metals corrosion and treated wood

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

Author Message John Carter Member Username: johnatcplusc Post Number: 3 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 12:32 pm:    I'm considering writing a Division 01 section that generally addresses the problems of metal corrosion (for fasteners, flashings, and other metal buildign products. So far, my thoughts are to write a general Div 01 section that talks about either isolating incompatible materials from treated wood or else prescribes allowed metal materials. Then, each specific spec section would talk about types of fasteners required, but reference back to DIv 01 for the compatibility and isolation. Also I would list a "preconstruction meeting" to discuss specifics of how to make it happen in site. Any thoughts, comments, do-and-dont-dos, and examples from others would be greatly appreciated. Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 169 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 12:44 pm:    I wouldn't write a separate Div 01 section. I recommend keeping it simple. In the sections where you think compatibility/corrosion is a particular concern (three or four sections?), consider identifying measures the contractor is to take to mitigate those concerns. Such language may go in Part 1, or Part 3 of those sections. But I would be consistent between those sections about how I organized the approach, so over time and from job to job I could modify/enhance/correct the language for problems that came up with my first few jobs. And I wouldn't call a precon meeting for that purpose; there would be eight subs there and 90% would look at your project architect funny. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 114 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 02:49 pm:    I agree that Division 01 isn’t quite right for this. How about a “Common Work Results” section, however? I find this concept quite appealing in several areas, for example where you have a common fluoropolymer paint application on windows, curtainwall, skylights, etc. In that case you would do (as I understand it) 08 0500 Common Work Results for Openings to identify it, and reference that section in windows, etc. That way, you only change one place when late in the game you decide to go to clear anodized. And it wouldn’t bother me to have that Division 08 section cover my finishes on flashing, metal wall panels and other Division 07 sections with the same finish. So I assume you could do something like this for corrosion protection, maybe a Division 05 section? (…and on second thought, maybe my example above is really a Division 09 section?) The meeting you are describing is really a pre-installation meeting, which covers a particular installation like roofing, rather than the pre-construction meeting, of which there is usually only one, for everyone, before the project gets rolling. But why not have this topic covered as an agenda item during the preconstruction meeting, rather than having a specific meeting just for, as Doug implies, a relatively insignificant subject? And, Doug, 90% of subs look at project architects funny, anyway, regardless of the subject of the meeting. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 104 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 03:05 pm:    I agree with Doug; the KISS method always works best. A paragraph or short Article can address the issue to whatever depth the section/work dictates and incorporate it in each section as needed. Write it using the performance methodology. Ask the contractor to address how he purposes to satisfy the performance requirements of corrosion and incompatibility between differing materials and reflect his solutions in his product submittals. No meetings. Save those for the really important issues. Ron Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 69 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 03:29 pm:    05 05 13 Shop-Applied Coatings for Metal is another designated location for specifying shop applied coatings for all metal items that can apply to sections of any division. It can be especially helpful when the goal is to have the same finish and color on metal items that are fabricated in different shops. Jonathan Miller CCS CCCA SCIP AIA (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 01:42 pm:    British specifications do a better job of focusing on material issues like this. Your premise is interesting and I encourage you to pursue it as I believe this a way to internationalize your specs. On the other hand, what does one of our industry members think about this approach on US based projects? Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 56 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 03:01 am:    Before writing a generic section regarding corrosion of metal and fasteners talk to yout dstructural consultant. If your project uses wood consideration would need to be given to manuracturers (Simpson Strong-Tie) recommendations, immpact on fastener values, as well as cost and availibility considerations. John Carter Intermediate Member Username: johnatcplusc Post Number: 4 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 08:02 pm:    As the "posting" specifier, I want to thank all of you for your comments so far. I am not a "fan" of using Division 01 for this either. I hope the comments keep coming in. I am concerned that a broad-brush approach cannot fix this; it is a coordination problem among the design/specifier team. One bad detail on the drawings and the whole team gets nailed. The client that initiated this question as to "how can we prevent this from being a problem" is very technically competent, but heavily involved in the "condo" market! Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 66 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 09:07 am:    I would try to limit Division 01 to those things that deal with CA issues rather than technical matters as much as possible. Given the tendency of CMs and GCs to bid out sections of work without including Division 01, you run the risk of not addressing the installers with those specification issues that you want them to understand. Your concern over the coordination of details and specs really hits the target. I have often found that when something goes wrong, regardless of the cause, the specifier tends to become the focus of the blame. "Why didn't you write something to cover us (for the improper detail)?" As the gray hairs of the office, the spec writers are expected to advise the less experienced and keep them out of trouble. What seems to get lost is the idea that the architect or engineer has the responsibility to produce documents that if followed, can produce the desired results. David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 20 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 11:07 am:    Right on, Mr. Everding! Common Work Results Sections (in their former life known as Basic Materials and Methods Sections) are great locations for requirements of this type.