| Author |
Message |
Mark Gilligan SE, CSI
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 42
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, March 16, 2008 - 12:42 pm: |    |
I would be interested in opinions on how to deal with some comments from the Architect’s specification consultant.
On one of our projects the Architects specification consultant has proposed some changes to our structural steel specification section dealing with architecturally exposed structural steel. This was accompanied by the statement that we should review the changes to make sure that we are comfortable with them.
In situations like this the focus of our review is on life safety and other non visual aspects of the proposed changes. Issues related to painting and visual issues we tend to let the Architect and his specification consultant do what he wants. My view is that in these situations the responsibility for this specification is shared between ourselves and our client the Architect.
The additions include provisions stating that the Architect will mark up the shop drawings to show bolt orientation and that the Contractor is to fabricate and erect the steel in accordance with the approved shop drawings. I have been taught that all the work should be defined on the contract documents and not added to the shop drawings, that the Contractor should build per the contract documents, and that we review not approve shop drawings.
I have been working to teach the young engineers good specification practices such as not referring to the “Contractor” since it is implied, and not using shall in specifications. In this context it is frustrating when the “specification consultant” who is supposedly the expert in specification writing uses “Contractor shall” in his additions.
Because the Architect is our client and the prime design professional we intend to let him make the changes and formally object only to the use of “approving” of shop drawings and the instruction to for the contractor to construct from the approved shop drawings. |
Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 234
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 01:06 am: | |
Wow, you've got a lot of issues in this one posting. Well, at least they are issues that touch upon hot buttons of mine.
Representing the Architect, I often have to mark up steel stair shop drawings showing the orientation of the bolts for the channel stringers to the intermediate and top landings. I only want to see the heads, not the threads. It's far more architecturally pleasing that way, and structurally indifferent. We do show the connections drawn that way on our construction documents, but the stairs are typically design/build and the fabricator or detailer NEVER seems to pick up on that element. So in summary, I think that spec language on that element is prudent based on past experience.
I think my biggest concern with your post is about never approving shop drawings. This is a very outdated teaching and indefensible in court. It is directly contrary to the vast majority of contracts also written. As architects and engineers, when we ask for a shop drawing from the contractor so that the contractor can demonstrate their understanding of our drawings, we are required to "review and approve or take other appropriate action" on the submittal. This is a two step effort. To review is a given, but we must provide Direction to the contractor. Simply saying "Reviewed" does not provide direction. "Approved", "Approved as Noted", or even the diluted "Furnish as Submitted" or "Furnish as Corrected" at least provide direction.
If I were the contractor, I would refuse to move forward on a submittal returned from the A/E team that does not provide direction on the submittal.
Also, AESS steel (Architecturally Exposed Structural Steel) goes a significant step further than painting requirements. It requires all breather holes to be plugged, all welds to be ground smooth, all mill stamps to be ground off, etc.... I have had one structural engineer reject my stair design because I called for 1.5" wide channels with 1.25" pipe stanchions. He wanted a full weld all the way around, but with the AESS requirement to grind the weld smooth, he was uncomfortable with the remaining material left binding the stanchion to the channel, so we had to upside the channel width due to the AESS requirement.
As in most things, the architect and the structural engineer have to work hand in hand. the line between the trades or the affect of each other's trade is very blurry. |
Mark Gilligan SE, CSI
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 43
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 03:41 am: | |
Nathan
I have no problem with red marks on the shop drawings. My point is that the shop drawings should not be used to tell the contractor to do something that was not required by the contract documents. I am a little old fashioned in this regard.
Regarding shop drawing we do provide comments pointing out deviations from the contract documents. This provides feedback to the Contractor. Our shop drawing stamp does also have check box for “make corrections noted”, the difference is that we do not state that we have approved them. We may not state that we have approved the shop drawings but I believe our review is consistent with the standard of care. Our shop drawing stamp is essentially the same as those used by other local structural engineering firms and we have not had problems with the use of this stamp.
You made the statement that AESS “requires all breather holes be plugged, all welds to be ground smooth” Please provide a reference to this requirement? Section 10 of the AISC Code of Standard Practice is the default specification for AESS steel. The AISC COSP specifically states that mill marks are not required to be ground off, and that welds need not be ground smooth. No reference is made to painting requirements for AESS. You can impose more restrictive requirements but you need to be clear as to what you want. AISC has a good publication discussing the issues related to AESS steel and the cost impact.
Please note that 1-1/4” pipe has an actual OD of 1.66 inches which is greater than the 1.5” wide flange proposed. This will prevent the installation of the weld all around even if grinding was not required.
