"All blame, no fame"

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

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1287 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2012 - 03:45 pm:    I was reading on a musician's forum about how bass players are like football linebackers. When they are doing their job nobody notices. But when they make a mistake, everyone notices! One former football player commented that the linebackers had a saying for this: "All blame; no fame." I was thinking that maybe this applies also to specifiers! Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1410 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2012 - 04:14 pm:    Until something in the specs saves the architect's hide! ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 174 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2012 - 06:40 pm:    When working for a previous employer we had an in-house forum where we had to come up with an analogy to describe what we do. My analogy of a specifier was the staff sergent who trains the officers who then orders us to plunge headlong into a fracas with no clear picture of what we're doing or where we're going. After they get pinned down, they then end up depending on us to pull them out of the mud and take their bullet so they can get the medal. We catch the shrapnel, get blamed for letting them get into trouble, and then start the process all over again. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1411 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 11:40 am:    I'm still looking for small mushrooms (ceramics, candles, whatever) for each of us here to have at our desks. I'm going to resort to looking on the internet this weekend, 'cause I haven't found anything in local stores. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 29 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 01:05 pm:    Wait - I don't understand the mushrooms. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 176 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 01:09 pm:    I presume Lynn is referring to the concept of being kept in the dark and fed manure Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 186 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 01:09 pm:    Instead of all the "woe is me" talk that specifiers like to exchange with each other, why not exchange some success stories. Stories like: * How you recognized a problem the firm was facing and you took a leading role in solving the problem. * How you worked with a project team early in the design process to provide a technical solution to achieve a design objective. * How you became a mentor to a young architect to broaden their knowledge of how a building goes together or how to operate within the industry. * How you saw a need for a general education about understanding contract documents, and you started an in-house CDT class. * How you setup a good feedback system of experiences in the field to revisions in master specification. * How you saw a morale problem during this depression and you came up with an idea to increase staff morale. * How you worked with other staff to set up a coordinated reference detail system to increase quality and reduce costs. * Methods you have used to become a technical resource to everyone in the firm - how you make yourself available, how you have made staff comfortable in coming to you, etc. * How you saw a need for technical education among the staff and started a class on how buildings go together. * Etc. etc. Instead of reinforcing each other in how we are not respected, how about telling each other the ways we have gained respect by our contributions to our firms both within our specialized expertise of specifications and in other ways where we have been able to improve our firm's capabilities, service, and efficiency. Specifiers can be leaders within their firms - they just have to step up and take leadership roles where they see that they can step in and make valuable contributions to their firms. People that continue to make valuable contributions will gain the respect of their firms and will be recognized. Stories such as these can be an inspiration to others to see ways they can increase their value to a firm and gain more respect. Instead of reinforcing the idea that we will never be respected; try the other mode of telling each other how to gain that respect. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 30 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 01:12 pm:    Thanks, Ken and Bob! ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 177 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 01:13 pm:    Point taken Bob. Well said. In fact you are, of course, correct. If we ever want to entice new members into our part of the industry it will take honey, not vinegar, to do so. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1412 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 01:46 pm:    Ken, you're right about the mushrooms. Bob, you are not only right, YOU are an inspiration. I'm sure we can all think of multiple times when we have been an asset - to others AND to our employers. It's a challenge; Bob has thrown down the gauntlet. Who will pick it up first? Annon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 02:34 pm:    Friday Quiz. Twice a month I generate a quiz related to construction documents issues; drawing or photograph, and ask the folks to identify the issue. Each quiz has to be something that our staff cannot Google, Bing, Dogpile, Yahoo search for the answer. So far, after 7 months, I've stumped 'em only one time. And, there have been some funny answers - "Not sure what the problem is, but those are nice shoes the lady is wearing." Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1413 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 03:02 pm:    What a great idea, anon. Would you care to share your quizzes with this group? Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 428 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 04:06 pm:    x2! I want to seem them Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 89 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 04:22 pm:    Bob, I'll get back to you on that one...my brain is a little fuzzy from leaving the office this morning at 6:30 am after ensuring that the Project Manual was finished for the 90% client review submission...the bouncing around on 4 projects in a week tends to blur the lines of coherence!! (all this in an effort to be able to enjoy a cigar with Mr. Hercenberg in a week...well maybe not entirely all, but partly LOL) *adds a couple drops of honey to the vinegar above and smiles innocently* Although we all have our "sour grapes" challenges, I like to think that we are no different than any other person with a job...there is a certain amount of "manure" to shovel with EVERY job. I also like to think that everyone that participates in these discussions are above average in intelligence (after all we are spec writers, altho some people may question that lol) and we do get satisfaction from our jobs and accomplishments...otherwise we would not do what we do! I personally think its good to talk about both successes and challenges, as long as the discussion is honest and balanced. I have learned many things in the time I have participated on this forum from both sides of the discussions (positive and negative). We may think we can attract people to the profession if we talk more about our successes, but how long will the "newbies" last if they don't see some of the "manure" that fertilizes the flowers and rainbows? Ride it like you stole it!!! Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 05:09 pm:    Friday Quiz - stumped! Here is a link to the drawing for the Veteran's Day Friday Quiz. This is the one that stumped the entire staff (+/- 110 folks). http://www.flickr.com/photos/mojoarchitect/6842035448/in/photostream Two questions: What is the problem with this layout? What is missing? Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 419 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 06:15 pm:    Why is the trench drain inside the loading bay and coiling door, rather than outside? Seems to me that would be better than the 1/2 inch vertical step at the coiling door sill. What is the horizontal offset dimension of the pipe bollards from the coiling door jambs? DRCombs (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 06:22 pm:    It shows the steel channel jambs, but not the double steel angle door guides. How about an enlarged plan detail of the actual OH coiling door jamb, showing the anchorage to building? DRCombs (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 06:30 pm:    The coiling door hood shown dotted above? Bollards on the INSIDE? (If there is probability that wall may be struck from the outside - hence the bollards - how is that probability reduced by the mere presence of the vehicle on the inside?) Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 429 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2012 - 08:35 pm:    Mandoor swings wrong way. Bollard's missing a dimension from the garage door jamb to the bollard. (I assume all the jamb detail info is covered by detail referenced on door schedule) Steve Taylor Senior Member Username: steveatwi Post Number: 47 Registered: 07-2008 Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2012 - 06:44 pm:    Regarding the lack of respect for specifiers, I expect you all realize that there isn't much respect for architects among the trades. After I went to work for the Woodwork Institute I figured out at least part of the problem. When the A/E team does everything right the tradesmen don't even notice that they are there. We bid the job, send off the shop drawings, produce the work and when we cash the check we pat ourselves on the back for doing such a good job. But when the design team screws up we gleefully tell each other that architects are the source of all the world's troubles. The problem for specifiers is that nobody notices what you're doing until you make a mistake. When a building wins an award the managing partner doesn't thank the specifier for doing such a great job; he breaks his arm patting himself on the back. Justatim Senior Member Username: justatim Post Number: 32 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2012 - 07:37 am:    All griping aside, I think my long-term experience with a couple of firms isn't too uncommon. Everyone respected my contribution to the projects and, in a bind, they could call me, asking, "Hey Justa, where in the specs does it say that the contractor cannot do such-and-such?" I'd tell them. During project development, they knew that specs were needed and would give me the information I wanted. There I stood, with bits of information in one hand and a lot of words in the other, over a boiling pot of cooking specifications. Wearing my pointed black hat, I'd mumble a few chants, make the cauldron smoke, and rattle some noisemakers. Then, magically, out would pop a specification in full legal armour. They were in awe! Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI Senior Member Username: dwhurttgam Post Number: 97 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2012 - 01:27 pm:    Getting back to the quiz. I would agree with the comment about the item missing being the bollards on the inside as well as the outside. I agree with the 1/2" grade differential at the sill - I usually include a 1/2 " slope from the door to the 1/2" drop also. Along with the dimension missing for the bollards with respect to the jambs, the bollards should either be centered on the face of the jambs (or have the door opening side of the bollards projecting 1" into the door opening so that the bollards truly protect the door jambs from potential damage. With respect to the balance of the discussion - also get the "mushroom treatment" - but also plenty of positive moments and agree that it is an extremely good suggestion to find a way to stress the positive. Will try to take this to heart. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1288 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2012 - 02:02 pm:    "There are two kinds of people, those who do the work and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group; there is less competition there." -Indira Gandhi Annon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, March 19, 2012 - 02:24 pm:    We have a winner! Dale Hurttgam is correct. Location of bollards, as drawn, would not protect the opening. Bollards need to be located aligned with opening, or overlap the opening slightly. Additional bollards should be located on the interior side of the opening. Bollards on the interior of the building would be more important than the ones on the exterior because interior bollards would protect the overhead door track. The trench drain is located on the interior of the building to collect water runoff from the vehicle and to prevent leaking oils from exiting the building. Drain pipe from this trench drain would be connected to an oil / water separator tank. Ready for another one? Here is the first Friday quiz that I sent out: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mojoarchitect/6277263258/ What is the problem with one of the building components in this photograph? Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 430 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2012 - 02:33 pm:    Is the transaction counter on the dutch door on the wrong side? Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 90 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2012 - 02:40 pm:    Well from a Canadian code standpoint, the horizontal members (regardless of being apparently wire or not) wouldn't be acceptable. Our code states that the members can not promote/allow for climbing, so horizontal members are a "no no". Vertical spacing can also not allow a sphere of 100mm (3 7/8") to pass between members (prevents a small, overly curious child's head from becoming stuck should he/she try and get a better look at something) Also not sure what the black piece is on the top rail, but without that piece, the height would not meet guard requirements of 42" (1067mm) Ride it like you stole it!!! Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1302 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2012 - 03:16 pm:    American flag is hung backwards. Union needs to be on upper left as you view full flag when approaching the flag. Salute! Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 138 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2012 - 03:20 pm:    The railing looks to be too short: not 42" AFF Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 139 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2012 - 03:24 pm:    Re: "flag". Are my eyes fooling me? I think I see a gap between the blue field and the first red stripe, hence there are two flags. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 178 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2012 - 03:53 pm:    I would guess that the ugly black rail was added to make up for the fact that the railing didn't meet hight requirements to begin with. There is an issue regarding ability to climb the cables. This looks like a school and that's usually not a good detail in that sort of location. I'm not sure if there is an issue regarding ability to stretch the cables to create an opening in excess of nominal 4 inches. Annon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, March 19, 2012 - 04:09 pm:    We have winners! Paul Gerber, Ellis C. Whitby, and ken hercenberg are correct. The guardrail, as installed, was not 42" high. It was corrected by addition of the black bar welded to the top of the guardrail. Hint: count the 8" high CMU where the guardrail terminates. Paul also pointed out the climbing hazard. Yes, the cable in-fill does present a climbing hazard; however only adults are allowed on this "bridge." We learned this lesson a few years ago and the designers were prohibited from designing any handrail / guardrail with horizontal members. And, a special thanks to Ralph Liebing for pointing out that the U.S. flag is hung backwards. Had not noticed that; and as veteran, that should have been the first thing to catch my attention. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 431 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2012 - 04:36 pm:    Dang, 0 in 2. Well, in my defence, I assumed that the railing height (which I noticed immeadiately) was already fixed with the black toprail, and thus not the subject of the photo. I'm just saying..... :-) Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 92 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - 03:34 pm:    Hmmmm...I guess the codes between Canada and the US are fairly similar!! (and yes I counted the 8" CMU to determine the inadequate height) Ride it like you stole it!!! Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI Senior Member Username: dwhurttgam Post Number: 98 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - 04:19 pm:    With respect to the horizontal components of a guard being designed to not promote climbing - this is not the requirement in most of the U.S. - although definitely a good idea (especially in public areas where children may be). This was in the code (at least BOCA), but the requirement went away when the 3 model codes were merged into the IBC in 2000. T.J. Simons, CSI, CCS (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 01:45 pm:    I've always thought of myself like the long snapper in football-the job is important and valuable, but only a few on the team (or in the office) fully "get" that, you're not in the spotlight like the kicker, and usually don't get attention unless you mess up. Oh, and to be accurate you've got to keep your head down, so you can get kicked in the head a lot. Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 96 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - 05:09 pm:    What happened to the Friday quizzes Anon?!?!?!?!?! LOL...oh wait, it's not Friday yet!! Ride it like you stole it!!! annon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, April 13, 2012 - 10:13 am:    Friday Quiz One issue is very obvious, so, what are TWO issues with this drawing: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mojoarchitect/6922866608/ Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1311 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, April 13, 2012 - 10:50 am:    1. Exterior grade line not shown; also interior slab and foundation [for referencing] 2. Numerous duplications of dimensions, such that drawing has become overly complex and harder to read. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1441 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 13, 2012 - 10:58 am:    1. weep hole appears to be above the flashing 2. flashing doesn't seem to be carried over the sheathing. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 443 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, April 13, 2012 - 11:33 am:    First: Thanks posting another one of these. My score is 0 and 2, so I am going to go cautiously this time. 1. I'm not sure Flashing is the appropriate term for what appears to be a grouted cant. 2. The weather wrap is not effectively annotated or detailed in how it terminates or interacts with the masonry anchors 3. The masonry anchors are not called out, and the way they are shown seems inconsistent with masonry detailing, where the anchors tie in at joints, not into the body of the brick. 