Exterior performance in one section

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

Author Message Chris Sawyer, CCS LEED AP Senior Member Username: csawyer Post Number: 8 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 11:29 am:    I’ve come across a project with a Div 08 section “Exterior Performance Requirements” that includes “delegated design and performance requirements for systems and assemblies that include elements within multiple sections, multiple divisions, or both.” The project is a large public building and has curtain wall, metal panel, etc that will be going out to bid. The section lists a number of performance requirements for the exterior systems: deflection tolerances, water leakage, U-factor, blast, etc. Assuming that different subs will be “delegated” designing individual assemblies who’s responsible for their connections and the performance of the entire envelope? how would you coordinate submittals? Anybody ever seen this before and do you think it’s a good idea or see any potential problems? Thanks Chris Sawyer CCS LEED AP Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 336 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 11:49 am:    Chris, I have done this before on several projects and think it is good idea. It follows CSI's concept of say it once, say it in the most logical location, and reference that location. My projects had glazed aluminum curtain wall, metal wall panels, louvers, and precast concrete panels as part of the exterior cladding system (ECS). ECS was used throughout the techmical documents. In my particular projects the section was 08900 - CLADDING DESIGN CRITERIA (pre MF04) but I have also created a Division 01 section for MF04. Companies such as Walters and Wolf are capable of doing all. Wayne John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1212 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 11:49 am:    I don't think this changes the responsibility for connections between systems, versus having performance requirements indicated in specific sections. I think the designer still needs to be in front on this. However, common practice that I've seen for large projects like this is that one subcontractor is assigned curtain wall, storefront, metal cladding and similar assemblies, so that simplifies. Putting performance requirements in one place in the specifications does not change anything regarding submittals, coordination, or the general contractor's assignment of work. It's merely a way to "say it once" in one specification section for those common things. (Assuming that this is how the project manual is written.) In that case, I see no reason for concern. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 384 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 11:53 am:    Why Division 08 Openings and not 07 or better yet 01 under 014xxx. I'm headed the same direction on my next specs George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 536 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 12:50 pm:    We frequently produce 08 05xx "Common Work Results for Aluminum Glazing Systems" and 01 83xx "Exterior Enclosure Performance Requirements". The 08 section covers things like material standards, fabrication, is it anodized or painted, what color, etc. This ends up being a fairly hefty section while the curtainwall, storefront, window, etc. sections are only a page or two or so. The 01 section (and I agree with your second thought Marc, it is 01 and not 07) covers the common testing procedures, exterior mockups, etc. and includes all exterior systems on the project: masonry, metal panel, Division 08 systems, and whatever. It's been working out fine. Other offices in the firm use an Air Barriers common work results spec, (either in 01 or in this case I think it belongs in 07) based on AABA information, and that can be a successful approach as well. I have used it occassionally, depending on the scope of the project and the exterior systems used. In general, I like the common performance approach. I think the particulars are shaking out as we use them, but I think that ultimately we will have a concensus similar to what the old Div. 15 and Div. 16 had for common results sections. If you are interested in more on this topic, there is a discussion here from a year or two ago that you could probably search out. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 73 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 01:16 pm:    The place set up to do this in MasterFormat is 01 80 00 - Performance Requirements. 01 83 XX is for Facility Shell Performance Requirements as noted by George. You will note that 01 80 00 is organized by UniFormat categories. Chris Sawyer, CCS LEED AP Senior Member Username: csawyer Post Number: 9 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 01:50 pm:    I don’t think this should be a Div 8 section and agree that it should be placed in Div 1. I’m still a little concerned that this section appears to cede so much responsibility away from the designer. The point about say it once – there is repeated info in the related sections so it is not serving that function. Thanks for all of the input. Chris Sawyer CCS LEED AP Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 231 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 02:02 pm:    The combination of MasterFormat sections into a Uniformat-type group is what I have tried to achieve with the top (lighter gray) navigation. I have combined all the exterior wall product sections onto one page using terms more familiar to the architect. Here is one example: http://www.4specs.com/s/exterior-walls.html Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.654.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 537 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 02:51 pm:    Chris- The passing of design responsibility from the a/e to the manufacturer is a function of the "delegated design" aspect, not of "common work results/performance requirements" specifying in one section. You could have a common section where there is no delegated design responsibility. The point about repeating information in the other sections is a good one. As I pointed out previously, if you end up with a common section, then you should have much smaller ... what should we call them? ... commonized(?) or root (?) sections. I'd be happy to share what we do if you'd like a counter example. Not that I claim that my sections are a perfect example, because we are still evolving the best way to do this, but it will give you another example anyway. geverding@cannondesign.com George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 284 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2010 - 01:05 pm:    Regarding the structural integrigity of the system you should require that the Contractor have the structural design of the system be designed by a registered engineer licensed in the state where the project is located. You are requiring that there be unified design responsibility. The engineer of record on the project will also need to review the loads that this system places on the building structure. Consult with your engineer regarding the nature of the submittals he needs. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 961 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, June 07, 2010 - 11:48 am:    I've used this section in the past, but it does require that everyone is on the same page regarding knowing where these requirements exist in the specs. the comment about "cedeing responsibility away from the designer" makes no sense -- the designer isn't the fabricator, and isn't able to properly test the finished systems. Once the designer determines the criteria, it is entirely up to the fabricator to do this, and to notify us if the criteria need to be changed. I don't use this exterior system because I don't think its useful for the fabricators, especially on very complicated buildings. These portions of the building are often early negotation packages, and the criteria needs to be in the early package, not in some "section to be developed later". If you want a fabricator to take repsonsibility for the performance, all the requirements need to go in the package that they will be repsonsible for. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 441 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2010 - 10:52 pm:    I attempted to tackle this issue in a Construction Specifier article in August of 2009: http://www.kenilworth.com/publications/cs/200908/26.html It includes suggestions for use of one or several Divison 01 sections to dictate subcontracting coordination and exterior envelope performance requirements. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 238 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 - 05:21 pm:    We have three Sections that lead up the 08's: 08 05 10 - Facade Visual Mock-Ups 08 05 20 - Facade Mock-Up Lab Testing 08 05 30 - Facade Field Water Testing They are included individually or together as each project requires. "Field Water Testing" is intended for lath and plaster and similar hand-made on site wall finishes where field quality control is critical and may vary as the job progresses. These are in the 08's and not 01 because DIV ONE is usually a stand alone volume because of the project size and often is produced by our clients, so the fewer entanglements the better. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 02:20 pm:    The firm I work for slapped an exterior performance requirements Div 01 section together that was tossed into the Project Manual with all the rest of the (unread) Div 01 sections on every project. As Anne points out, using this type of section should be done ONLY if the specifier/design team intends to coordinate very closely the requirements in the section with the rest of the documents. Ours were not, and this caused all sorts of coniption fits during construction. Please, please, take a look at your structural engineer's drawings - you will find (I wager) that all of the performance criteria you could possibly need/want to list in a Div 01 section already exists on the structural engineer's drawings. It was a lot easier for me to ditch the Div 01 section than to fight every GD structural engineer about coordinating their drawings with my spec section. At this stage in my career, I'm all about taking the path of least resistance. I trust the structural engineer to get it right on the drawings (they haven't messed it up yet!). Why make things more complicated by creating a spec section that often duplicates, and very often contradicts what already exists in the Contract Documents???