the outcome? Did you make the edit understanding that they were responsible for the content, or did you push back trying to compromise their editing of your section? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1782 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 12:28 pm:    I think the situation has changed for the better over the years. Back in the 80s, I occasionally did something like William describes because when structural engineers did have their own masters, they were frequently horrible. Typical problems were that the didn't follow CSI formatting particularly well (mixing up what should be in each part, using poorly structured language, etc.), and that they would include all sorts of Division 1 and contract provisions. I would send them my Division 1 in advance along with an in-house guide for consultants, and sometimes copies of CSI SectionFormat. But sometimes it didn't seem to matter much. I'd end up redlining like crazy and eventually got something usable. Also, oddly, some structural engineers wouldn't write wood framing specs. I also had to do earthwork specs fairly regularly - the engineer would simply comment on the work I produced. The problem seemed to largely dissipate as the years went on. I'm not sure if the engineers in our market finally figured out specs, or if the architecture firms I later worked for had better consultants. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1792 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 03:30 pm:    Here is a condensed version of why I am having a change of heart about writing structural specifications. 1) I am not a structural engineer. 2) The structural engineers need to take responsibility for their own scope of work regardless whether they can write well or not. 3) By writing the structural specifications, I am essentially doing their work and increasing my liability. 4) If the structural engineers wrote their own specifications, they could better coordinate with their general structural notes. 5) By having their own masters, the structural engineers would be more familiar with their own language and could further refine their standard language from project to project. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 299 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 04:31 pm:    The implication that structural engineers do not write well is misguided and perpetuates the communication problems we are always trying to fix. My two cents: I have never worked with a structural engineer who could not communicate the particulars of their discipline to those who bid and construct the work. I have, on the other hand, met lots of architects who do not bother to do real coordination with their engineers and end up with problems on their hands. My observations are: Engineers do not like to rush their work. They often design the parts that can do the most harm if they are not perfectly thought through. Engineers want to design thoroughly, accurately, and one time. Engineers are averse to designing with incomplete information or half-conceived notions. As a result, many view phased design as a waste of time. Engineers are averse to design that keeps changing significantly from phase to phase because the owner and architect cannot make timely decisions. Engineers tend not to pad their fees to absorb lots of design changes. Engineers do not like being left out of the communication on projects. This hampers their ability to provide valuable input. Almost all of these conditions are imposed on every project. Architects, in general, seem to take them in stride, whereas structural engineers, in general, view these conditions as maddening and preventable. Therefore, when the clock has almost run out and they are asked to format their information differently, however correct it may already be, they tend to get upset. These are general observations. Of course there are always exceptions on both sides. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 889 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 05:33 pm:    I agree with David. Both of them. Earthwork specifications should be written by either the geotechnical engineer or the site Civil engineer. In general the structural engineer does not have the expertise. Specifications for deep foundation elements such as drilled piers and piles are best written by the engineer specifying those elements in cooperation with the geotechnical engineer. Brian Payne Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 181 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - 11:53 pm:    My two cents: I work really hard to standardize my keynoting and general notes between my drawings and specs. That includes spec name and numbers that I use to organize Revit family names, material names, and type designations. Having products that I’m directly responsible to document live in other companies specs is maddening. I’m shocked structural engineers don’t express the same sentiment. They need to own their sections, not just confirm the content of them imho. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 890 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - 12:17 am:    Brian Who has said structural engineers do not want a well coordinated set of documents. This is not my experience. While I disagree with some of the documentation practices of some engineers it is clear that they believe that their practices will result in fewer problems. I can still believe that they are wrong. If some other professional working on the project addresses in his or her specifications a product or material you believe you are responsible for it appears that somebody is not coordinating the specifications. This goes both ways and cannot always be blamed on others. Yes the structural engineer should reach out but it should be noted that in my experience architects are commonly guilty of this sin. William C. Pegues Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 980 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - 01:20 am:    To ‘Unregistered’ above: No, there was never a situation in my 40+ years where the structural engineer wanted an edit that I disagreed with. They may have wanted to place something in an inappropriate location (like listing a submittal related to installation in Part 3), but that was always easily resolved. The real