Proper Reference to Divisions 1-9

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

Author Message a (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - 01:48 pm:    Is there any official CSI language that talks about the proper way to reference Divisions 1-9? e.g., when should one write Division 1 vs. Division 01? Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1139 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - 02:03 pm:    MasterFormat 1995 and earlier = single digit MasterFormat 2004 and later = double digits The Applications Guide in each shows the format. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com a (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 10:58 am:    So, I am proper (but probably way too anal ;-) if I say and write Division "oh-one" (01) as opposed to Division "one" (1) if I am writing a memo and simply referring to the General Requirements via Division #? I was looking for any MF introductory guide text on how to reference without the context of the entire 6-digit number. Maybe a better question...what do YOU do? (Also, whoops. I should have added this to the MasterFormat 2004 discussion area instead of here.) Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 600 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 11:17 am:    Division 00, 01, 02, 03,. . . . 09 etc ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 589 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 11:28 am:    When speaking, you would still call them Division 1, 2, 3. No need to aspirate an 'oh'. The 01, 02, 03 is only when written. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1140 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 11:32 am:    Division 01 when writing using MasterFormat 2004 and later. Division 1 when writing using MasterFormat 1995 or earlier. I say "zero one" when speaking ("oh" is a letter of the alphabet). That's just me, though. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1684 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 11:46 am:    I, too, use "zero' for numbers instead of "oh". But, usually, when speaking about THE Divisions, will simply use the single digit number. When writing, I always use a leading zero for Divisions 00-09. A good reason to do so is continuity; all divisions are then 2 digits. When ordering them in a list, such as a computer folder, they will order themselves correctly. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 56 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 11:47 am:    IIRC, the MasterFormat police recommend that "Division 00" be pronounced simply "division zero" (no "double aught," etc.) George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 675 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 01:58 pm:    Another bit of trivia: Division 00 as an official division is new to MF04; in MF95 Bidding Requirements, Contract Forms, and Contract Conditions were not called Division 0. At least, not officially - I think a lot of us used the term "Division Zero" informally prior to MF04. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 57 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 02:10 pm:    Right, George. After decades of stonewalling against using the term "Division zero" for those front-end "documents" (CSI wouldn't let us call them "sections," since back then, they weren't, technically, "specifications") and resisting adding additional divisions (typically, "Division 17," for communications, fire protection, or what-have-you), CSI finally caved in, the dam broke, and we now have as many empty divisions "Reserved for Future Expansion" as we once had total divisions (16)! Go figure... Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1685 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 02:40 pm:    Exactly! We couldn't "go figure" out what would be needed in the future, hence we have empty divisions waiting to be filled with space elevators, matter transporters, replicators, living walls, and the stuff of our dreams, going where no one has gone before. I can't wait to see what will fill those divisions! Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 676 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 03:00 pm:    Now, if only we could use "section" for everything, instead of "document" for Division 00... George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 676 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 03:52 pm:    Sheldon, I think the rationale for that is everything in Divisions 01-49 is in three-part section format, and nothing in Division 00 is (Don't you love absolute statements?). Hence Division 00 has to contain documents instead of sections. Now, the real question: Isn't a "Section" also a "Document"? George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1686 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 04:03 pm:    We produce the whole shebang and call it/them Construction "Documents", right? The drawings, the project manual containing both documents and sections - all are "Construction DOCUMENTS". (And yet, somehow, we all figure it out...) Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 58 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 05:17 pm:    All sections are documents, but not all documents are sections... FWIW, SpecLink uses the term "Sections" for the Division 00 documents (that may have to do with programming consistency/convenience). J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 606 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 06:08 pm:    Division 0 was introduced in MF88 (I think) when the bidding and contracting documents were assigned MF numbers. The Division 0 was dropped in MF95 because of concerns that there might be confusion between the Specifications and Bdding and Contracting Documents (which are not specifications). The AIA Owner-Agreement Form says that the Architect prepares specifications, but assists the Owner in preparing bidding and contracting requirements. