Terminology in Construction

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

Author Message David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 113 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2011 - 04:13 pm:    William Pegues referred to our discussion on terminology in the "Is Painting a Coating?" thread. We are part of a four-session Coordinated Technical Meeting (CTM) program for our chapter in April. It is our chapter's third such event, held every other year so far. This year we are looking at terminology from various points of view. The other speakers include two waterproofing contractors, a public agency owner, and two institute/government representatives (including buildingSMART and BIM). Paints and coatings are sure to be discussed, as will many of the preferred terms presented in CSI documents and standards. One of the misused terms that always bother me is when someone references an article or a paragraph in a specification as "Section 1.02-A". I'd like to know if anyone has any favorites to suggest for our talk. David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS Architectural Resources Co. J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2011 - 08:35 pm:    Waterproofing, dampproofing, air barrier, vapor barrier, sealant, calk. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 582 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 09:28 am:    A favorite discussion from a colleague at my previous job: grout, as it is used in drawing notes. Grout between the column base plate and the footing. Grout between the ceramic tiles. Grout the cores of cmu. Grout for the precast panels. Is grout always cementitious? Is it spreadable, stiff, pourable, a finish? Is there one reference standard for grout? Does grout contain aggregate? The many undifferentiated uses of the term "grout" in drawing notes illustrates why we need specifications. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1207 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 11:18 am:    When is it a sealant and when is it a calk? Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 430 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 02:30 pm:    Lynn, The following question came to me regarding the difference between sealants and calking. The following definitions are from the Glossary, Architectural Specification Guide for Sealants, Thiokol/Specialty Chemicals Division, and Glossary, Sealant, Waterproofing & Restoration Institute Sealants: The Professionals' Guide. These glossaries define terms that are common to the building trade. "Thirty years ago building sealants did not exist. Buildings were sealed with oil-base caulks, which provide adequate protection from the effects of weathering. As long as joint movement was minimal, leakage could be avoided by simply filling the cavity with calking material. When joint movement became a factor, the change marked a turning point in the specification and use of calking compounds. The introduction of the curtain wall in the early 1950's represented more than a new architectural design. It opened another chapter on joint design, joint movement, and joint sealants. Non-masonry substrates, such as aluminum are affected significantly by temperature extremes. Changes in weather cause excessive movement, creating conditions that make it impossible for caulks to perform. They harden, crack and fall out of joints, leaving clear passage for moisture and water to enter building. To meet the stringent requirements of the curtain wall structure, new products were developed for the construction market. These chemical compounds cured to a synthetic rubber (or elastomeric) "sealant" as they became known, and unlike their oil-base predecessors, were formulated to expand and contract with constant joint movement.,,1 Calking (verb): Process of sealing a joint. Calking (noun): A material used for joint sealing where minor or no elastomeric properties are required. Seal (noun): A generic term for any material or device that prevents or controls the passage of water. Sealant (noun): An elastomeric material with adhesive qualities that joins components of a similar or dissimilar nature to provide an effective barrier against the passage of the elements. 1. "Sealants: The Professionals' Guide, 1990 Sealant, Waterproofing & Restoration Institute." Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1208 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 03:05 pm:    Cool. I'm going to copy/paste that and send it to the whole office - as most of them are confused by the 2 terms and use them interchangeably. Most contractors don't seem to grasp the difference, either. I love language. Thank you for a clear, written answer that I can use! (and enforce). Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 137 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 04:39 pm:    I think SWRI provides a good background history of the evolution of the terms. I would, however, never use the terms related to calk or calking in construction documents. Calling non-elastomeric joint sealants calking means you now need to check every location to see if the right term is used. You are just asking for confusion and error. I would just use JOINT SEALANT everywhere on the drawings and specify the appropriate materials by location in the spec. Donot allow anyone to use the term calk or calking. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 431 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 05:09 pm:    Robert, I would agree 9 out of 10. I have used the term CAULK (in Canada) or CALK for bedding under exterior thresholds. I will cease and decist if you provide me a better product and term for this location. It is hard to convince drafters to stick with JOINT SEALANT. They do not seem to realize the term refers to the sealant itself and the backer rod or other bond breaker. I constantly observe "SEALANT ON BACKER ROD" or "BACKER ROD AND SEALANT." Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1209 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 05:09 pm:    Good suggestion, Bob. Thanks - now all I have to do is get to all the "folks who draw" and tell them to eliminate "calk" from their vocabulary. (And "caulk", too). I'll begin with the next set of drawings I see... Wish I could simply put out something like an APB! Jim Sliff Senior Member Username: jim_sliff Post Number: 27 Registered: 08-2010 Posted on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 12:41 am:    Part of the problem is packaging/guide Specifications/catalog data. Not to hijack the thread, but examples Wayne provided demonstrate the problem when "caulk" or "seal" are used as verbs. If manufacturers use two (or more) terms for the same product in a guide Spec it can muddy the waters. Examples: "Caulk joints with polyurethane sealant..."Seal joints with polyurethane caulking...". The packaging may use one term or the other...or both. Guide Specs and product packaging are often not handled by the same departments, with data sheets bouncing around in both. You can often end up with 3 different ways of describing the end results from the same manufacturer, or a submittal with your terminology reversed. You know it's the right product but can you state "no exceptions taken"? Caulk/Sealant is just one example; there are many more dual-description products used in construction. Just in my little world of coatings and waterproofing we have the aforementioned example, "paint/coating", "acrylic latex enamel", "weatherproof/waterproof" etc. I've pointed this out to manufacturer reps but it never seems to get back to the big cheeses in tech support, sales, and marketing.Drives me nuts when I'm doing a parallel 3-product Spec. Unfortunately none of the manufacturers and a very small percentage of contractors are members of the Sealant, Waterproofing & Restoration Institute around here. I had forgotten about them until I read the definitions post - over 30 years connected in some way to these processes/products and nobody has ever mentioned them to me. Maybe it's just me. ;-) Tom Good, architect, CDT, SCIP, LEED AP Senior Member Username: tom_good Post Number: 20 Registered: 11-2006 Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2011 - 06:41 am:    I recommend drafters not to use the term “caulk” or “caulking” and define it as Joint Sealant just in case they do. Interesting that Mr.Yancey indicates that “Joint Sealant” also includes the bond breaker and backer rod. Then there is BSD who has the Section 07 90 05 - Joint SEALERS. I believe they do this to combine both 07 91 00 Preformed Joint Seals and 07 92 00 Joint Sealants into one section. I have kind of been considering defining this new term “sealers” as both the “sealant and bond breaker and backer rod”. Not sure it matter to much as “my” spec indicates when to use bond breaker and backer rod even if it is not noted on the Drawings as such. That way, the drafters can keep using “Joint Sealant”. Not sure I can get them to start using “Joint Sealer” consistently. J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2011 - 10:57 am:    I note with some amusement that the MasterFormat Section name "Joint Sealants" escaped the general trend toward "gerundization" of section names so prevelant throughout the document ("painting" instead of "paint", "tiling" instead of "tile:, etc.). Although many of use had a good laugh over the results, this was a reflection of understanding MasterFormat as organizing "work results" not products. To following along this line of thinking, in terms of sealing or filling a joint, one may use a sealant material (widely understood to have better elastomeric and adhesion properties) or a caulk material (much less elastomeric). Of course, then there are the epoxy sealants. I also see that certain joints need "filling" not necessarily "sealing." Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 465 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2011 - 12:03 pm:    At one time, I used both terms - caulk and sealant - in my specifications. Caulk was acoustic sealant and the sealant around frames, both of which are relatively static; sealants were those products used in moving joints. I later omitted references to caulk in the sealant section to avoid confusion, but kept caulk in the gypboard section for a while. I finally eliminated caulk altogether because of the difficulty in explaining where to indicate it on drawings. Now it's sealant everywhere. I confess I am guilty of violation of the MasterFormat distinction between preformed joint seals and joint sealants; I put compressed seals in with the sealants. When I go to trial, I'll use the odd way MasterFormat treats these products as my defense. 07-9123 is for backer rod, but 07-9200 includes both sealant and backer rod. Does anyone write a separate section for backer rod? Or a separate section for acoustic sealant? Jim Sliff Senior Member Username: jim_sliff Post Number: 29 Registered: 08-2010 Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2011 - 05:48 pm:    I've never seen a separate section for backer rod. I've seen it...or more precisely, NOT seen it...when its not mentioned at all. However, if the Section includes language directing installation in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions (or details or whatever) AND backer rod is correctly indicated and described therein it's still a part of the Section as much as an indirect item as a required type of installation equipment. I'd estimate that out of the thousand or so sealant joint Specs I've seen where backer rod (or other flexible or non-adhering backing; sand, backing tape etc) is essential it's not mentioned. Unfortunately, it's also often not used or something inappropriate used instead. I've seen rags, newspaper (a common item) and all sorts of "debris used as "backer" when joint sealants have "failed". Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1123 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2011 - 10:12 pm:    I do a separate section for "acoustical construction" which not only covers acoustical sealants but also other small construction items that are part of an acoustical separation of symphony spaces. The point (to me) of the separate section is that for acoustical construction, I require full time, ongoing inspection of all of the required work. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 513 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 11:44 am:    What is "finish hardware?" In which Section is installation of finish hardware specified? Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 470 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 11:48 am:    It's in the same section with Finnish carpentry, right after Swedish hammers. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 471 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 11:52 am:    Seriously, why would you specify installation in a separate section? I've often wondered - even before "work results" came along - why some specifiers have the product wood doors in one section and the installation in a different section. I specify both in the same section, and the contractors have no problem getting the doors from a supplier and having the installation done by someone else. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 514 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2011 - 12:05 pm:    Sheldon: 'cause that's the way it's done! Them finish (Finnish?) carpenters puts the locksets in the wood doors. Do they puts the locks in metal doors too? When I get a "Finish Hardware" (sometimes retitled "Door Hardware") spec Section from a hardware manufacturer's rep or even a paid door hardware consultant, often there is a reference to "Section 06200 - Finish Carpentry" for installation of hardware. These are the guys what are selling high-tech access control systems but who are stuck in the 1960's about trade jurisdictions for hardware installation. I still don't know what is "Finish Hardware," contrasted against "Door Hardware." In Phoenix, is it "Phinish Hardware?" George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 585 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2011 - 09:20 pm:    08 71 00 Part 3 Execution seems fairly straight-forward to a hardware beginner like me: SDI and DHI have good standards for prepping and installing hardware. There's not a whole lot more to add. I seem to have a page and a half of Part 3 before the hardware schedule. Not sure why you would put anything in Division 06, other than "because we've always done it that way". Any suggestions for getting my new colleagues to drop that horrific term "Preamble" for everything in 08 71 00 other than the hardware sets? Maybe I can object on constitutional grounds? George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO Jim Sliff Senior Member Username: jim_sliff Post Number: 30 Registered: 08-2010 Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2011 - 11:55 pm:    Wow - glad I don't normally have to deal with this, as I'd have a hard time including something like the example below (grabbed randomly from the internet): "Door and Hardware Specification Guideline The door hardware section 08710 preamble is to include the following: "Prior to installation of hardware the project architect shall contact the manufacturers' representatives to arrange and hold a jobsite meeting to instruct the installing contractors' personnel on the proper installation of their respective products. Seminar shall be attended by installers of hardware (including electrical hardware) for aluminum, hollow metal and wood doors. Training will include the use of installation manuals, hardware schedule, templates and physical product samples." "The manufacturers' representatives(s) for the life safety and security products shall inspect and approve the installation of the products they represent. Any identified installation or product issues shall be directed to the attention of the Architect for the purpose of generating the final punch list." The whole thing seems to have been developed by The Department of Redundancy Department. While the wording is hilariously chaotic (if the person who generated that phrase read that comment....errr, I'm running a high fever and am delirious.) the "intent" seems to be achievable through the normal specification process, without some sort of "preamble". It seems like with slightly more appropriate wording everything it contains could be included in a conventionally-worded section. As to John's comment regarding Arizona, I'm not sure - but in another part of the world I think Nordic jousting may have included the donning of protective Finnish Hardwear.... John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 515 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 10:45 am:    Jim: It's the "Department of Reduncancy and Needless Repetition Department." It's where the philosopy is, "some is good, more is better and too much is just right." George: I have given up with your associates. I now publish their hardware spec verbatim, with the hopelessly outdated references such as "UBC" and "by others" notations (which gets interpreted as "not in contract"). If there's a problem, they can take the blame. Maybe then they'll learn. As of now, the credibility of their specifications looks suspect. J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 11:20 am:    I take out the references to UBC and strip out the "B/O" stuff. If I have time, I will change some of the "double quotes" to inches. There may be some last UBC holdouts (like Kauai in Hawaii), but I think most of that is gone. I will also change the section number and name and strip out the cross references. Yes, I do have better things to do, but... W. Dean Walker, AIA, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: wdwalkerspecs Post Number: 42 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 12:02 pm:    I do the same thing Peter does and I will quickly look to see how thay have their sets listed to keep them all on one page and delete hard returns and replace with "keep text together". I just like all the architectural specs to look tidy. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 930 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 12:17 pm:    Ditto. I just use the hardware sets prepared by the hardware consultant and then use my own master to support the sets prepared. I always--repeat, ALWAYS--find content in the specification text that is not used anywhere in the hardware sets; and I frequently find that the manufacturer designations (e.g. "SA" for Sargent) used in the hardware sets don't match the designations used in the section text, or the designations are missing completely from the section text. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1217 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 12:34 pm:    we do the same things. However, there may be hope. Just this morning I received a Door Hardware section; all I had to do was the formatting. (keep text together and a couple of "spacing before paragraph" issues. Everything else was good... John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 516 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 03:48 pm:    Lynn: Was that the reason for the "disturbance in the Force" I felt this morning? What's next? Conformance to SectionFormat? Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1218 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 04:07 pm:    "These are not the specifiers you are looking for..." George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 586 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 05:00 pm:    Having "fixed" almost every hardware section I ever received from a consultant, I'm grinning at all this. I promise I won't forget the specifier's perspective now that I am on the other side of the fence. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 517 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 01:39 am:    George: Make sure you polish up the boilerplate in the preamble to make it really look good. I'm not knocking the technical content in the Hardware Sets. It's amazing that a door hardware consultant can discern what hardware is required from the often paltry information in the drawings and from consultation with the designers who have only superficial understanding of door hardware. Start talking lock functions and keying with them and watch their eyes glaze over. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 376 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 12:06 pm:    In regard to terminology in construction, would someone please explain the following to me: "Positive slope away from the building/wall" It seems perfectly logical to me that there is a negative slope away from the building!! We often see the notation "slope to drain" but then someone screws it up by inserting the word "positive" in there "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1132 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 02:59 pm:    Ron - your guys just don't use an arrow that says "slope"? and if they are going to put something on the drawings, how about "slope toward drain"? that would go a long way to fixing many of the things I see wrong on plaza projects. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 99 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 03:43 pm:    Next thing you'll expect the contractor to read the drawings! I just learned of a case on one of our projects where the contractor demolished the portion of a wall we had clearly noted as "to remain" and kept the part labeled "remove". If I offer to provide a "remedial reading course" to the contractor do you think our "relationship" might suffer? ;-) Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1222 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 04:37 pm:    Sylvan Learning Center, anyone? Or maybe the instructions should say "Remove, dummy"? Ah, maybe not; the contractor would probably spend the better part of the day looking for the dummy. As for the "positive" slope; maybe it means "positively slope the ground away from the building" - just a bit of emphasis? David Stutzman Senior Member Username: david_stutzman Post Number: 69 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 18, 2011 - 09:06 pm:    Positive slope from algebra is a line that slopes upward from left to right. Negative slope is a line that slopes downward from left to right. A known origin is required to establish positive and negative slope. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 518 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2011 - 01:55 pm:    In the spec for sod, I specify "install sod green side up." So far, no comments. Re: "positive" and "negative", I interpret "positive drainage" as being effective in draining water from the building. "Negative drainage" is just the opposite. Spot elevations on the civil and landscape drawings (yeah, right) would make drainage clear clear. One day I received a call from the field. The Contractor wanted to know if "grade to daylight" meant he had to work all night.