issue was getting them to provide something that was ‘where it was supposed to go’ not just tacked on randomly. And there were numerous times when there was some specialized section that they required and they would send it over and I would rearrange it for them. And sometimes this required creating appropriate paragraphs in appropriate Parts rather than having a product described in Part 2 that then went on to include its Part 3 information in the same paragraph. Perhaps its just me - on a lazy day I can (well, could -grin!) maintain indefinitely a typing speed above 120 words a minute. However, it really did not require that much retyping, just rearranging. I would send it back to them with notes about what was going where and why. And getting no negative feedback on this, since it was no effort on their part, it worked out just fine. Actually, a mutual benefit in most cases as I had no problem with them using what I had done for them on their other projects. Many adopted what was changed to their in house masters. Often I would find holes in their information - something is missing here it seems. To David Axt: I am not a structural engineer either. I am a certified construction specifier as you are, that does have some significance. Mostly in the kind of language desired and the arrangement of material and consistency of terminology. We are supposed to be able to look at information and organize it. No additional liability is added, and it integrates these sections into the work more directly. We were not doing the work of the structural engineer, we are helping them, and we are creating a more integrated product. A for instance would be slab finishes. For our work, any given project is going to have slabs in contact with earth to elevated slabs with finishes ranging from resilient flooring, wood flooring, tile, carpet, special coatings for impounding chemicals, waterproofing, roofing. We would have requirements for different chemical curing compounds for different situations as well as requirements for moist cure. Most engineers documents did not begin to cover this correctly, yet the finish of the slab is their work not architectural, but has to work closely to get it right. The WDG office had also a long history since it has been in existence since the late 1930s (and still doing very well). There were specific products that time had taught us well were great, or not so great and to be avoided. A few engineers over all this time, had created a couple really nice ways of presenting this. But many just did a cure and seal, and not much else. Or some finessed the entire thing by writing some language like, ‘coordinate with the architect for the appropriate concrete finishing’ which is totally bogus since that’s an automatic extra/change order. So we brought many things like this to the table and it was considered a mutual benefit. They had no trouble in that these sections would be theirs for liability. For David Wyatt: I agree with your various points entirely. Except, “Therefore, when the clock has almost run out and they are asked to format their information differently, however correct it may already be, they tend to get upset.” This just can’t be let to happen. The minute the team is set, we are talking to them, what sections do they need or special topics. Again, though I worked with many, different structural engineers, over time almost all were on numerous projects over the years. First time through might not be as easy for either them or me, but after that there was no problem. Formatting was never going to be their problem, edits required by them over the production period for the project would be made by us, not by them, and all that was understood from day 1. And the way it worked was anything a consultant had that need work was at the top of priority and sent back for their review immediately. Mark Gilligan: I agree with you 100%. We have very complex soils in DC, Caissons or piles on almost every project, discovered streams underground. The Coast Guard HQ was a massive project built on a hill side that had more of the project underground than was above, and the soils were very unstable (lots of ash from a former incinerator site). The geotechnical consultant wrote it, we formatted it and cleaned the language and reorganized where information appeared. No one had a problem with that. Brian Payne: Absolutely key noting and terminology in general needs to be coordinate between the specification and the drawings. Architecturally the office maintains a dictionary of terms and keynotes that everyone must use without exception. Then when the engineers for their own practice use a different term from their own custom (or perhaps because they are in a different region such as Texas and we are writing in DC) we take their terminology and provide a ‘link’ to it so that what they are used to using on their drawings is tied to what is in the specification through that ‘dictionary’. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Brian Payne Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 182 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - 07:27 am:    Mark My point was that if structural engineers are editing Architects versions of structural spec sections, then the chances of coordinated language drops significantly. I just don’t see 100 standard details being updated to match 15 different versions of the same section. We have a hard enough time being consistent internally. We work with some great engineers. I still find it surprising when they ask if I’m writing sections or they are. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 891 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - 01:04 pm:    Engineers are asking because they get mixed messages from architects. Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 129 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - 03:49 pm:    The structural engineers I work with always have at least two pages of structural notes in their drawings, which pretty much cover everything they consider to be important. I think, therefore, they see my specs as mostly an unnecessary, but acceptable, precaution in case they missed something, and a way for the architect to specify the primers, paints, tolerances, quality control requirements, and finishing methods the architects want. I believe they therefore, aren't as careful about either reviewing my specs or providing their own accurate and complete specs, because they know they already said what they needed to say in their notes in their drawings. Thus, I don't think it matters too much if they provide their own specs or if they just review mine. They already have their structural notes, so they just give the specs, whether my pre-edited specs or their standard specs, a quick review, deleting whatever is obviously inapplicable, and consider it good. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 892 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2019 - 01:55 am:    If you want the engineer to take ownership of the specification sections do not impose your version of the specification sections on the engineer. Engineers respond to their clients, they want future work, so the architects also are part of the problem. I have worked on projects where there were considerable general notes and projects where there were essentially no general notes. I cannot say that their will be problems if there are general notes but I can say that when there are no general notes and all of the information was in the specifications I did not have any problems with respect to this practice. In my experience general notes are an almost random collection of notes that have not been coordinated with the specification sections. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2019 - 12:21 pm:    Mark, so refreshing to read your posts on this topic. As a full time, in-house specifier for a large architectural firm, I cannot begin to adequately tell you how frustrating it has been over the years trying to work with structural engineers on specifications. I believe that, in most cases, I am the only member of the design team that ever bothers to read the structural notes page. And, wow - is there ever a lot of junk. Trying to explain to a structural engineer that a specification would replace most of that (all?) is like leading a horse to water... Wish I had you on every project as the structural engineer! I'd let you format your spec any way you saw fit! Just maybe make you match the header and font... not too much trouble... Awesome posts, thank you for sharing this with the group. You give specifiers like me hope... J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 1087 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2019 - 05:20 pm:    In our area, the authorities having jurisdiction do not look at the specifications, just the Drawings. I believe this is relatively common. The reason for the raft of general notes is to address code concerns that would be addressed in the specifications if the AHJ looked at the specifications. I would suggest that the general notes on the Structural Drawings are not going away simply because the code people look for that information there. J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2019 - 06:43 pm:    Peter, I am not sure what "code concerns" you refer to, and I am also not convinced that the "code people" look for "that information" (whatever that might be) in the structural engineer's General Notes. You could perhaps convince me otherwise by providing specific examples. Remember, the Contract Documents are written to the Contractor, and form part of the Agreement between the Owner and the Contractor to construct the project. They are not written to the "code people" and the "code people" do not have any agreement with the Owner to construct the project. Remember (from AIA A201): "§ 3.2.3 The Contractor is not required to ascertain that the Contract Documents are in accordance with applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, rules and regulations, or lawful orders of public authorities..." Also remember (from IBC Chapter 17) it is the OWNER, not the Contractor, that is required to engage a testing agency to conduct special tests and inspections. No, the structural engineer's general notes that I have read are always a hodge podge of confusing, unedited, contradictory gobbledygook that has no place in a well coordinated set of Contract Documents. But, since no one is really paying any attention at all, ¯\_("/)_/¯ Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, May 31, 2019 - 11:10 am:    To the best of my knowledge, the only thing the code (IBC) would require from structural engineers to put on the construction documents are those things outlined in Section 1603. In my experience, those things make up at most one column of "general notes" ... maybe about a fifth of one sheet. Of course your local code may differ, but usually the 2-3 sheets I've seen of structural "general notes" are more like "sheet specs" and CYA language that either duplicate or contradict the general conditions, general requirements, and the specifications. The same can usually be said for architect's "general notes" as well. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1542 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, May 31, 2019 - 11:49 am:    The structural requirements required by the IBC are applicable to the "construction documents" as defined by the IBC, which includes the "written, graphic and pictorial documents prepared or assembled for describing the design, location and physical characteristics of the elements of a project..." Thus, per the IBC definition, specifications are part of the "construction documents" (as anybody in CSI would tell you). Therefore, all structural information could be placed within the specifications and not on the drawings and comply with the IBC. The issue is what the individual building departments will accept. At a minimum, they seem to want to see the basic information required by IBC Section 1603 on the drawings, which is basically loading information. The reason I'm given for placing that information on the drawings is that the drawings tend to out-survive the specifications. Building departments really don't care if all that other "spec" information is provided on the drawings or not; however, over time these "general structural notes" or GSNs have grown into much more than what is really asked for on the drawings. Ron Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 893 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, May 31, 2019 - 06:48 pm:    On another forum I have had a building