Nomenclature

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

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1219 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2011 - 01:40 pm:    Every firm that I have worked at has had issues with identifying specific building materials. Here is what typically happens. I get approached by an architect wanting to know what to call a certain building material. I then look up the material in our specs or on MasterFormat. I then tell the architect. The architect is not happy because the material name is more than 2 words long. The architect then argues with me about the name. He/she want to abbreviate the name or use a trade name. I have even changed the name of a material in the specs because the incorrect name is "all over the drawings" and "I would be easier to change it in the specs." Yes this is true but now I have set a dangerous precedent for future drawings and have a spec that is not really correct. I believe this stems from the architect not wanting to type out a long hairy scary material name on the drawings. Have you come across this situation and what have you done? Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 393 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2011 - 01:42 pm:    You tell them that the attorneys read the specs for accuracy. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1254 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2011 - 02:14 pm:    And the spec writer is usually set as the person who determines the nomenclature to prevent multiple names, to avoid jargon, and slang names for products and is the source of information that must be accurate [as to this infrmation] and uniform throughout the office and trades for both construction and legal reasons. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 413 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2011 - 02:24 pm:    Yea, and I bet they have not used the term that they do like consistently either. Put your foot down. No brand named is an easy one. For long names that REALLY don’t fit on drawings I add a sentence in a definitions article or sometimes in the summary listing the drawing based name “flexible flashing” for example, and the spec name “rubberized asphalt flashing” this allows me to compromise and use the complete correct name in the spec and maybe something not so perfect on the drawings. BUT if you have office drafting standards – get them updated and enforced –then the nomenclature will not be an issue. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 161 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2011 - 03:20 pm:    Coordinating terminology on drwgs and specs should be the result of a team effort that works well for both drwg notations and specs. David - I thought in a previsous posting you said your firm had a keynote system. The master keynote list should again be the result of a team effort - short generic terms for the drwg notations and more specific probably longer terms under the higher level generic term for specific selections in the specs. The detailed titles in a specification are often too long and too specific for on the drawings. And problems are caused when a detailed selection is changed midcourse - many locations to try and catch the change. The specification organization should include more generic and simplier upper level titles that can be used on the drawings. The organization of types of titles and their levels in the specifications need to take into consideration the terms to be used on the drawings. The drawings should be able to just call out AIR BARRIER and then let the specs describe the type of air barrier - fluid-applied, self-adhesive, etc. If by chance there are more than one type of air barrier in a project, then it is best to revert to TYPE A, B, etc. Keep it simple on the drwgs with terms that hopefully don't change. Further define that generic term with specific selections and longer more complicated titles under the generic title in the specs. If it changes, you only have to change it once in the specs. In creating such a master list at a previous large firm, we found that we had to reorganize the master spec in some locations to provide for the generic coordination title at a higher level with the longer more detailed titles at lower levels under the more generic title. Determining the common terminology should not a one-sided operation - both the drwg and the spec side should participate in the creation of the master list so that it works well for both documents. This can be relatively complicated in some subjects to determine how generic or more specific the terms should be on the drawings. The master list can then be edited for each project. The edited project list then becomes the controlling list for the project. The drwg team leader and the specifier should then together determine the terms to be used for any unique project materials/products - add them to the project list to keep the terminology coordinated. Consideration can then be given to whether the unique terms should be added to the master list or not. This obviously works best inside a firm. Much more difficult for spec consultants. As a consultant I do ask questions and make suggestions for terminology on the drawings. If you establish a good working relationship with project managers that you have an on-going relationship with I find that they often call with questions about what to call some items. I have not found many firms that have a good firm and enforced policy about terminology on the drawings. It is usually pretty inconsistent and goes all over the map. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 285 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2011 - 06:22 pm:    They usually are mad at me because my names are too short. They want to call it R-11, 6-inch batt insulation made from recycled materials; I want to call it: 07 21 13 - Type 4 Justatim Senior Member Username: justatim Post Number: 17 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 07:41 am:    Oh, if only politicians were construction specifiers! Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 414 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 11:02 am:    If politicians were specifiers: 1. we'd still be arguing about the format for the constitution 2. would have had a separate signature page 3. having on-line discussions about specifing the quality of fish glue in the india ink - or should we be using Ox gall ink? Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 475 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 11:11 am:    Ben Franklin would have invented the ink. He was a book publisher at some point in time. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 476 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 11:21 am:    Steve, "They" also want to be as redundant as humanly possible and repeat this notation as many time as possible because it is so easy to copy in CAD. Apparently, the notion of default scheduling is not in their gray matter. If "they" can say it once, it is better to say it 16 times so that when "they" have to change the notation "they" can rest assured "they" will find 15 out of 16. "They" love it when a plan comes together. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 385 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 05:47 pm:    As an outhouse specifier, demanding changes to drawings is not a popular task. I find it easier to just define the product with the appropriate terminology that is used throughout my section and state the drawing name(s) is to be substituted by the term in my section; or, in some cases, the terms can be used interchangeably but have the same meaning. If the terminology is clearly defined, there should little confusion by a contractor and I don't see where an attorney would have a strong case about the use of differing terms. "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1180 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 12:16 pm:    I'm sort of with a lot of people on this post. sometimes it IS easier to change it in the specs when its all over the drawings. sometimes I put a proviso in the specs that says "also called out as XXXXX in the drawings". If its clearly wrong, I'll stomp my feet and go above the PM's pay grade; but if its just "this or that", I don't see any point in burning up good will. we tend to use the GL-1, GL-2 type nomenclature on the drawings with the idea that it forces the contractor to go to the specs for the appropriate information. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1279 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 12:28 pm:    What a concept! Making a contractor go to and read the specs for information. What will we think of next? We do as Anne states, carefully choosing our battles for greatest impact and meaning. We are finally getting all our satellite offices on board with consistent "abbreviations" and tags. Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI Senior Member Username: dwhurttgam Post Number: 86 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 02:12 pm:    When there is a conflict in nomenclature that appears to be potentially problemmatic, and it is going to cost a lot of time to make adjustments on the drawings or in the specs; I have sometimes added a clarification note in the Part 1 Sumary such as: "XXXXX" as refernced in this section is indicated as "YYYYY" on the Drawings. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 287 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 02:26 pm:    I have a general note in our "Windows, Curtainwall and Storefront" that notes: "the terms curtainwall and window wall can and will be used interchangeably on Drawings, Specifications and the project site to refer to the Work of this Section". Regarding bending the specs to make less CAD work on the drawings, I am doing that right now. We lost the battle to use sliding barn style doors to the patient bathrooms for a hospital, and they are becoming conventional swing doors. I had created a specific Section for these doors (350 doors or so) called 08 32 20 - Sliding Patient Bathroom Doors that included the doors and the unique hardware. That could normally just go away, with the now conventional doors covered in the hollow metal frames, flush wood doors, and Door Hardware Sections. But the team wanted to keep that number so it is now 08 32 20 - Patient Bathroom Doors. Not much sense in terms of the specs, but a lot less CAD (I am told).