I agree that we need to work together to coordinate our work. One theme of my posting had to do with how do we handle things when we have different approaches to situations. We will offer our comments but unless they are important to us we will defer to the Architect especially when the issue is outside of what we see as our scope of work.
In many situations I am very aware of the issues impacting how the work will look and will try to point the Architect in the right direction. But all too often we are not asked for input. How far should we go in challenging the Architect? For example note the situation above where you believe that you know what AESS means and I have a different understanding. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 864
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 09:09 am: | |
Is similar situations, I have taken the intent of such comments, but re-written them to appropriate language, and put them in appropriate locations. This is assuming I have no fundamental objection to the comment to begin with.
I might note that Masterspec has recently published a new section on architecturally exposed structural steel. In it are collected the work results for AESS, but not the basics of structural steel framing which remain in the traditional location. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 304
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 12:23 pm: | |
For more info on this subject, see Architecturally Exposed Structural Steel, which includes a cost matrix to help the designer decide which options to choose. |
Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: rick_howard
Post Number: 160
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 10:51 am: | |
Mark, please accept my apologies for the unbridled hubris of some of my fellow architects. Arrogance is encouraged in architecture school and it infects the ego of a certain percentage of graduates who, unlike those of us who have ended up as spec writers, somehow have managed to live a life free of humiliation.
If your architect's specifications consultant is placing dubious General Requirements language into your Division 05 spec sections, it is also possible they may have saddled the architect and consultants with other untenable requirements in Division 01. I would hope that is not the case, but based on what you have shared already we know it wouldn't be prudent to leave it to chance.
Our office includes in-house engineering for all disciplines, so my coordination issues are greatly simplified. I consider myself lucky to be an architectural department spec writer "banished" to live with the structural engineers. I have made a concerted effort to learn their language and customs and we get along famously. I have never encountered any problem coordinating their work with the architecture. Being highly disciplined individuals, they are usually the first to prepare specs, so I can have them make an initial pass of all the sections requiring their input, such as masonry and curtainwall, before the architects start editing those sections.
Our structural engineers prepared a separate AESS spec master when AISC first introduced their Section 05125 guide spec. We are pleased to see Masterspec pull AESS out of the basic structural steel section. It serves to limit the architect's edits to just the items that affect the aesthetics without touching the basic structural specification or encumbering the structural engineers with inappropriate duties.
There is no standard of what is required of AESS beyond the minimal requirements of AISC 303 (CoSP) Section 10. We often have different requirements for various AESS members, depending on how prominent they are in the finished work. Detail work, such as grinding and shaping welds, is very expensive. It is up the architect to decide the "what and where" of the additional requirements and to see that it gets called out on the drawings and specs.
Because of the impact on the budget, the extent of work for AESS may not be known until quite late in the project, while the structural steel is often issued early to get the steel ordered and delivered to the fabricator. Having separate spec sections facilitates a two-stage approach and delineates design responsibility. |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 89
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 01:17 pm: | |
We tend to cherry pick AESS requirements from the matrix provided in the article posted above to create different grades or levels of AESS for our 05 12 50 AESS Section. We are an architecture firm and a seperate SE will provide the 05 12 00 Section.
Usually we have a "Level 1 AESS" that is visually close at hand and "subject to human touch"; followed by a Level 2 AESS" that might be a skylight subframe 25 feet overhead.
All that being said, you never seem to know what you can expect unless you happen to work with the same fabricators/erectors over several projects. Carefully specified samples and mock-ups are the only way to provide quality assurrance.
One problem I have is that our offices include several diagonal seismic braces that were done back in the '80's with tonnes of Bondo, grinding and sanding and a fancy faux finish. They would be hard to repeat as they are and impossible for Exterior AESS - something I cannot ever convince the designers of. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 866
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 02:06 pm: | |
Hence, the invention of column covers. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 736
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 02:16 pm: | |
to the original post: when working with the architect as a consultant (structural or otherwise) you need to be very strict about any requirements in the specs that would challenge your licensure -- but perhaps not so much where aesthetics is an issue. And you should be editing the specifications (from a consultant) for technical accuracy and coordination. Do not assume that the specifications consultant knows much about structural work, unless you have had enough experience with that consultant to be comfortable with their understanding of what you do.
Some consultants are extremely competent with engineering specs; some are not. On the other hand, I've worked with structural engineers who can't edit a spec to save their life -- and with some other structural engineers who write absolutley exquisite documents. so.. the answer is, it varies by the capabilities of who and what you're writing about. |
|
4specs.com Home Page