Where do you specify non-loadbearing ...

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

Author Message Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 199 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - 05:44 pm:    Seems like a simple question, however, I've ruminated over it long enough. MF2004, as it relates to OmniClass table 22, infers the specification of WORK RESULTS. Why then, do the guide specifications still separate metal studs from gyp. bd., plaster and tile? Shouldn't metal studs be indlcued in each section rather than having separate sections? Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 162 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - 08:03 pm:    MasterFormat: 09 21 00 Plaster and Gypsum Board Assemblies Includes: Plaster, lath, board, non-structural framing, accessories, and trim for plaster and gypsum board assemblies. 09 21 16 Gypsum Board Assemblies. 09 29 00 Gypsum Board Includes: Unfinished and prefinished gypsum board over metal and wood framing; accessories and trim; joint taping and finishing. May Include: Non-structural metal framing, ceiling suspension, and furring systems. 09 21 16 includes metal framing and 09 29 00 may include metal framing. J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - 07:27 pm:    It is a modular thing; there is a bunch of gypsum board installed on wood studs. Having the support framing for the drywall split out makes it easier to edit. It is also easier when the metal framing is supporting several different items. MasterFormat has not, in my view, done a very good job of supporting assembly-type work results. Other examples include various types of pre-hung door assemblies as well as metal framed glazed assemblies. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1191 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2011 - 04:42 pm:    Brett - if you go back far enough, Masterspec used to include full assemblies in each of the sections that you mention (plaster, tile, gwb) and it meant that there was either duplication or mis-communication if you had all three wall types on the job. This is one instance where it really does make more sense to separate all the parts and specify them individually so that the components can be recombined in multiple iterations. Its possible that tile can be installed on multiple substrates (for example) and that metal studs can support multiple types of wall finishes (for example) and you would need a graph to sort out and combine all the pieces. I would also agree that if you had a specialized practice (or small project) with only one or two wall types that it would make perfect sense to just stuff all the pieces in one section and call it "non structural walls" or some other inclusive title. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 409 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2011 - 07:11 pm:    Building on Peter Jordans point. Taking the logic of including everything in an assembly this would mean that if you have non-structural metal studs supporting a brick veneer then you would have a seperate section for this assembly or you would include the brick veneer in the section along with the drywall. Why not break the metal studs out into a seperate section and decouple this section from all of the assemblies where these products are used. This should make it easier when editing sections for a project. 05 4100 Structural Metal Stud Framing would make sense. If you are concerned about earthquake damage you might want to involve the structural consultant in the metal stud framing. Often times the earthquake damage to the structure is repairable but the interior ceilings and non-structural partitions are totaled largely because key decisions are left to the contractor. Even "non-structural walls" have structural issues. This is especially the case in California Hospitals where a lot of non-structural elements are hung off of the metal studs. Another situation is where you have large openings framed in these interior walls. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 293 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2011 - 07:17 pm:    We split things out, with slight number and name variations for the following depending on the spec writer's mood: 05 41 00 - Structural Metal Stud Framing 09 22 16 - Non-Structural Metal Framing 09 22 23 - Ceiling Suspension Systems 09 29 00 - Gypsum Board Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 256 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2011 - 09:24 am:    The fragmentation of specs into to narrower scope sections is a necessary step toward integration with BIM. You could identify an object in a model as an assembly, but you still need to define the components. It is much easier to narrowscope the specifications than creating a unique assembly for each possible combination of parts. Not easier for the spec writer obviously, but easier for the information manager, which is what we will all become if we don't retire first. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 410 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2011 - 03:04 pm:    Observations regarding broad scope specifications sections. Broad scope sections do not provide as much detail. Thus the sections are looser. When the broad scope section involves work designed by diferent consultants inevitably the content associated with one consultant scope of work suffers. This is not resolved by coordination because the basic approaches are different. Gerard Sanchis Senior Member Username: gerard_sanchis Post Number: 40 Registered: 10-2009 Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 08:46 am:    I've had a problem with specifying "work Results" as defined by CSI. It gets close to writing a subcontract, and it goes against rule No. 1 in my book "say it well, but say it once." We have been doing what Steven Bruneel mentions for as long as I can remember. We also split acoustical insualtion and sealants into a separate section because it applies to several wall assemblies besides gypsumboard walls and ceilings. And as a consultant, using narrow scope sections makes business sense; time is always of the essence. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 163 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 12:11 pm:    Work Result is defined by an ISO standard (ISO/DIS 12006-2) not CSI: "Construction result achieved in the production stage or by subsequent alteration, maintenance, or demolition processes and identified by one or more of the following: the particular skill or trade involved; the construction resources used; the part of the construction entity which results; the temporary work or other preparatory or completion work which results." How do you find this close to writing a subcontract? There is nothing in this concept requiring one to say it more than once. There is nothing in the definition that says that it has to include all the components of an assembly (partition metal framing, gypsum board, insulation, sealants, etc.). By the same token, it does not say that all the components of an assembly may not be included. It depends upon the scope of a work result desired. The "Work Result" concept has been promoted by CSI to point out the difference of a product classification (OmniClass Table 23) from a work result classification (OmniClass Table 22). A product is classified in one location in the Products Table. A product may be used for multiple functions and therefore may be located in multiple locations in the Work Results Table (MasterFormat). A specification section almost always includes more than a single product. It usually includes installation, accessory, and other products to achieve an installed work result. MasterFormat includes the choices of broadscope to narrowscope sections. Users have wide choices on the degree of scope in most subject areas based on their type of practice, range of project types, range of assemblies using some of the same components, project location trade practices, and personal preferences among the many factors to be considered. Broader sections may be used in some subject areas and narrower sections in other areas. Efficiency of production as mentioned by Gerard is certainly one of the factors. Readability and ease of understanding by the readers is certainly another factor. Sometimes the design professional would prefer some of the elements of the construction be installed by one party to achieve a better construction result in terms of coordination, water penetration, air leakage, sound isolation, etc. Even though the contractor is free to subdivide the work in any way he wants no matter how the drawings and specifications are organized, the contractor is more likely to subdivide the work similar to the way the specs are organized; often for the same reasons the design professional organized them that way - to have a single point of responsibility for a portion of the work. This sometimes leads the design professional to use broaderscope sections. Another concept that can be used to avoid saying it more than once in larger boardscope sections is to use narrowscope sections on certain subjects to be incorporated into other multiple sections. Sections on shop finishes, insulation, sealants, etc. can be used to specify it once but at the same time included in other larger work results by reference - "Provide _____ sealant in accordance with Section _______." Summary: MasterFormat is very flexible in the scoping of sections - how much and what is included in a particular section. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 537 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 01:11 pm:    Where do I find a guide for determining "the particular skill or trade involved; the construction resources used; the part of the construction entity which results; the temporary work or other preparatory or completion work which results"? I have the education and license of a mere architect and not the omniscience of a construction manager or general contractor. I guess my specs will now be judged as deficient because I don't specify the means, methods, techniques and sequences of construction ... including temporary construction ... and my specs don't establish subcontract scopes and trade jurisdictions. I guess I'll have to invest in the new CSI Practice Guides and get learned anew about how to rite real good spex for the "BIM". Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 510 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 04:42 pm:    OK, I'll take a shot at this. The definition does not indicate who determines the trade, resources, etc., it defines the end result. Nor does it say the architect (or engineer or specifier) must provide the complete description. It does not prevent other entities - contractors, consultants, subcontractors, suppliers, or installers - from participating in the full description or production of the work result. A complete work result is not contained in a single specification section, or in a project manual, or in all of the construction documents prepared by the designer. The main specification section may include information about the required product, about submittals, and about how successful work will be verified. Other sections provide additional information, as do the drawings, and the conditions of the contract. Others then are responsible for providing the rest of the work result. The manufacturer, supplier, installer, and contractor all make contributions. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 969 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 04:51 pm:    Ahh, the words of reason. Well stated. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Gerard Sanchis Senior Member Username: gerard_sanchis Post Number: 42 Registered: 10-2009 Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 05:30 pm:    I said "close," I did not say it was a subcontract but I am happy to read the responses that you all generated. I always learn from this forum and Robert Johnson, as usual, can explain even the most arcane concept by going back in time. It remains to Sheldon to put the final word to this discussion. I wonder if Bob or Sheldon remember the infamous "scopeless" section, one of CSI missteps in the 70s I think. For those too young to have lived thru this permutation of the section format, the text started with "related work or section" and one had to read thru the document (not a bad thing) to find out what was included. Needless to say the concept did not live long. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 164 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2011 - 11:01 am:    I don't remember the "scopeless" SectionFormat and my copies of the SectionFormat don't go back that far to see what it was. Section Includes and Related Sections have always been controversial subjects as evidenced by previous discussions in this forum. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 489 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2011 - 12:21 pm:    I do remember when "Scope" was used as in "Scope of Section" versus "Section Includes". It did not last long. Bad choice of words. If something was not listed in scope it was not provided. The scope was literally The Scope.