AESS Guide Spec

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

Author Message ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 604 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, September 26, 2013 - 02:05 pm:    Not sure if everyone knows about this - http://www.aisc.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=17506 Just thought I'd share just in case. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 615 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 26, 2013 - 02:16 pm:    I just came across a hardcopy this week while updating my reference information. I also downloaded the PDF to my material reference folder. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 410 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, September 26, 2013 - 02:19 pm:    That is a constant reference that I keep on my desktop in a "Reference Standards" folder. FYI - I signed up with AISC recently and their "store" sent me a hardcopy in the mail for free. Although only 16 pags in length, it came in a box that was about 18 by 18 by 8 inches, filled with air pillows! I felt special for a moment. Luke Field New member Username: archlvf Post Number: 1 Registered: 12-2013 Posted on Friday, December 06, 2013 - 02:03 pm:    Hi all - new to the forum, so apologies if this is being asked in the wrong spot. I'm an architect in Cincinnati, and have been fighting with contractors lately trying to get good looking welds from them. Is this guide now the best standard to reference in order to get good looking welds? I saw some older posts on this forum that suggested the NOMMA guide, which also seems to be a good standard. In the past, we've called for 'AESS steel' in our consruction documents, but have still not been getting good results. (welds are sloppy, not ground smooth, and the contractors are scratching their heads at us). Others on this forum have said that calling out 'AESS steel' and referencing 'AISC code of Standard Practice' was the way to go. I looked into those standards a bit, but there wasn't a good visual reference to follow (at least one that was free. Eventually got to AWS1.1 but didn't want to buy it). Wondering if this 16 page document is the way to go... or NOMMA... or some other way of conveying the desired finish? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! luke www.citystudiosarch.com Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 621 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, December 06, 2013 - 02:19 pm:    Luke, The AISC document identified by Ken at top of this thread is full of visual images. Wayne Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 481 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Friday, December 06, 2013 - 02:37 pm:    AESS is applicable to structural steel. The NOMMA (National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association) standards are for ornamental metal work (railings for example). In our ornamental railings section, we specify "Weld joints in accordance with National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association (NOMMA) “Voluntary Joint Finish Standards”: Finish 1: No evidence of a welded joint." and have been successful in having this enforced to get the desired results. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1547 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, December 06, 2013 - 02:48 pm:    One could also use a sample weld submittal for critical work. At least then the arguments could start before any actual work was completed. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 698 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, December 06, 2013 - 02:53 pm:    Just calling out "AESS" isn't enough, since there are levels of finishing in that reference standard if I remember correctly. You need to be more specific about what part of the standard you want, as Dave's example. And the idea of using a photograph reference is a good one. I am surprised more specifiers don't use it for things like AESS, concrete finish, plaster and others where there are visual references to use. But what about a mock up? No reason you can't require a small mock up of how welds will be finished. If it is critical enough, you can even design and do a drawing of the mock up so that you show all the important locations and types. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Allegion PLC (formerly Ingersoll Rand) St. Louis, MO George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 699 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, December 06, 2013 - 02:55 pm:    ooops... or a sample weld submittal. TY, John. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Allegion PLC (formerly Ingersoll Rand) St. Louis, MO Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 619 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, December 06, 2013 - 08:34 pm:    The AISC document is not a standard but it is probably the best guidance as you discuss the tradeoffs with the designers and the owner and then write a specification. As I recall AISC sells the samples of workmanship so they could be used to define what is acceptable. Early on there should be a discussion of the cost implications with the designers. This normally results in a realignment of expectations. Helaine K. Robinson CSI CCS CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 394 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Saturday, December 07, 2013 - 11:41 am:    Hello Luke! I am also in Cincinnati. Was there a specification section for AESS in the project manual? Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA SCIP Secretary & Certification Chair, CSI Cincinnati Chapter Education Chair, CSI Great Lakes Region QSPECS Landline: 513.761.1465 Email: hollyrob19@gmail.com J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 652 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Saturday, December 07, 2013 - 01:01 pm:    I am not at all sure that you want AESS. In my experience this would be called AE$$ (like $tarbucks, only with steel instead of coffee). I use AESS when the architect wants a "near museum quality: project, and the specification would be extended to cover finish of steel surfaces and bolt head alignment. When you just want the weld to look like a good weld without large pinholes, pitting, and spatters, the NOMA standard should do very well. I would request samples of both shop and field welds and not permit any fabrication until you have had a chance to review them. So if the steel stairs show up without you having seen the samples, have them send it back (you better have a very good relationship with the Owner). Best to emphasize this at the pre-construction meeting. I remember in metal shop practicing my welding on a piece of 1/4-inch bar stock. We couldn't actually weld something until we had done an acceptable 4-inch long weld. Most of the field welding I see is pretty good; not AESS by any means, but pretty good. Sometimes I will see a weld that is so sloppy that I wonder how it is actually holding something up. A properly done AESS weld will show no evidence of welding. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 620 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, December 07, 2013 - 03:56 pm:    AESS comes in different flavors. You start with the AESS provisions in the AISC Code of Standard Practice and then address the various issues discussed in the guideline noted above. Do not assume that it is all or nothing. When dealing with structural steel I would follow the approach adopted by AISC since that is what the fabricators understand. Need I say that you should be talking with your structural engineer when specifying AESS. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1548 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Sunday, December 08, 2013 - 03:24 pm:    I also used AESS very successfully. The documents were very specific about what level of finish was required in what locations/situations. We also took care not to over-specify by asking for a better finish than was really needed. I think when one is careful to plainly lay out where this expensive work is needed and where it isn't, problems are minimized. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 308 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Sunday, December 08, 2013 - 07:16 pm:    As George and others allude to, there are 3 predefined levels of AESS. I recall the upcharge over regular structural steel being around 25% to 200% (depending on your design decisions. quite a range, that$ why you don't want to just say AE$$) BUT don't quote me on that, look for the AISC's guidance on this. They have an excellent cost matrix spreadsheet that defines the three categories and allows you to even customize the features to anything in between, while giving you an approximation of the upcharge specific to your design. I hope memory serves on those numbers, can't find it on a mobile browser. Since there is quite a range of cost you might want to specify a code for each category in the design with the definition you want, and indicate locations of each category on the drawings - e.g. AESS1, AESS2, AESS3. That's why it is not "all or nothing". Even if you only want Category 3, the lea$t expensive predefined level, or even a lesser custom level, you can soec only that kevel and note as AESS. But if it is not structural though, just miscellaneous steel fabrication then look into Dave's NOMMA reference mentioned above, not AESS. I think we could help you a bit more Luke if we knew more about the application. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 622 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, December 09, 2013 - 11:30 am:    The 3 categories are: CATEGORY 1: High profile conditions that are within reach to touch and can be viewed in close proximity CATEGORY 2: High profile conditions that are out of reach to touch and can be viewed in close proximity within 20 feet CATEGORY 3: High profile conditions that are out of reach to touch and can be viewed from a distance of 20 feet or more I agree with Chris' and Peter's definition of AE$$. Is AESS really necessary for Categoreies 2 and 3 locations? William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 891 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, December 09, 2013 - 11:38 am:    Category 2 could easily be a canopy at a main entrance - out of touch, within 20 feet (often 10 to 15 feet) Weld quality, end cut quality, stamps/markings, and burrs and other irregularities are plainly visible - I have seen examples of typical structural steel in these locations. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 420 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, December 09, 2013 - 01:03 pm:    We use the AISC guide to define that which of the 3 categories of AESS mentioned above we need for each project. To control AESS costs on a project is is extremely important that the Drawings clearly define th scope. The most common AESS application we see are diagonal steel braces in new or retrofitted steel frame buildings in seismic zones. These are often the only AESS component on a project. Because so much of the cost of AESS work occurs at welded joints and other connections, we include steel elevation drawings clearly showing the extent of each diagonal brace that will be concealed by interior finishes. Many times only the middle of a diagonal brace is exposed to view with some or all of the joint at columns or beams completely concealed. Being able to clearly define a limit of work for AESS is critical to controlling costs. Interestingly, a recent Airport project included a very long enclosed pedestrian bridge designed by a structural engineer consultant who specializes in bridge work. The bridge engineer referenced CalTrans (California Department of Transportation) standards for the finishing of the exposed bridge underside that would be seen at a distance from the highway it crosses. This standard is somewhat akin to Category 3. For the Category 1 diagonal braces that were exposed to touch within the bridge building envelope we also included a seperate AESS spec. The column and beam joints were completley concealed by interior finishes in this design, so the interior AESS spec could be limited to controlling shop and mill marks in the exposed to view areas, specifying seamless tube shapes and special paint finish systems. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 02:44 pm:    What am I missing here? Where in AISC 303-10 are three categories indicated/defined? Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 421 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 04:27 pm:    Several posts were refering to "Architecturally Exposed Structural Steel - A Supplement to Modern Steel Construction", May 2003; which is the still current document available from AISC for AESS. This includes a spreadsheet of the various work items that go together to make AESS, along with relative cost commentary for each item as well as checklists for Category 1 through 3 grades of AESS that incorporate different mixes of the line items. From the spreadsheet: CATEGORY 3 - High profile conditions that are out of reach to touch and can be viewed from a distance 20 feet or more (pre-set) Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 422 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 04:29 pm:    Sorry, hit the wrong key... CATEGORY 2 - High profile conditions that are out of reach to touch and can be viewed in close proximity within 20 feet. CATEGORY 1 - High profile conditions that are within reach to touch and can be viewed in close proximity. Luke Field Junior Member Username: archlvf Post Number: 2 Registered: 12-2013 Posted on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 05:32 pm:    Thanks for all the guidance! sorry for the late response- I was supposed to get emails when responses were made, but apparently didn't set that up correctly. We have a pretty tight spec in terms of requiring mockups and samples. However, we either don't get the samples (despite repeated requests, talking about it in pre-construction meetings, and comments in the shops about not starting fabrication prior), or we do receive them, but the subcontractors bids didn't reflect the higher quality welds. Granted, this is technically not our problem. But it of course becomes our problem... not to mention that some projects lately have been GMP contracts with the Owner-builder, so ultimately it becomes a group problem/discussion. Sounds like the AISC Code of standards is only effective for aesthetics if we either use it in conjunction with the Supplement, or if we clearly indicate which sections within it are to be followed? We were using the AESS designation for all our structural steel at a 2-story staircase, and extended it to include the handrails. Sounds like these should have been separated into an AESS section and a NOMMA section. do you all see any issue using the NOMMA weld standards to describe our steel welds (both at structural and non-structural locations)? Obviously with this approach we'd only be addressing aesthetics, and would leave structural issues to the engineers' specs. Helaine, there was a spec section that described to some degree the look we were hoping for and referenced AWSD1.1 and D1.1M Once again, thank you all for the very helpful posts. -luke Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 423 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 05:56 pm:    Luke, You will need to define your AESS clearly and the Supplement is a recognized reference standard. Both AESS and Architectural Concrete scare Contractors to death because they will automatically assume the worst case of Architect's unsatisfiable pie in the sky fantasy visions unless you clearly define the scope for either. One thing to bird dog is that the structural engineer may not need continuous welds (and not show them on their structural details) but you want them in some places purely for esthetics. I have seen interior-only situations where in place as-built steel with non-AESS welds was finished with automotive body fillers (bondo) and a lot of sanding. You can try that at home (literally our own office remodel 20 years ago) but am I not comfortable recommending it to a client. It is definitley not part of the Supplement guidelines. If you haven't already, go to the AISC website and type AESS into the search box. The first item found should be the free download file for the AESS supplement. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 654 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 06:50 pm:    Ah, yes... The ol' "But I didn't bid it that way" gambit. This is where you have to guess whether they are crooked or stupid. If they are crooked, they get paid twice; if they are stupid, they get paid and go on being stupid (there being no penalty for stupidity). I really like Steve's take on all of this to be as proactive as possible up front, and I am going to recommend one of my clients take a look at this thread. At the end of the day, however, you can only do so much before the rest of the team begins to see you as an obstacle to execution of the work. I cannot stress enough my view that you must have the Owner on board with this. Let them know what AESS is, what it looks like, what it entails from fabricator and erector/installer, and why it is important to the project. If the Owner doesn't really see why it is necessary, you won't get the backup you need when the Contractor tries to get around this. Both crooked and stupid contractors need to find another economic sector in which to waste people's time. If you have everything documented, and you have the Owner's backing, you can get him to eat the cost (even if he didn't bid it that way). The cost of making up the schedule may be more difficult. When the Contractor complains that he is losing money, you can suggest that he find a more lucrative line of work. In most instances, however, the Owner will not see the benefit of delaying the job and paying extra money; he may complain afterward that the work he accepted is shoddy, but he probably won't reject it. Sigh..... Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 624 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, December 11, 2013 - 02:29 am:    According to AISC stairs are not structural steel but I have been known to make it so for the project. If your engineer shows the stair railing he will typically expect to cover it in the structural steel specification section. The AISC document on AESS is not a reference standard but it can be a useful tool in customizing your steel specifications. I encourage architects to consider bondo since it may be a lot cheaper than finishing the welds. AWS D1.1 has visual inspection criteria but this has nothing to do with aesthetics. If you referenced the AISC Code of Standard Practice be careful because the document has some commercial terms that are not in the best interests of the Owner or his designers. Suggest that the structural engineer be involved in the development of the AESS specifications.