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 240 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 08:33 pm:    A little off on the years Peter. Numbers for Bidding and Contract Requirements goes back to the first MasterFormat edition in 1978. They were also called Division 0 in 1978. The Division 0 title was dropped in 1983, 1988, and 1995 to return as Division 00 in 2004. The title for the group also changed slightly over the editions. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 677 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 10:28 pm:    If I recall correctly (it's been a couple of years since I used it), you can tweak SpecLink so it uses Document instead of Section for Division 00 files. Regardless, it's an arbitrary convention that adds little. If someone refers to Division 00 sections, I don't think anyone will be confused, nor do I think that referring to a bid form as Section 00-4100 will cause a problem. Only when I'm pulling someone's chain do I correct them when they refer to Division 00 sections; I suspect many specifiers refer to them as sections instead of documents if only because they see no point in trying to get others to use the correct term. Still, in e-mail and other forms of communication with owner or contractor, I toe the line and use document or section as defined. Of much greater concern is the casual use of furnish, install, supply, provide, and similar words. I have a ruler by my desk, and a virtual ruler for e-mail, both of which I frequently use, to no avail. I'm sure I have conversations like this one on every project: "What about the paper towel dispenser?" "The owner is providing that." "So it's not in contract?" "No, the contractor is supposed to install it." "So the owner is furnishing the paper towel dispenser." "That's what I said!" Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 57 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 08:28 am:    I agree, Sheldon, about these language conventions that serve only to divide the specifiers from the non-specifiers. AIA A201 discusses 'specifications' not 'sections.' Even if it did, we can manipulate the definitions for formal, legal purposes, yet still use terms so that we are not seen as pedants in the industry. We determine "proper" language, then find we must enforce it. For example: Why do we have to maintain the strict distinction between ceiling "panels" and "tiles." Who but specifiers care about this language nicety? Maybe we like feeling that the rest of the industry is just not properly informed, even though we're the ones who created and maintain this artificial, arbitrary distinction? This statement can be added to the front-end, if you feel the need to be legally correct: "The documents in Division 00 are not Specifications. References to Division 00 Documents as 'sections' are not intended to imply that they are Specifications." However, the need for this is questionable. It's my experience that legal disputes turn on questions of fact and intent, not nit-picking terms. And I'm with you regarding furnish/install/provide, because these terms are basic and allow for conveying intent efficiently. I feel perfectly comfortable instructing A/E's on their proper use, but I recognize that the occasional misuse [I bet it occurs in at least 50% of contract document sets] does not make or break a lawsuit. Language is our tool, but sometimes we make it our master. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 607 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 10:14 am:    Ceiling tiles? or ceiling panels? Plate glass? or float glass? Yes there is a difference, embedded in the standards that we reference. I once had an architect that said he needed sections for both acoustical tile ceilings and acoustical panel ceilings. Plate glass was last manufactured in the US about 40 years ago (it requires polishing to achieve an optical quality equal to or better than float glass). It drives me crazy to think that such distinctions are trivial matters when we spend so much time on trying to be correct in an industry that sometimes makes a lot of money on ambiguity. Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 17 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 10:48 am:    I prefer to call items in Div-00 it 'documents' instead of 'sections' to help clarify that Div-00 does not contain specifications that are issued under professional seals. I did a project in a northern state that required the TOC to have professional seals over individual lists of sections prepared under the supervision of each registrant. Other than the TOC for specifications and Addenda, what Div-00 contract documents are legally required to be issued under a professional seal? Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 58 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 11:18 am:    How about "ceiling units," or "flat glass?" We should manipulate language beneficially, not make pit-falls. "It drives me crazy to think that such distinctions are trivial matters when we spend so much time on trying to be correct in an industry that sometimes makes a lot of money on ambiguity." It drives me crazy too, to spend time on issues that don't matter. The drawings show 2 x 4 ceiling grid; if the ceiling section calls them tiles but specs the correct products: where's the problem? Does anyone get confused? There are times to use clear and accurate terms, but not for all items at all times. Explain the tile/panel difference to a senior interior designer, who has practiced for years, ignoring the distinction, or ever having an issue. His/her reaction: "So what's the point?" It occurs to me that I've spun off tangentially, so I'm going to remove myself from the discussion and take a nap. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 59 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 12:01 pm:    Louis, that northern state's requirement for specific identification of "who did what" appears to be similar in intent to requirements here in Texas. The last time I checked our architectural and engineering regulations, they (one or both) require that in close proximity to the seal(s) on a bound set of specifications, there be some clear designation as to which designer-of-record is responsible for each portion. As far as I know, there is no industry-wide standard or consistent way of explicitly indicating that. I suspect that in most cases, it is assumed that anyone familiar with industry practice can sort out which sections were prepared by the various disciplines, but that doesn't really meet the requirement. With some sections, there may be ambiguity. For several years, this office has addressed that need by use of a page immediately following the inside cover listing the designers-of-record along with the numbers of their respective divisions and/or sections, and bearing their seals and signatures. The other important element on that page is an explicit disclaimer that the designers-of-record are not responsible for documents that were prepared or furnished by the Owner or others, including but not necessarily limited to the Owner's standard Division 00 Bidding and Contracting Requirements and Division 01 General Requirements Documents [portions prescribed by the Owner, with no editing allowed by the designer], and the Geotechnical Report. Since Texas engineering regulations specifically require that engineers seal and sign the "Title Sheet," that's exactly what we call it (at the top of that page and, when listed, in the table of contents). Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1141 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 12:20 pm:    On some projects, I provide both a table of contents and seals pages (Document 00 01 07; the MF title for this is "Seals Page," but since I provide a sheet for each consultant, I change the title to "Seals Pages"). Each page includes the consultant's contact information (name, company, address, phone, fax, and email), a box for the consultant's seal, and a list of sections they are directly responsible for preparing. Using this method means I can leave off Division 00 documents for the architect. I've had no issues with our state board (Arizona) regarding the format and the consultants seem to like it. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1371 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 01:24 pm:    Hey guys- This is from the Masterspec supporting documents regarding the difference between tiles and panels: " According to ASTM E 1264, the differences between a panel and a tile are the method of support and the type of suspension system. Acoustical panels are used with exposed suspension systems. Acoustical tiles are used with concealed or semiexposed suspension systems, stapling, or adhesive bonding. Although most tiles are smaller than most panels, the size of the acoustical unit does not determine the type." CSI did not make this up, the industry made it up and CSI reflected the industry practice. And, I remember when "float glass" wasn't very common and there was a cost upcharge to get it as opposed to plate glass. Then of course, everyone started floating glass and you can barely get polished plate anymore, nor would you want to. I explain the distinctions to the younger staff in our offices, because I think knowing where we came from helps explain some misconceptions in the industry now. Before I got here, the younger designers decided that the difference between ceiling "tiles " and "panels" was how smooth the surface was. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 470 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 01:59 pm:    One of the things I most enjoy about 4specs is the way a thread discussion will morph seamlessly from one topic to another. This to me is an indication of the wide-ranging knowledge, and integrative mindset, that specifiers have. If specifiers aren't the smartest folks on the project team, I'd be hard-pressed to know who is (and to those non-specifiers who may read this and don't understand specifiers' humor, that's a joke). I'm looking forward to seeing you folks in Nashville in a few weeks. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 678 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 02:57 pm:    Anne, I remember seeing that differentiation many years ago; until that time, based on experience, I thought tiles were 12 inches square and panels were larger. I think I remember also seeing the terms used incorrectly by at least one tile/panel manufacturer. I agree, Dave. It's fun to follow the discussion, and see how far it strays from the original question. In this group, it's always worth reading. In this case, I believe the question was answered immediately, so we had to talk about something. I once worked for a group that decided on its own, not because of State requirements, that the certifications would state which sections each engineer was responsible for. There were occasions when a single section was certified by two engineers; as I recall, the certification stated which parts of the section were certified by each engineer. Fortunately, it didn't get down to the paragraph level. Straying further from the question, why are multiple certifications necessary? Doesn't every firm have a principal who is in responsible charge of an entire project, with others working under that principal's supervision? The buck has to stop somewhere. Taking it one step further, why is it necessary for anyone other than the single licensed professional in charge to certify the documents? If an architect is in charge, for example, the consultant engineers work for that architect, who is responsible for their work, just as the engineers are responsible for those they supervise. I know, I know, that's the way it is, but it doesn't make sense. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 60 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 03:34 pm:    Actually, since no licensed design professional can legally or ethically seal documents not prepared under his or her direct supervision and responsible charge, documents for each discipline generally require sealing by a different person, though there are exceptions. I believe disciplinary boundaries in engineering are not so strict that they prohibit licensed PEs from sealing any engineering work for which they consider themselves competent. Hence, mechanical engineers will sometimes seal related electrical documents. And "architectural engineering" includes structural, MEP, and perhaps other building-related disciplines, and there may be some overlap between MEP, or civil and structural, allowing engineers licensed in one discipline to seal documents of another. Texas rules used to require that Architects also seal documents prepared and sealed by their engineering sub-consultants. That was changed many years ago, when it was realized what a blatant violation it was of the principle stated above... John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1527 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 04:38 pm:    Just because an incorrect use of a term may not really create confusion in the field - such as calling a ceiling panel a ceiling tile - that should not suggest that we not be as precise with our use of language as possible. As to whether we need to constantly correct our coworkers, that is another matter. I would endeavor to make sure they knew the correct language for use on drawings and models, but certainly not worry about it in a meeting or conversation. Christopher Borcsok Senior Member Username: ckb Post Number: 10 Registered: 06-2013 Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 09:43 pm:    I think I have this right... MF95 -> MF2004 Division 1 General Requirements -> Division 01 General Requirements Division 2 Site Construction -> Division 02 Existing Conditions Division 3 Concrete -> Division 04 Concrete Division 4 Masonry -> Division 04 Masonry Division 5 Metals -> Division 05 Metals Division 6 Wood and Plastics -> Division 06 Wood, Plastics, and Composites Division 7 Thermal and Moisture Protection -> Division 07 Thermal and Moisture Protection Division 8 Doors and Windows -> Division 08 Openings Division 9 Finishes -> Division 09 Finishes Division 10 Specialties -> No Change Division 11 Equipment -> No Change Division 12 Furnishings -> No Change Division 13 Special Construction -> No Change Division 14 Conveying Systems -> Division 14 Conveying Equipment ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 591 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, August 30, 2013 - 09:57 am:    Division 03 Concrete Go to http://csinet.org/numbersandtitles for more info. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1528 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, August 30, 2013 - 05:46 pm:    Also, except for existing conditions, this big change: Division 2 (95)-> Divisions 31, 32, 33 (04) John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 660 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Saturday, August 31, 2013 - 01:38 am:    Who is responsible for the following Sections, which are used for "work results" specified by several design professionals on a typical project? 03 10 00 - Concrete Forming and Accessories 03 20 00 - Concrete Reinforcing 03 30 00 - Cast-in-Place Concrete Consider the following "work results" included in the three Sections above: - Building footings and foundations - Concrete slabs on grade (building interior) - Concrete slabs on grade (exterior, not paving ... trash enclosures "floors" and dumpster landing pads) - Concrete slabs on grade with decorative finish (i.e., polished concrete) - Concrete fill on steel decking - Concrete fill on steel pan stairs and landings - Cast-in-place "housekeeping" pads for fire protection (pumps), plumbing, HVAC and electrical (switchgear, generators) equipment Are separate sections to be produced by each responsible design professional for "their" cast-in-place concrete? I don't see how Masterformat accommodates an indication of which design profession is responsible. Should the responsible design professionals come up distinct but similar Sections with Level 4 numbers, adding a period and two suffix numbers to the 6-digit Section number plus a distinct title that indicates responsibility by the "sructural engineer", "civil engineer", "landscape architect", "fire protection engineer", "plumbing engineer", "HVAC engineer", "electrical engineer", "food service equipment designer" and "signage designer"? And remember not to confuse the three Sections above with the cast-in-place concrete work specified in: Section 13 31 23 - Tensioned Fabric Structures (foundation for steel pipe supports) Section 13 34 23 - Fabricated Structures (i.e, concrete foundation and slab on grade part of pre-engineered/prefabricated guard booths?) Section 26 05 46 - Utility Poles for Electrical Systems Section 26 32 13 - Engine Generators Section 26 56 13 - Lighting Poles and Standards Section 31 63 00 - Bored Piles Section 31 74 00 - Tunnel Construction Section 32 11 36 - Concrete Base Courses Section 32 31 13 - Chain Link Fences and Gates (fence post foundations) Section 32 31 16 - Welded Wire Fences and Gates (fence post foundations Section 32 31 19 - Decorative Metal Fences and Gates (fence post foundations Section 33 13 13 - Concrete Paving Section 32 16 00 - Curbs and Gutters are exterior concrete stairs and ramps part of concrete retaining walls or concrete paving)? Section 32 32 00 - Retaining Walls Section 32 84 23 - Underground Sprinklers (controller bases and thrust blocks on piping)Section 33 42 16 - Concrete Culverts Section 33 81 16 - Antenna Towers And remember, the specs are supposed to: "Be clear, correct, complete and concise" and "Say it once, in the most appropriate location" and Don't take responsiblity for anyone eles's portion of the design (i.e., what's covered by the architect and each consulting design professional's {license} stamp.) John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1530 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Saturday, August 31, 2013 - 12:42 pm:    John, I think many of these have always required close collaboration and agreement between the architect, engineer, and in some cases, landscape architect. Nothing about MasterFormat '04 changed any of that. Architects have always had to discuss with the structural engineer what finishes to put on a slab, for example. Scopes of work with subconsultants need to be carefully delineeated. I used to prepare some earthwork sections that the civil engineer reviewed and commented on, and I commented on certain sections prepared by the structural engineer - which I expected him (usually him) to change. I don't think there has traditionally been such an absolute strict separation between the professions, in particular in the specifications, such that one would not touch or be involved in the other. (This is the kind of thing designers criticize contractors for, with regard to their subcontractors, all the time!) If it is desired, then separate narrow-scope sections could certainly be created. In the end, I don't think that there is one universal way that work between practicing professionals needs or has to be split up. That depends on the contractual agreement and local practices. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1142 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Saturday, August 31, 2013 - 12:52 pm:    MasterFormat isn't suppose to indicate which design profession is responsible--that is up to the design professionals themselves. For example, the cast-in-place concrete in my experience has been the responsibility of the structural engineer; however, the architect has input on finish and color if left exposed. Likewise, the architect has typically taken responsibility for expansion control, but the structural engineer provides input of type of movement and joint width. There are multiple examples of this "cross pollination" in the specifications. Would an architect allow an electrical engineer to select the types of lighting fixtures? Many sections are prepared by one design professional, but cannot be completed without the input/review of another design professional. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 603 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, August 31, 2013 - 01:38 pm:    The Structural Engineer needs to be responsible for the sections when the concrete is used for the building he designs. 03 10 00 - Concrete Forming and Accessories 03 20 00 - Concrete Reinforcing 03 30 00 - Cast-in-Place Concrete Since the structural engineer also should have responsibility for the metal deck sections, since he is designing the metal deck, the coordination with concrete should be no problem. Foundations for tensile fabric structures are part of the building. They should not be specified in a section of tensile fabric structures. There is a need for coordination with the architect regarding concrete finishes. In my experience a major impediment to making this happen has been the failure of the architect to respond when I have tried to understand what types of finishes will be used on the project. I then made educated guesses and I do not recall having problems in the field. Where there are significant finish concerns the architect has used a concrete finishes specification section. This seems to work but almost universally the architect has not shared what they are proposing, so it could be coordinated with the concrete sections, before the bid documents were submitted. Housekeeping pads that are located in a building are typically covered under the concrete for the building. Where there is significant exterior concrete there is often separate concrete sections authored by the civil engineer or the landscape architect. These sections in most cases could be combined with the building concrete work but typically they prefer a specification they are used to and are unwilling or unable to coordinate the differences. On one project the Civil engineer was specifying standards that were 20 years out of date. When there are different versions of concrete specification sections for different work the section title and scope provide clarity. For example a section would be titled “Site Work Concrete Formwork”. No reference would be made to specific design professionals for the same reasons we do not refer to specific sub contractors. Concrete retaining walls can be covered in the building concrete section if shown on the structural drawings. If they are shown on civil engineers drawings the work and there are separate site-work concrete sections it would be covered in those sections. Most significant retaining walls are shown on the structural drawings because of licensing limitations, for landscape architects, or because of liability concerns in the case of Civil Engineers. Concrete paving and base courses are a different animal and need to be covered in a different location. This work often makes uses of different standards than are used for building work. Similar with concrete tunnels. For fences, utility poles, or lighting poles it is typically appropriate to refer to one of the concrete specification sections on the project. Unless it has been specifically engineered this is not critical concrete. A lot of the confusion goes away if you specify details of concrete in a few specific locations and if you then point to these locations from other locations where concrete in mentioned. It is assumed that before pointing to a given concrete specification section the author of that section will be notified. I think the word is coordination. This is not rocket science. If based on these guidelines somebody still has problems I will be available for consulting. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 661 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Sunday, September 01, 2013 - 03:17 pm:    I was responding to the issue of including signed professional license seals in the Project Manual to identify design professionals responsible for various sections, for code compliance and building permit purposes. Sure, MF04 et al, didn't change the fact that multiple design professionals have input into various specification sections, if not responsibility. But what I heard is that code authorities are demanding identification of the party responsible for producing the spec Section. I think one of the places where the problem with this becomes acutely apparent is cast-in-place concrete, particularly the difference between "structural" and "non-structural" requirements for concrete. I suppose separate "structural" and "non-structural" concrete Sections can be produced, with liberal cross-referencing for integral color, concrete floor finishes, forming surface qualities, curing/hardening/sealing and location in the Work. For example, exterior concrete slabs on grade, such as the dumpster landing pad at a trash enclosure, could be specified in a distinct "site" concrete Section (distinct from concrete paving). What's a couple more spec Sections in the Project Manual? "A lot of confusion goes away if you specify details of concrete in a few locations and if you then point to these locations from other locations where concrete is mentioned." Now I get it: The BIM will solve the problem! Go for it, Reviteers! John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1531 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Sunday, September 01, 2013 - 04:48 pm:    Or, the structural engineer could merely be responsible for those bits of non-structural concrete and save everyone a bit of headache. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 610 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Sunday, September 01, 2013 - 05:47 pm:    I am not sure a 4 or 5 acres of concrete parking lot (frequently more concrete than required by the building itself) along with required underground detention structures and assorted other civil construction qualifies as "bits of non-structural concrete." This issue really hasn't come up before, but I have been a bit concerned. I will sometimes get separate cast-in-place concrete sections from the structural, civil, and landscape consultant. It seems to get sorted out during CA, but I am sure that the structural engineer is not interested in reviewing submittals for concrete paving. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 604 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, September 02, 2013 - 04:00 am:    First we need to be clear among the design team who is the design professional that authors a specification section, then keep track of the requests to change the technical specification. This does not have to be reflected in the specification manual. This way we can be clear who is responsible for what design decision. Let us consider a situation where the architect requests a particular admixture to reduce permeability or to create a particular color of the concrete. The engineer’s liability would be related to his contractual obligations. Thus the engineer would have liability if the concrete did not have the required strength, but if the permeability or color were not as desired the architect would have liability. This may not be much different from when the engineer shows some features on their drawings to satisfy a request from the architect. With respect to the Building Departments request we have two questions, who is liable for what work and whether the documents are properly sealed and stamped. The building official is responsible for determining whether the completed project complies with the code. It is not the building official’s job to determine who has contractual liability. That is a contractual issue between the owner and his consultants not a concern of the building official. With respect to the need to clarify the scope of the professional seal, I suggest that question is better left to the state agencies that regulate the practice of architecture and engineering. I suggest the current practice of all design professionals stamping and signing the cover sheet satisfies the concerns of the building department. How is this different from the situation where, although not common, two design professionals signing the same drawing because it includes work that multiple design professionals are responsible for. The building department does not have the authority to regulate the practice of engineering or architecture and thus it is not within their responsibility to determine that the current practice is not acceptable. When you talk about the engineer being responsible for the bits of non-structural concrete we should be careful what we mean. If the concrete is not shown on the structural drawings then I would suggest that another design professional decided that the concrete mix design in the concrete specification was adequate and is responsible for his decision. If this other design professional requested a special mix design that the structural engineer accommodated then the structural engineers responsibility does not extend to the adequacy of the special mix properties requested by the other design professional. If another design professional shows some “non-structural concrete” that was never coordinated with the structural engineer I would suggest that the structural