Gypsum Board Control Joints

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

Author Message David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 124 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 11:56 am:    I have been asked by some project managers to add a provision to our gypsum board specification requiring the contractor to provide control joint location shop drawings. Apparently, the architects have been a bit unhappy with some of the locations observed in the field, so this is their attempt at providing a vehicle by which to pre-review the proposed locations. (They currently do not show them on the drawings, and apparently do not feel they need or have time to.) Quick poll: How many would be in favor of this? My initial response to their request: <<< If control joints are so aesthetically inconsequential so as to not warrant their thought and deliberate placement being documented on the Drawings, why would we turn around and require the contractor to expend the time and resources (adding cost to the project) to prepare and submit shop drawings, that we, in turn, would have to expend time and resources to review and process? It just doesn't make sense. Control Joint locations are an aesthetic decision, and the location (of at least the aesthetically critical ones) needs to be shown on the Drawings. By not showing them, we're essentially telling the contractor it doesn't matter where they end up. So why go bother, then, making them (as well as our own Construction Administrator) go through the shop drawing exercise? If it matters enough to require shop drawings, show them outright. And if it truly doesn't matter where they are located, why require shop drawings? Showing them on the drawings also maintains the basic tenet of the Drawing-Specification relationship: the Drawings indicate materials, arrangements, quantities, and LOCATIONS; the specifications indicate QUALITY. The specifications are not a vehicle to be employed as a substitute to verbally describe that which would and should normally be described GRAPHICALLY. >>> Thoughts? Comments? Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 80 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 12:05 pm:    Unless it's a real high end space with lots of craftsmen level finish work, it probably won't happen. On many projects, a significant portion of the walls do not have interior elevations. So asking the Architect to provide the locations in the drawings won't happen either. I think it's better to call for a preinstallation meeting with the architect, GC, and sheetrock subcontractor. This allows the architect to locate them in the field and/or communicate with the trades the criteria and design intent for the joint locations. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 580 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 12:14 pm:    The only time I have asked for drywall control joints in shop drawings was when I have done a very high end interiors package that had very particular locations for them. Those locations were always also shown on our drawings, but we wanted to make sure they were going to go where we wanted them. In 30 years, I have never asked for them, and in that time no problems. Why, because exactly as you say, if they are that important, they need to be shown on the design drawings. Afterall, how hard is it, how much time does it take. We do have a basic restatement of the GA recommended practice for control and expansion joints in in drywall in our spec, and the designers actually use that as their guide to see if they end up where they want them, and if not, they lay out their own pattern. My spec also reads, "unless shown otherwise, provide ..." So there is no conflict if they decide to do them or not. One thing about them on the shop drawings and not on design drawings. When you go to moving them about, they are going to be a potential extra. Especially if they create an atypical condition or if their end up being more of them. They don't cost that much to do, but it is an opportunity to create an additional expense. Whereas, showing them up front on the design drawings are not likely to really matter to the basic price scheme but be lumped into the overhead for the sub to make his price more competitive to get the job. Once you get the job, that's when changes are their opportunity for profit. As to scope and scale of the office and the kind of work we do... 140 +/- here in DC, another 40 or so in Dallas TX. High rise residential (including condos), office buildings, corporate headquarters, hotels, and interiors, all out of both locations. High rise residential and hotels have the greatest concren for getting these joints in the right location. And you don't want your drywall cracking in a condo for any reason. William David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 125 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 12:22 pm:    William, I am in complete agreement with you regarding the potential for added cost. The other part of my response to the project managers: <<< Let's say, for example, we do make the contractor do this, and they do, but we don't like some of the proposed locations, and make adjustments accordingly. I believe there is a very high likelihood that the contractor could, in turn, claim that our locations are an additional cost, and submit a claim accordingly. His argument: None were shown on the drawings so he bid the most economical approach, which he reflected on his shop drawings. Any deviation, therefore, would cause him to incur additional costs. Whether it’s a legitimate claim or not doesn't matter; now that the Owner has been presented with the price, we have the burden of proof to refute the legitimacy of the claim, and the amount of the add. Is this the grenade we are willing to throw ourselves on? Not likely. Especially if we don't have the support of the Owner: MR. OWNER: Are these locations really that critical? ARCHITECT: Yes, they are much better aesthetically than those the contractor has proposed. MR. OWNER: Then why weren't they shown on the Drawings in the first place? ARCHITECT: Well, um, . . . We didn't think there would be any cost implications. MR. OWNER: But now we know that there are. So if I understand this correctly, we basically paid the contractor to do these shop drawings, paid you to review them, and now we're having to pay for the changes as well? All because this "aesthetic" item - which, by the way, we thought we were paying the architect for - was left off the drawings? ARCHITECT: Umm . . . . MR. OWNER: If they're that critical, then the Architect can pay for them. >>> Thanks for the feedback. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 581 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 12:27 pm:    And later, I don't want to be in the room to hear the dialog between Mr. Partner of the Firm and Mr. Project Manager/Architect. In fact, that is not a bad response to give to the PM/PA, "Do you really want to have the following conversation with the Partner in charge of the project ...?" Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 66 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 12:27 pm:    As I tell designers all the time, if you care what it looks like show it on the drawings. Problem is most of the time they don't realize they need them, so they do get "left off". George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 148 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 02:36 pm:    Drywall, and also masonry, and also concrete paving... Q. "Do I really need to show control joints?" A. "Nope, you can leave them off the drawings, and let nature show you where they belong, on the building." Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 361 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 02:45 pm:    How about this-- Install control joints at locations indicated, or if not indicated, at spacings and locations required by referenced gypsum board application and finish standard, and approved by the Architect for visual effect. Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 92 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 03:17 pm:    It's the "approved by the Architect for visual effect" that gonna get you in trouble. If in doubt SHOW IT! William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 582 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 03:19 pm:    And of course, the ones I like when they are shown simply defy reality. Regarding mother nature, as the 'butter' commercial of years ago stated, "Its not nice to fool mother nature!" Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 120 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 03:53 pm:    David, Show extent and location of gypsum board control joints in drawing (interior elevations and reflected ceiling plans. Your architects are not creating a level playing field for bidders. Each bidder will have a different opinion and resultant quantity take-off. You may end up providing the missing design intent and additional or revised drawings during bidding phase to respond to bidder questions and clarifications. It is ludicrous to expect the bidders to be clairvoyant and attempt to match the architect's design intent. In the absence of clear and concise extent and location drawings, it is bidders choice. Wayne Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 323 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 06:16 pm:    I'm with all the "show the control joint locations on the drawings" crowd. We don't have that many walls that are long enough for control joints to be an issue, but it is our firm practice to show them if the wall requires them. they are BOTH a design and a cost issue, and as such the designers need to take responsibility for them. The USG manual says 30 feet maximum for their spacing, and I suppose at the worst case, the language that Mr. Liebing suggested, but I would take out the "approved by Architect for visual effect" part. If the Architect wants approval, then they have to be shown. if the Architect is "too busy" then they must not matter. Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 20 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 07:27 pm:    I agree with the rest of you that shop drawings are not necessary and that the control joints should always be indicated in the drawings. But I have to admit that I enjoy those little moments when the architects praise my name for having covered little details like this that are commonly overlooked, especially by intern architects that are often given responsibility over construction documents. Most specs are worded to account for imperfections in the contractor’s work. Why not afford a little slack for the architects? Perhaps the following would help: “Install control joints at locations indicated on Drawings, or if not indicated, install according to ASTM C 840 in specific locations as directed by architect.” I recognize that that kind of wording doesn’t help the bidders to know what to bid, but they can at least ask for the locations during bidding and obtain the info by addendum. I like knowing that the contractor will be alerted that there will be control joints even though the architect failed to show them. That’s much better than the contractor assuming that there are no control joints because none were shown. I’d rather be the architect that looked like a fool for forgetting to show control joints than the architect who has to face the angry owner and take the blame for failing gypsum board walls. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 178 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 08:45 am:    We had a chain store client several years back who would routinely not include control joints in walls (specs, drawings, or construction). When the drywall cracked they would pay the Contractor to go back and put them in where the cracks where indicating that they were needed. The company was sold while a couple of their projects where in construction. When the cracks started appearing and the new owner wanted them fixed, the contractor wanted to get paid for the work since that was the previous owner's method of dealing with them (the contractor had done a number of projects for the previous owner). The architect, owner, and contractor went round and round with our office spending way too much time dealing with this issue. I am agreement with those who say that if the designers care about this (or anything they want to care about), they need to show them on the Drawings. And; there is a difference in detailing between a drywall control joint in a non-rated partition and one in a rated partition; at least 1 manufacturer has a detail for a control joint in a rated partition Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 121 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 12:05 pm:    Richard, I love the first sentence in your second paragraph. If only the firm's partners or principals knew how many time we saved their bacon we could be wealthy retirees. I will not cut any slack for anyone, because it will come back to haunt me and cost (waste) money for the back and forth. Wayne