4. And I agree with Ralph, the grade line is not shown. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 331 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, April 13, 2012 - 11:55 am:    1. What may be flashing has no apparent lapping detail with the weather wrap. 2. Weep at base seems too high, it should be at the lowest point possible. 3. Mystery anchor into brick, or vertical joint between bricks, instead of at horizontal mortar joint. 4. I would expect 2X6 for a wall rated at R-13 that supports brick veneer, but I'm in California. 5. So many dimensions, I wasted time checking the math. 5. Minimum height to grade should be stated. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1442 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 13, 2012 - 12:03 pm:    Hey, you're only supposed to list 2 issues! You both fail because you didn't follow the instructions... ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 190 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, April 13, 2012 - 12:42 pm:    Agree with much of what is already stated. Brick is typically nominal 4 inches deep. Where did the 2-3/4 inch dimension come from? Anchors shown in brick instead of joints doesn't work. Fitting R-13 insulation into a 3-1/2 inch space works, but why do it? No indication of whether the insulation has a vapor retarder and, if so, where it is located. mortar installed over top of flashing creates a dam so water can't get to the weep. Weeps should be at 16 inches oc depending on type of weep used. No indication regarding proper termination of 'weather wrap' or how wrap and flashing interact. Minimum flashing height not indicated despite overabundance of dimensioning otherwise. No indication of brick height to permit coursing (presume shown on elevation or in specs). Same with mortar joint size. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 420 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Friday, April 13, 2012 - 12:58 pm:    Not only duplication of dimensions as has been noted, but there should be a "float" in the dimension string (in this case, the cavity width) to allow for construction tolerances. No indication of how high flashing extends vertically (and up face of sheathing, not behind sheathing) and termination detail at top of flashing. guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, April 13, 2012 - 11:31 am:    Veneer anchor should be shown in bed joint...not in head joint nor into brick. And as mentioned above, flashing should underlap weather wrap. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 191 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, April 13, 2012 - 03:04 pm:    BTW, Code required spacing of veneer anchors may be picked up in spec so I didn't list that above. Also spacing of wood studs being identified as REF: Structural is questionable since Structural usually only identifies Code requirements based on ACI. Unless the studs are load-bearing, I have to wonder if Structural will address them. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 421 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Friday, April 13, 2012 - 05:25 pm:    If finish flooring is carpet, MDF base is fine. But if flooring is a hard surface such as resilient flooring that gets washed, MDF will absorb water and warp. Booya (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, April 13, 2012 - 06:11 pm:    not if it's water resistant MDF. I specify it all the time for this purpose. Sierra Pine has a product, called Medex, that works for this situation (and there may be others). ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 193 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, April 13, 2012 - 10:09 pm:    Still, products like Medex absorb water; 5% according to the data sheet. I've seen it done, and have specified it when requested by designers, but I'd prefer a real wood base with a significant sealer. Frankly I'm getting a little tired of people using the wrong product for applications just because they're considered 'green'. When are we going to get back to using the right products for applications? Doesn't life cycle mean anything when considering sustainability? Isn't that part of the definition of sustainability? Annon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, April 16, 2012 - 11:13 am:    We have a winner! ken hercenberg (with two posts) has listed two issues. Here are the issues that I noticed. Thanks to all for pointing out other issues shown in this drawing. Most obvious issue: Veneer anchors must occur in mortar joints. Weep holes spacing is not correct. Brick veneer shown is King-size brick – 9-5/8” long. Weep holes should be noted "20" O.C." Vertical coursing should align with finish floor. 1x not required above sill plate. Gypsum board should not extend to finish floor. Wood stud spacing should be called out instead of "REF STRUCTURAL . . ). MDF base should read: "BASE AS SCHEDULED." Some folks pointed out issues that are typical detailing or covered in specifications: Flashing is tucked up and under the sheathing - common practice in our area of the country (southern U.S.) These issues would be covered in specifications: vapor retarder on insulation, spacing of veneer ties, weather wrap installtion, and MDF base would not be specified. Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 100 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Monday, April 16, 2012 - 03:04 pm:    OK, I came late to the party as I had a CRAZY Friday (sorting out detailing issues for one of my "favourite" PA's). I agree with the comments made, but the one thing that nobody commented on was the 2 3/4" air space (why so big? we typically show as 1") and the lack of mortar control device shown at the bottom of the cavity. Rain screen principal doesn't work too well without pressure-equalization of the cavity!?!?!? Not to mention that cavity doesn't drain too well if the weep level is filled solid with mortar droppings. Ride it like you stole it!!! Annon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, April 16, 2012 - 04:52 pm:    Paul, It appears that this drawing may have been originally drawn for modular brick (3-5/8” wide) and at some point was revised to indicate King size brick. Using modular brick would reduce the air space to manageable width of 1-3/8".