engineer is not responsible for the amount and configuration of the reinforcement in this concrete. Most structural engineers are willing to assist with non-structural concrete if they are paid for the added work, and are involved in the coordination and the decisions how to document this concrete. A particular irritant is when an architect notes on the drawings see structural drawings without talking with the SE and as a result the structural drawings do not provide the necessary information.. If there are multiple concrete specification sections the concrete mix designs should indicate what specification section they are associated with. Thus the engineer would not see the site concrete mixes. If the contractor desires to use the same mix for both parts of the building and for site uses both consultants would review each mix design submittal and where necessary they would have to coordinate their responses. BIM does not solve the problem. It may create bigger questions. Christopher Borcsok Senior Member Username: ckb Post Number: 11 Registered: 06-2013 Posted on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 11:40 pm:    Ken, John, thanks for the catch. Obviously a typo on my part, but the interesting thing I notice is for everything EXCEPT div 10, 11, 12, and 13 can one properly identify if it's '95 or '04, either by the number, or by a changed division name (and in some cases, both). Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 107 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2013 - 06:55 am:    "a (Unregistered Guest)" sure learned how this group digresses ;) "casual use of furnish, install, supply, provide, and similar words." --Many of the clients I have worked with in Transportation do not define these words & typically have their own "front end" including General Conditions. Many clients also require the use of "Specifications" for "Project Manual." At the end of the day one does what the client wants. Basically, I agree with what Mark said... --I have always preferred one CIP section (with multiple mix designs, if necessary). Of course paving is different (and would NOT include other site elements - think of concrete paving design similar to asphalt design & you get the picture). Site civil engineers tend to be indifferent to specifying concrete, preferring to allow the SE's decisions prevail. It is not that difficult to reference other sections. --I have come to strictly control the issue of coordination of concrete and all sections, with a spreadsheet defining primary and secondary authorship of each section. This way consultants cannot spring "their own" concrete section on the lead specifier ;) I insist on everyone coordinating with other disciplines. -- I recently had the need to write a specific Concrete Finishing section for integrally colored concrete. I asked the SE to review & comment and he was glad to do so. Nor have I ever had a geotech consultant refuse to review the Earthwork section. ...just don't understand the failure of architects to perform this simple step. Why not get help wherever one can? BTW, I am consulting while picking up some classes... if anyone needs my help on the transportation/engineering side, be glad to do so. Karen L. Zaterman, CSI, CCS, SCIP-Affil, LEED AP BD+C Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 605 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2013 - 01:04 pm:    Difficulties with having one CIP Section Consultants do not coordinate. The architect needs to motivate consultants. A consultant takes the position he does not need a specification section since all the information is in his General Notes on the Drawings One or more consultants sees their concrete specification section as a black box. If it is a black box you cannot negotiate. Divergent specification approaches. For example some specify performance criteria while others specify prescriptive properties of the mix. The concrete suppliers are strongly supporting specification of performance criteria. Sometimes it takes more time to negotiate a mutually agreeable specification section than it is worth. Suggest letting the consultant with the most sophisticated master take the lead. Probably a bigger issue than one CIP section is coordination of the mix designs so that, where possible, the contractor can use the same mix design for building concrete and site concrete. This is especially a concern if exposed building concrete is placed adjacent to site concrete that is visible and where it is desirable that they look the same. Where color and texture are important do so by requiring mock-ups. Resist the urge to specify specific materials, mix proportions, and detailed installation and finishing procedures. Consider providing color chips and referring to industry publications that define the various textures. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1535 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2013 - 02:51 pm:    It depends in part on the relative amounts of each. In the scenario I was postulating, the "other" concrete items were typically equipment pads or similar small stuff, not entire paved parking lots (concrete paving is rare in New England, not having been used much since the original interstates were built). The largest items would have been various concrete site walls. Mark's comments, as usual, are spot-on. Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 109 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2013 - 01:38 am:    Oh yes, Mark's comments are. Some things there I hadn't thought of. Very interesting ...Thanks! Mock ups were part of that spec. It has occurred to me that we sometimes have different points of view as my experience is from horizontal construction whereas most of the participants of this forum are more conversant with vertical construction. Best to all, Karen Karen L. Zaterman, CSI, CCS, SCIP-Affil, LEED AP BD+C