Specification and Drawing Terminology

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

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 797 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 03:26 pm:    There does not seem to be a week that goes by without someone asking me what to call a certain material. When I give them the answer, they inevitably argue that the name is too long. For example: Acoustical Cementitious Wood Fiber Panels Paper Fiber Composite Panels Fluid-Applied Air Barrier Membrane Mineral Fiber Cement Siding etc. The want to change the name to something simpler or abbreviate it. I tell them that I did not make up these titles that they are the titles to the Sections in MasterFormat '04. Any thoughts on terminology? William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 641 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 03:28 pm:    We have a comprehensive key word listing between drawings and specifications. When we are looking at something new, or when there is a need for an abbreviation, I look in the UDS/National CAD Standard listing of abbreviations and terminology. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 491 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 03:46 pm:    We also have identification codes or tags that are used on the drawings and referenced in the specs. When a new product/term comes along, we also create a new code after consulting standard abbreviations. Some are no-brainers, like INSUL, ACT, PLAM, or GL, and some are a little more obscure, like FEC for Fire Extinguisher Cabinet. A number is usually part of the code to further distinguish one type from another. Since they are connected to the specifications, and explained on the drawings, there is little, if any, confusion. This procedure saves space on drawings and reinforces "say it once". The tag may be repeated on multiple drawings, but the explanation of the abbreviation is in one place only, and there the reference to the specification section is made. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 21 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 05:19 pm:    The one kind of simplification that I endorse at my firm is the use of 'dumber" Section Title when the material very likely may be changed during design. Example: "Single-Ply Membrane Roofing" as a Section title rather than the membrane type in the title. In this example, although the membrane material may change over a prolonged design phase, the details tend to be identical on the Drawings. So no Drawing revisions are needed. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 316 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 07:03 pm:    Although I have yet to start using MF 2044, I attended a seminar on it last week, it seems to me that the numbering system would tend to lend itself to the use of the old Condoc System for notes and details. Any one have any thought s on this possibility. We actually have one client who still uses condoc, but it does not work well with MF95. Instead of spelling out names of products you would link them directly to the spec section, or is this too confusing for Contractors? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 400 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 07:36 pm:    MF 2044! Boy, Jerome, you are on the leading edge! ;-) Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 123 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 08:09 pm:    It is a mistake to think of MasterFormat as the primary source for names of materials on drawings. The tie between the drawings and the specifications should be the use of the same terms for the title of the article or paragraph within the specification sections (not the specification section titles). The terms used should be coordinated between the two as per some of the comments above with one of the objectives being to keep the terms as short and simple as possible and still distintish between similar but different materials on a project. Using highly accurate complicated names for the paragraph titles in the specifications just causes notation problems on the drawings. The simpliest but still distinguishing term for the title followed by the more technical descriptions is much better for coordination with the drawings. One source to use to start to create a list similar to those firm's lists of coordinated terms that a couple of the postings above refer to is Module 5 of the CSI Uniform Drawing System (UDS) that is part of the National CAD Standard (NCS). This module has a long list of recommended terms and abbreviations to use to start to formulate an office master list. In terms of Jerome's comment about using a more systemized approach, Module 7 on Notations of the UDS/NCS also includes the recommendations for setting up a reference keynote system based on MasterFormat 2004. A sample list of a office master list of reference keynotes in MasterFormat 2004 can be found in the Appendix of "The Architect's Guide to the U.S. National CAD Standard" by Dennis Hall and Rick Green, John Wiley & Sons. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 24 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 09:31 pm:    In design we have our own system where we create material lists for each project. The list can be spreadsheet or a Word file, but the key concept is the wording is then copied to both Drawings (at least for a material key - not to each individual drawing) and the spec. An example: 04850 BR1 – Norman brick field (3-9/16” x 11-9/16” x 2-1/4”)Modular bricks to reduce cutting (3-5/8” x 7-5/8” x 2-1/4”) Interstate Brick (basis of design) Color: Arctic White Bond: 1/3 Running Texture: Matt Mortar: Integral color pigment, concave joints 04850 BR2 – Norman brick field (3-9/16” x 11-9/16” x 2-1/4”)Modular bricks to reduce cutting (3-5/8” x 7-5/8” x 2-1/4”) Interstate Brick (basis of design) Color: Arctic White Bond: Stack Texture: Scratch Mortar: Integral color pigment; weathered horizontal joints, flush vertical joints 04850 BR3 – Norman brick field (3-9/16” x 11-9/16” x 2-1/4”)Modular bricks to reduce cutting (3-5/8” x 7-5/8” x 2-1/4”) Interstate Brick (basis of design) Color: Tumbleweed Bond: 1/3 Running Texture: Matt Mortar: Integral color pigment, concave joints William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 642 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 10:05 pm:    I agree 100% with Bob. That is exactly what I do - his first 2 paragraphs. Terminology agreement between drawings and specifications is everything. Its not a new concept - when I was first starting to study this in university in the mid-70s, that was the key concept taught and it was not new then either. You must call it the same exactly, not just close. We have a whole terminology group. Nothing gets changed on our listing without the drawings group agreeing and then they agreeing with specifications, and then the implementation being set so that if it is something that is changing we all change together. And its not that hard. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 651 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 08:51 am:    We do what Bob and William describe. I also do not have a major problem with adding a phrase to the spec indicating what the term used on the drawings is, generally for those situations where the discussion on terminology was not held soon enough. I can do that in maybe 30 seconds, and I'm pretty sure that it can't be done that easily in the drawings. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 252 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 09:00 am:    Question- I seem to remember a discussion here that talked about a group in the process of putting together a standard glossary of construction terms. Was that the CAD standard module mentioned above or is there another group looking at doing the same sort of thing? Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 124 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 10:31 am:    This is the last report that I have seen about the CSI Terminology effort from last October: "Terminology Task Team – With the support of a major grant from the National Center for Energy Management and Building Technology (NCEMBT), CSI and the Terminology Task Team are developing a plan to create a comprehensive standard dictionary to support interoperability in the building industry. Working within the International Framework for Dictionaries which is based on ISO standards, the CSI/NCEMBT initiative is developing an essential standard to support seamless information exchange among computing applications. In an early demonstration project, CSI will be joining with the International Code Commission (ICC) to show how an ifc-based Building Information Model (BIM) can be queried to evaluate its compliance with the International Building Code. A demonstration will be held at the IAI BuildingSmart meetings in Washington, D.C. in early November." Gregg Borchelt (borchelt@bia.org) is the chair of the task team. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 644 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 10:43 am:    I will see Gregg at my chapter meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) and see what's going on. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 645 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 11:18 pm:    All, I spoke with Gregg this evening regarding the Terminology Task Team and he said that the Task Team was in the mode of reviewing the different approaches for the software that will be the basis of the 'dictionary', and a recommendation will be made for the spring board meeting. He said he would try to get online here in the next couple days to post an update of what this means and the future direction. William Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 156 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, August 03, 2007 - 07:10 pm:    This topic has come again under Product Discussions: http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/24/3401.html?1186182330. This is a topic I have been interested in and have been campaigning for the creation of a national standard for terminology used on drawings and in specs for quite a few years - see Foundations article from Construction Specifier in August, 1999: http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/doc_specifier_article.asp?TRACKID=52BKMM9F6VTZEW46RZBGZZZWYK7KL3GG&CID=887&DID=8605 for one of my efforts in this area. You will see in this article that I contacted ARCOM’s MASTERSPEC®, BSD’s SpecLink®, the Corps of Engineers, CSRF’s SPECTEXT®, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (before the time of the combined federal specs) and got agreement from all of them at that time to participate in such an effort and agreement to use the agreed upon terminology in their master spec systems - what an improvement we would have if all the master spec systems were using the same terminology for the same items!!!! We have one other resource for this from the NCS/UDS Module 5 - Terms and Abbreviations which lists terms and abbreviations to be used on the drawings with a heavy emphasis on abbreviations. This list is a good start but I think it could benefit greatly from more input from the specifications side to become a better list. It certainly could be a starting point. Don't you think that the creation of such a standard would be of great benefit to us and to the rest of the design and construct industry? The previous discussion indicated that several of firms represented in discussions here had formulated such lists for their firms (I have also such a comprehensive list from my days at RTKL). Why don't we work at creating a consensus list to give everyone the same tool that would make life easier for everyone? From our experience in creating that list at RTKL while we were creating an extensive library of reference details, we learned the tough way that such a list has to be a compromise between the concerns of putting good drawings and specifications together - we found that we changed (or added at a higher title level) a lot the terms in our existing master specification to more generic terms to work well on the drawings - it was of course also a contunial education process to get people working on the drawings to also use more generic terminology and let the specifications do their job with the specifics. Some good examples of how to do that are included in the previous discusssion thread and in some of the postings above. I have had some recent dialogue with some of the CSI technical leaders about taking this on as a task. How many of you would be willing to include your list of preferred terminology to be included in the discussion and participate in such a CSI managed effort? I am quite confident that the master spec system people would still be willing to participate. Let me know at rwj@jandjconsultants.com. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 611 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, August 06, 2007 - 01:51 pm:    I think the simpler the better. it is very easy to define terms in spec sections, and I usually want to see "Roof" or "Roof 1" "Roof 2" and the like. in David's example above I would call things by what they do -- "wall panels", "acoustical panel #1", "air barrier". unless you have both "sheet air barrier" and "membrane air barrier" I see no reason to be more defined on the drawings, and I usually allow a contractor to choose between two versions anyway. I don't want to see any abbreviations on drawings -- so I think the terminology needs to be easy to use and write. My feeling is that abbreviations are sloppy and not well thought out, and provide too much room for error, especially since no one actually "writes" them anymore. how much more effort does it take to type "gypsum" than to put "gyp." on the drawings? if you keep the terminology at a high enough level and simple enough, abbreviations aren't quite as "necessary".