official state that the purpose of construction documents is to establish code compliance not to instruct the contractor. They see the world differently. There is what the regulations require and then there are the other requirements imposed by the building official. It will not change until architects and owners will tell the building officials to enforce the code and not impose new requirements. There are actually several references to drawings in the IBC but they are mostly limited to shop drawings, design drawings for sprinkler systems, steel and wood trusses or joists. These are typically items where design is delegated to the contractor and where traditionally there are no specifications. The reasons given by the plan checkers are basically rationalizations of a practice they prefer. This is compounded by the fact that plan checkers typically do not understand how specifications are organized. Because engineers believe they have other battles to fight it is easier to put the information on a drawing. There is nothing that specifically requires the information required by 1603 be on the drawings and much of that information is not needed by the contractor except that certain of the items are needed when portions of the design are delegated to the contractor. I am of the opinion that such information could be placed on a drawing where it was noted that the sheet was not a part of the contract documents. Brian Payne Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 183 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Friday, May 31, 2019 - 07:14 pm:    Moving forward...In my opinion, permitting documents need to be more fully divorced from construction documents. They are two separate beasts each with their own issues. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 496 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Saturday, June 01, 2019 - 02:05 am:    It has been a while since i wrote a project manual. What I used to do if the structural engineer put lots of notes on the drawings, was write specification sections for structural materials that said, "See Drawings", and only added whatever I felt was not included by engineer. It saved me a lot of grief, and no one complained. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS 1-818-219-4937 www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 03, 2019 - 11:18 am:    "In our area, the authorities having jurisdiction do not look at the specifications, just the Drawings. I believe this is relatively common." "[...] Contract Documents are written to the Contractor [...] They are not written to the 'code people' [...]" "Thus, per the IBC definition, specifications are part of the 'construction documents' (as anybody in CSI would tell you)." "[...] I have had a building official state that the purpose of construction documents is to establish code compliance not to instruct the contractor. They see the world differently." "[...] and then there are the other requirements imposed by the building official. It will not change until architects and owners will tell the building officials to enforce the code and not impose new requirements." "This is compounded by the fact that plan checkers typically do not understand how specifications are organized." "[...] permitting documents need to be more fully divorced from construction documents." *** If only there were a professional organization that brought together all the different groups of people involved in the design, documentation, permitting, and construction of buildings to help educate and clarify this type of information for all. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1544 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, June 03, 2019 - 12:15 pm:    Guest, I think we all can relate. The problem is that building departments and the rest of the construction industry are two isolated communities with the building code as the only link. I've been meaning to put an education session in for the ICC conferences and/or EduCode (a huge code education conference in Las Vegas), but timing is always bad for me. My worry. though, is that even if building departments received education on specifications, they would still ignore them for the most part ("We haven't read them in the past and we're not gonna start now"). In a way, it's sort of a power trip--they have full authority over the interpretation and application of the code, and the only way to pierce that authority is through the appeals process, which takes way too long for most projects (and the building departments know that). Ron Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 03, 2019 - 12:38 pm:    Ron, I applaud your effort to put something together. I've only come across one building department that has ever asked for specifications with the permit submittal and appeared to have actually looked at the specifications ... the city of Portland, Oregon. Perhaps there is a chance to coordinate with the code officials there for a session or discussion at one of these conferences. Unfortunately, I don't have contact information for you as I was only involved in producing the specifications and helping the team respond to a few review comments rather than working with the code official directly. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 460 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, June 03, 2019 - 03:24 pm:    Regarding "appeals" of building department interpretations: all too often if you challenge some code officials they retaliate in later projects by slow boating your submissions (at best) and rejecting multiple times at worse. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1797 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, June 14, 2019 - 09:49 am:    Yet another reason why structural engineers should write their own specifications. I have been waiting for structural comments for about 3 weeks. The bid set goes to the printer at noon TODAY! I still have a lot of architectural review comments to pick up and I may not have time to pick up structural comments.....if I ever get them. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1452 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, July 01, 2019 - 04:17 pm:    David: this is the Seattle practice (and not followed in California) because way back in the dark ages, NBBJ always wrote the specs for John Skilling's firm (Magnusson Barkshire now). NBBJ cared about formatting, so they wrote (typed) the specs, sent them to SHCR for review and then picked up the changes. Magnusson now writes very fine specs of their own and I wouldn't dream of changing them. You're not a typing service, I assume, so you should specify in your contract that you're not doing consultant specs nor are you taking the liability for them. This is not my name (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, July 01, 2019 - 05:46 pm:    I can attest that that firm, Magnusson Klemencic Associates (formerly many different names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnusson_Klemencic_Associates), is able to write their own specifications. Though I can't speak for them, I can assume that NBBJ doesn't care to retype their consultants' sections anymore. They currently don't have the staff to do it even if they wanted to. Ed Storer Senior Member Username: ed_storer Post Number: 16 Registered: 05-2009 Posted on Friday, August 16, 2019 - 02:38 pm:    In retrospect, I would send a draft or master section to most consultants with the PARTS rearranged with numbers hidden. The way most design professionals are most attuned is to edit Part 2 first, Part 3 second, and Part 1 last. Years ago when working on a Navy project where the PIC wanted involvement from the PA and others working on the details, I told them that Part 2 was the first, Part 3 the second, and Part 1 comes last. Without this instruction, I found that less experienced spec editors tended to "overload" Part 1 - especially in the QA article. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1561 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, August 16, 2019 - 03:26 pm:    I'm preparing a proposal as I write this post for preparing only the structural specifications on a project. The project is in Arizona, but the architect is from New York. They have a specifier they're working with, but he doesn't write structural specifications, and the structural engineer, who's local to Arizona, doesn't either. However, I've written many structural specifications for this Arizona SE (and others) and I get very few comments back from him (I've learned quite a lot over the past years), so he recommended me to the architect to prepare just the structural sections. As long as the structural engineer reviews what I prepare, I don't have any problem preparing the sections. You don't have to be a licensed anything to write specifications, as long as the registered design professional takes responsibile charge of their preparation. Ron Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP Jerome J. Lazar, CDT, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 2049 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, August 16, 2019 - 03:35 pm:    Ditto Ron, just make sure PE acknowledges (in writing or email) that he has read the specs and takes responsibility for them. If you are lucky the PE will have comments, the ones that don't probably did not read them. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 789 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, August 16, 2019 - 03:49 pm:    i send structural specs for review by the SE when asked. I require them to send a list of sections and include a disclaimer when i send the specs, which i am happy to share if anyone is interested Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, August 16, 2019 - 04:48 pm:    Ron, I'm curious why the AZ-based SE isn't hiring you directly to write the structural specs? What does having the NY-based architect hire you directly offer everyone? Is it a liability thing? ... a fee thing? It seems problematic that the SE is not hiring you to produce the specifications for their services. Can the SE exercise responsible charge over your work if they aren't the ones paying for it? What happens if there is a disagreement between the architect and the SE on something that needs to be specified? Do you side with the SE who is trying to exercise responsible control, or the architect that's paying your bills? Ronald L. Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1562 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, August 16, 2019 - 05:31 pm:    Who pays the invoices doesn't establish who has responsible charge. I specify what the SE asks me to specify. Much of it is already on the drawings in the form of "General Structural Notes," so my sections typically refer to those when necessary. Much of what I specify is cosmetic in nature (cleaning, priming, quality of formwork, finishing, etc. etc.), so in essence I'm fullfilling the information gap that is missing between the architect and structural engineer. If the architect tries to direct me to specify something that the structural engineer doesn't agree with, then the architect would be practicing structural engineering without a license. Ron Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP Ed Storer Senior Member Username: ed_storer Post Number: 17 Registered: 05-2009 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - 07:37 pm:    I often provide draft specifications for structural work. I write other sections for things that don't really affect the integrity of the structure. I will write sections for slab finishes and tolerances, slab curing, shop painting, AESS and things that are of importance to the Architect but have nothing to do with the structural integrity of the design. I've never worked with a Structural Engineer that knew anything about primers. I work with the engineers to let them know that they don't have to specify these things and I will edit their specifications to avoid duplication or conflict. Lately I've found the envelope consultants (typically hired by the Owner) want to charge as much or more than my total fee (as an add) to provide specifications. I have to write specs for them and then they "bleed" all over them. It's very annoying, and it seems that they will insist on their favorite product, even though a less expensive product can provide equal performance at lower cost. I'm doing my parachute into retirement and I'm not taking new projects, so it would seem that the problem now belongs to somebody else. I guess I should offer my clients free consultation with their new specifier on how to make these things work.