Concrete Formwork 03 1110 vs 03 3000

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

Author Message Julie Root Senior Member Username: julie_root Post Number: 42 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 02:09 pm:    I would like to hear opinions on including formwork specifications in 03 3000 rather than having a separate section 03 1110 for formwork. My reason is that from an architect's finish perspective there is so much that can be tied together if formwork is included in 03 3000, but I see a number of owners guides that separate the sections. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 462 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 02:29 pm:    What do you see that cannot be dealt with in the two section approach? Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 141 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 02:35 pm:    I agree. In both the firm I was with on the East Coast and the one I am with now - we never used concrete sections other than 03300 if we prepared the concrete specs. Some times our structural engineers would separate out formwork and reinforcing and even grout. One time a structural engineer produced 5 different sections to cover CIP concrete. I felt that this was totally unecessary. I believe the including formwork and reinforcing along with concrete and finishing in one section is much better. Julie Root Senior Member Username: julie_root Post Number: 43 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 02:38 pm:    My situation at the moment is that I have to work with an owner's specification base and the two sections are not very well coordinated. I can see that the two section approach works for well coordinated sections. MasterSpec 03300 includes formwork if one wants it place it in the section and I can see the benefit of having one section that addresses it all. At the moment in the heat of a deadline it would be easier for me to coordinate the Owner's 03300 to include formwork rather than spend the time coodinating the two and the political grief (large school district standards political grief). I have seen it both ways in previous experience and I just have never questioned the pros and cons. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 520 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 02:44 pm:    I have always run with a 'general' section, previously called Basic Concrete Materials and Methods, that covered all the quality assurance, and general guideline type requirements of parts 1, 2 and 3. Then a Formwork section A Reinforcing Section A Structural Concrete section Architectural Concrete Section And a Concrete Finishing section. That grew out of the original organization of MasterSpec from the early 70s and the division of information seemed logical and has worked for projects ranging in size from small to major. Never had a problem or question of the division of information from anyone. We are an architecture firm, but we have our own masters for structural requirements, send them off to various consultants who mark them up and send them back. Never have had a problem from them either. On reason I don't like single sections is that they just get too massive. And if the information is divided logically its easy enough to follow. I think its all to do with what makes you comfortable, what you have a preference for. I know that my CA people and project architects here, as well as several owner groups though have commented that they like the smaller sections of specific topics as it makes it easier for them to find something. William Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 53 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 12:32 am:    I will place reinforcing and formwork in section 03300 on only the smallest projects. Other wise the section becomes difficult to coordinate let alone read. The separate sections also make sense from the Contractors point of view since formwork, reinforcing steel and placing of concrete are done by different groups if not by different firms. The problem that I have is in getting Architects to think about concrete finishes and in educating them regarding the issues. On the subject of Architects or specification writers that provide specifications to the structural engineer to edit, it has been my observation that inevitably these masters are weak. Many engineers go along with this practice because either they want the work from the architect or because they are not knowledgeable regarding writing specifications. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 521 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 09:27 am:    My probem with finishes is exactly the opposite - Architects are concerned, the structural engineer is 1 finish fits all especially for slabs, cure and seal, done. The concrete fnishes section typically comes back with a note for 'architect to edit' and they make a review afterward. Secctions furnished by architects to structural engineers are only weak if they are not maintained. We constantly make updates and we request the engineers to use their own masters to create inserts where they wish a change. So our masters are well maintained. Our problem is getting the structural engineers to coordinate their drawing notes with the spec - often they create their own conflicts with too detailed drawing notes. And it would be a conflict if they even used their own masters. William Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 54 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 01:30 pm:    The problem of drawing notes is pervasive. I believe the underlying problem is that engineers are not properly trained in specification writing and their use. This problem is agrivated by CSI's myopic focus on architects and specification writers. Also if architects would let engineers know that they did not get the last project because of the excessive use of drawing notes I am sure that most engineers would learn to do it right. One approach to specifying concrete finishes is to create a concrete finishes specification section seperate from section 03300 and 03100. Part of the problem in putting this all in section 03300 is that all too often the architect and the engineer have conflicting visions of what needs to be in the section (they may be both right) thus the need for seperate sections. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 464 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 03:03 pm:    Most jurisdictions require that structural notes be on the drawings. The complication is that the engineers don't know where to stop with that requirement. Is it just concrete strength, slump and w/c ratio? Or is it a whole bunch of other stuff. Usually it ends up being a whole sheet, more than half of which the AHJ probably would be fine without. I still don't understand the stated problem: that separate sections don't work. This is no different than any "broadscope/narrowscope" (outdated terms, I know) discussion. And I especially agree that a finishing section controlled by the architect is superior.