A Specification or a Standard

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

Author Message Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 31 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 03:31 am:    I am looking for advice. American Concrete Institute had developed “Specification for Masonry Structures” ACI 530.1 which has been written as a specification but it is also a standard since it’s use is mandated by the IBC. Does anybody have experience in referencing ACI 530.1 as described in the document? In addition I would like comments on the practice of placing provisions that are normally addressed in the General Conditions and Division 1 in the Building Code. Because the document is a part of the Building Code it is enforced by the Building Official. Thus when ACI 530.1 says “Unless otherwise required …” I would interpret this to mean required by the Building Official. I believe that great mischief is done when a document that is written as a construction specification is made a part of the Building Code. Comments please. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 223 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 06:55 am:    Normally when the building code includes a document as a Reference Standard [listed in one of the last chapters] it intends that the standard be applicable to only certain sections/ provisions of the code and does not necessarily mandate use of the entire standard. It is unfortunate that standard writing groups step over the line and produce, title or advocate their standards as specifications. May I suggest that you ask your question on the Building Code Discussion Group web site—[link below]-- you will get more input from both professionals and code officials which should be of help when added to what you will receive here. I think it is important that you get the "code view" as well as the views here. www.bcodes.infopop.cc/groupee/forums/a/cfrm/f/51091073 David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 7 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 09:19 am:    Mr. Liebing, I'm interested in your comment that standards development organizations (SDOs) "step over the line." Many, perhaps most SDOs write standard specifications to express the consensus of their participants. Would you elaborate a bit on where you feel the line is? This could be an interesting seed for another discussion. Sincerely, David W. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 407 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 09:40 am:    One area where I have noticed this is detailed requirements of what the general contractor versus the specialty subcontractor is providing. This, of course, overlaps the provisions of the Contract Documents (but may be irrelevant to the AHJ), so use of reference standards with these provisions in a specification must be done carefully. I had a dispute with a contractor regarding the definition of "miscellaneous metal" components, which the AISC structural steel standard considered one thing, and the Contract Documents defined differently. This mattered because in Massachusetts public work, misc. metal must be a "filed sub bid" but structural steel is not. It's obvious that the industry groups that set these standards try to protect themselves economically in addition to creating a quality standard (which they sometimes don't do too well, since they may go for the lowest common denominator), and that's where the mess comes in. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 224 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 10:03 am:    “The line”, in my perception and from better than a decade in code administration, is not a dictatorial or punitive element, but a matter of confusion. Specifications, I feel, speaks to the essence of the contents of the Project Manual. A standard writing group is absolutely correct in collecting a consensus of their members and producing information that can be incorporated into specifications. Rarely is the full text of standards, or reference standards utilized or incorporated in specifications or in the codes. For the most part they contain a wider girth of information than need for a specific project, and hence can lead to some confusion. I would like the various trade organizations to produce “Standards”, “Reference Standards”, Guidelines”, “Guides to Specifying”, “Suggestions”, and "Recommendations”, which the design professional can convert into specifications. IBC-003 in Chapter 35 lists the various reference standards and then applied them to only selected provisions in the code. Also, in code Section 102.4, the context of the reference standard is explained; it paralles similar use in project specifications. An ASTM standard maybe referenced, but in reality it is only a portion of that standard that is used or applicable to the code text. Usually a host of other information is included in the reference standard which may be illustrative, but is not directly applicable. I feel the same situation exists with association specifications. They are informational in a high level of expertise, but per se, they are not enforceable-- they become enforceable only when incorporated in project specifications. Perhaps splitting hairs, but I have seen too much confusion over simple words with multiple interpretations. Just think we can clarify and be a little better. David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 8 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 01:52 pm:    Mr. Liebing, You express well a very important point. If you have time, you should frame this in an essay for publication. The Construction Specifier is always in need of coherent editorial material. It might also be of interest to ASTM's "Standardization News." David W. Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 121 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 02:05 pm:    Dang, I was SO hoping to submit my incoherent stuff. David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 9 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 03:24 pm:    Yours too, Mr. Brinley! Coherent or incoherent - it all pays the same. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 128 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 03:47 pm:    ASTM Standard "Specifications" are not only used in construction specifications, but also as specifications in commercial transactions when materials are ordered by other manufacturers and fabricators. ASTM A 36 may be incorporated by reference into an order for steel shapes, plates, or bars by a shop that will use those items as the raw materials in it's manufacturing/fabrication process. Similarly, ASTM standard specifications may be used to order portland cement, sand, steel sheet, copper, stainless steel, neoprene, PVC sheet and pipe, etc. I would suppose that ANSI standards are used in the same manner. Such application serves the same purpose as when we cite these standards; i.e., quality assurance and quality control. Specifications are as necessary in non-construction commercial transactions as they are in construction related transactions. The adoption of a "standard" specification means that one manufacturer can't say their product meets their specification for xyz material while another manufacture has a different specification. Look at gauge specifications and try to guess what that term actually means in terms of precise thickness. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 32 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 01:34 am:    The comments are of interest but I am afraid that I was not clear enough. ACI 530.1 is not a standard specification as you would expect ASTM to publish. What the Masonry Standards Joint Committee or MSJC(the authors of ACI 530.1)did was write a construction specification section for masonry construction. They attempted to follow the CSI section format and addressed all of the issues you would normaly see in a project specification. ACI 530.1 defines the scope of work,submittal requirements, Quality assurance provisions, sample panels, testing and inspection, delivery, storage and handling, to just name a few items. ACI 530.1 is not shy about defining the Contractors responsibilities, and the Testing Agencies ability to reject the work. If you read it you will see that it reads like a specification section. You are probably asking what is the problem. The problem is that this document has been incorporated into the IBC as a standard. Thus if you specify masonry you are stuck with their contractural terms irregardless of what your client wants to put into the General Conditions and Division 1. In addition I would contend that you are required to address all structural masonry in one section because you are not allowed to edit the scope of the section. Thus many of the section numbers dealing with masonry listed in MasterFormat are irrelevant. I would encourage you to look at this standard if you have access to a copy. In addition if you are specifying masonry where the IBC is used, you need to refer to ICC section 2104.1 (2000 IBC) Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 263 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 08:45 am:    Since the December SPECIFIER arrived yesterday, thought I'd give a little preview of the January issue. In repsonse to David Wyatt's suggestion [above] there will be an article in the January SPECIFIER about the topic of this thread-- specifications, standards, reference standards, etc. Perhaps too late [took a while to get it done]but hopefully will be of interest. Brian E. Trimble, CDT New member Username: brian_e_trimble_cdt Post Number: 1 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 09:10 pm:    A little late on the response, but the MSJC Code and Specification are used hand in hand. The requirements found in the ACI 530.1 (Specification for Masonry Structures) are used to set a minimum level of quality. If anyone remembers the half stress levels in the UBC for uninspected work for masonry - there aren't any in the MSJC. The specification was used to set a minimum level of inspection. Arcom (and MasterSpec) have been involved in the MSJC Code and Spec process and have modified their masonry section to keep discrepancies to a minimum. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 52 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 02:47 am:    The problem is that ACI 530.1 goes beyond specifying minimum levels of quality. 530.1 is a construction specification that defines the roles of the various parties. In addition the way that the document is written it is no longer permissible for there to be seperate specification sections for different types of structural masonry. It is my belief that the provisions of ACI 530.1 are in conflict with some of the general conditions used by some owners. Is this the direction that we want things to go? Do we want to have a set of boiler plate construction specification sections that we may only make minimal changes to? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 308 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, February 03, 2006 - 03:45 pm:    Not pandering, but the promised article [see 3RD post up from here] is on page 81 of the February SPECIFIER. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 09:50 am:    Good article. Thanks Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 331 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 10:56 am:    Just wondering [and not for vain glory or ego]if the time and effort for the article was worth it or not. Don't want to waste your time or just produce filler for the magazine. So, Was the article unnecessary? Was it poorly done? Was it inadequste or marginal? Was it flat wrong? Was it useful, clarifying......? David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 25 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 03:18 pm:    Ralph, The article was fine. Now you have to let go of it and publish another one. Then let go of that one and publish yet another. Repeat. The Construction Specifier needs your voice and those of many other specification writers in this forum. I was pleased to read Dean McCarty's essay in the March issue, as well as Doug Brinley's feature article. Reading lately about the writing issues that affect spec writers is a very refreshing trend with the magazine, and I hope it continues.