| Author |
Message |
Richard Hird PE (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 14, 2012 - 08:32 pm: |    |
I have building elevations that show two contiguous products that are the same generically, but from two separate manufacturers, each with his own installation proceedure. I have both guide specs. I combined them into one section "this time", by not say anything more than per the manufacturer's recommendations.
This makes for a lousy spec, because it says nothing. However the thought of two separate sections for generically the same material is tough. Also I am not sure how the interface is going work other than to "caulk out" the problem
Has anyone had to do something like this before. FYI it is fiber cement panels and there are no "industry standards" I know of. |
Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: tony_wolf
Post Number: 33
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 - 08:30 am: | |
Is a spec that repeats manufacturer's instructions better than a spec that instructs the installer to follow manufacturer's instructions? Not necessarily. There's plusses and minusses, and a lot depends on the situation. But it sure conveys the intent to say "follow manufacturer's instructions" better than having the guy read both the specs and instructions.
Richard, I don't have an answer to your question, but it seems that the drawings should detail the interface between the two systems, as they should for any place where 2 materials meet. Specifying that it be 'calked out' does not seem like it will add anything toward solving the problem. After the detail is drawn, if the specs can add anything, then that is the time to write something. |
Dave Metzger
Senior Member
Username: davemetzger
Post Number: 425
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 - 10:17 am: | |
If there are two adjoining products that are generically the same but from different manufacturers, wouldn't the contractor want to buy them out from just one manufacturer? What is it about the two different products that is so unique, that one manufacturer's product couldn't be used?
I know this doesn't address your question, but I'd think it's worth asking the architect. |
J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, CCS, AIA, LEED AP (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 - 11:22 am: | |
I think you should consider this more of a problem of Drawing coordination. The Drawings should identify each separately (sort of similar to the way we would distinguish between paint colors on a wall elevation). Maybe "Widget Assembly A" and "Widget Assembly B". Then you have to delve into the "salient characteristics" of both the products and the installations. Product differences might have to do with material, shape, or finish. Installation differences could be, well all sorts of stuff. For certain assemblies, the differences in installation could be very minor or significant, but it would be easier if you could say "Widget Assembly A Installation" and "Widget Assembly B Installation" |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 236
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 - 12:14 pm: | |
I'm with Dave on this, but if there really is a salient reason for using two similar systems (why do I get the feeling that it's based on either available sizes or color selections?) it seems like they would need to be drawn and specified as two distinct systems, just as might be required if there were Metal Panels Type 1 and Type 2. Probably more of a drawing issue with furring/strapping, closures, intersection, flashing and transition details as appropriate for each system, as if each were abutting any other dissimilar material.
Hope the design holds up. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 554
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 - 12:57 pm: | |
I believer there's a tendency to create separate Sections for every distinct product. Masterformat Level 4 and 5 numbers and titles seem to encourage this.
Yet, there may be a preferred way to distinguish products, particularly interior finish products. That is, within a Section with a Level 2 or Level 3 number and title, use separate Articles for distinct products.
This way, common requirements may be specified in common Articles and paragraphs; examples are submittal requirements, regulatory requiresment (fire characteristics), cleaning and protection requirements. Distinct requirements may be in separate paragraphs or even subparagraphs (depending upon the magnitude of the text).
For example, I may specify all solid surfacing countertops in a single Section and use separate Articles for distinct requirements for each type of product:
2.1 QUARTZ COMPOSITE SHEET MATERIAL
(to spec CaesarStone)
2.2 SOLID POLYMER SHEET MATERIAL
(to spec Corian)
or
2.1 SOLID SURFACING SHEET MATERIAL - TYPE 1
(to spec Corian)
2.2 SOLID SURFACING SHEET MATERIAL - TYPE 2
(to spec LG HI-MACS)
2.3 SOLID SURFACING SHEET MATERIAL - TYPE 3
(to spec Avonite)
And then there would be releated Articles with similar titles in PART 3 to specify installation. Coordination with the Drawings would be necessary to identify locations for each type of solid surfacing material.
Note that with this scenario, fabrication would need to be in distinct Articles or included in the same Article as the material, with the Articles titled ... COUNTERTOPS rather than ... MATERIAL.
It requires judgment to decide how much detail (levels of Articles and Paragraphs) is appropriate for the project: Broadscope, Mediumscope or Narrowscope type Sections or Articles. Is the resulting spec overkill or underkill? |
|
4specs.com Home Page