Calling Structural Engineers, please ...

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1047 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 11:17 am:    I am working on a project where the structural engineer is providing a full concrete spec section , a full concrete unit masonry spec section, and a full augercast pile spec section. There are steel columns in the job, but only a few, so the structural engineer says he is not providing a spec section for structural steel, that those specs are on the drawings...as I pull my hair out trying to find out why, I am told its because the structural engineer would have to edit their base master spec too much for the few columns - please Mr Structural Engineer, explain this mentality to me, even for South Florida, this is really bazaar...oh by the way its a condo job to boot...maybe I should change my user name to "frustrated specwriter"? Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 125 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 11:33 am:    I've had a wide variety of experiences with structural specs. So I hope lots of people comment here. My preferred method is to take a master, edit out the stuff I know for sure we don't have on the project, write notes in it to the engineer, tell them to turn on hidden text to see the master's notes-to-specifier and have them edit it in the Word file and send back to me. When engineers insist on using their own, it seems as if they just take the spec from the last project, which was taken from the previous project... etc. I find myself asking the engineer do we really have brick on this project... Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1048 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 11:50 am:    Liz, there are only a few structural engineers I work with that I have agreements where I will prepare their spec sections and they in turn must mark these sections up, than I prepare the final section which they must approve and take full responsibility for. Most of the time the Structural Engineer prepares their own specifications. Structural Engineers can be pig-headed and extremely stubborn (no offense to my structural engineer friends on 4pecs), I just looked at a set of sections that you could easily tell were archaic, copied from a previous job used long ago, but the engineer claimed he had prepared them from scratch just for this particular job, please. unfortunately for him, I had worked on the previous project, so I sent him a copy of the previous spec job, off the record, and he backed off cause I caught him with his pants down...the job was over 10 years old and the specs were word for word the same. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 672 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 11:58 am:    I had a structural spec a couple of years ago that specified CMU by referencing UBC standards. This for CMU that wasn't even holding anything up (except itself). Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 627 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 12:22 pm:    Structural engineers abdicating their duty and standard of care is a common occurence throughout the country. Structural general notes are the cause of this shortcut. These general notes ("specifications") are boilerplate language, incomplete, uncoordinated, ignore the Architect's design. Call them out and they get defensive. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 430 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 12:54 pm:    Fortunately, for our large California hospital projects we work with structural engineers who produce competent, up to date specifications, but that only tends to emphasize the exceptions. The structural engineer in a southwestern state that insisted that we provide their specs. I spent a full day in a conference room on speakerphone reading aloud to him the unedited Masterspec sections so he could tell me what to edit over the phone. That turned out well, next time he produced his own specs. The structural engineer for a bridge in California whose specs consisted of just the edits to the California Dept. of Transportation standard specs (he didn't provide the master). With edits that sounded like free verse, "Article 1.2.3: Replace ASTM A36 with Caffee Vanilla Frapuccino"; "Article 2.3.4: Replace yield point with allowable deflection". Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 638 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 04:30 pm:    This behavior exists because with rare exceptions most structural engineers have had no training in specifications, they have done projects in the past with only general notes, clients have not insisted that they prepare specifications, and because they do not appreciate the reality that the general notes are shorter because they do not address many of the requirements in the code. I have found that once structural engineers realize that their failure to produce specifications will make it difficult to get projects from an architect, they will change. On the other hand if there are no consequences they will likely not change. An architect calling an engineer “pig-headed and extremely stubborn” brings to mind the word chutzpah. Scott McIntosh-Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 92 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 05:44 pm:    I studied architecture at an engineering school. While I was there, I observed a certain, ahem, contempt on the part of my engineering classmates towards the written word. If it couldn't be said in numbers, it wasn't worth saying. (This attitude was often carried out into the world of work.) That, and the sheer difficulty of the engineering courses, tempted many of them to give English short shrift. Add the large number of engineers I've dealt with for whom English is a second language, and I can see how engineers might find specifications frustrating, or even intimidating. Once I realized this, I just tried to make it as easy for the engineer I was working with as possible. I typically avoided getting crap specs from the engineer by requiring him to use our office masters. Since the firm did a lot of repeat business with a handful of engineers, that worked pretty well. The most useful thing I ever did by way of consultant coordination was convince management to add a single phrase to the firm's standard contract language describing deliverables: "...plans and specifications" became "...plans and specifications n a format to be specified by the Architect". Then, when all else failed, I could beat them over the head with the contract. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1049 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 06:16 pm:    Mark, I did apologize ahead of time, but no matter, do you what to guess how many times I've reviewed those structural specifications from that same engineer over the past 15 years and found the exact same mistakes...before your response I did that research, because I could not believe what I was seeing; so I spent 5 hours out of my pocket to review specification content (not my responsibility) than I sent an itemized list of all the mistakes I found, several days later the engineer responded with revised specs, I didn't have the time to re-review everything, so I just looked at the items that could be a liability to the architect, guess what I found?more mistakes, like the structural engineer calling for gravel poured over a 10 mil vapor barrier and than compacted with mechanical equipment...really? Not in the building code last time I looked. Here is the actually text from the updated structural engineer's spec section: Granular Course: Cover vapor retarder with fine-graded granular material, moisten, and compact with mechanical equipment to elevation tolerances of plus 0 inch or minus 3/4 inch. 1. Place and compact a 1/2-inch- thick layer of fine-graded granular material over granular fill. The engineer's response was oops? I didn't have the heart to tell the engineer about all the references in his specifications to a multi-story building, considering this is a one story retail building, cause those references won't cause the architect any grief, maybe a little embarrassment. You're damn right I have chutzpah, though hearing a gentile say I have chutzpah is a first, Mark did you have to look that word up before you used that term, considering you got the spelling right. I could have sworn Gilligan was Irish...I guess I'm a little pissed because of the way you used the word "chutzpah", certainly not in a complimentary way, it does tick me off when a gentile uses Yiddish terms in a conversation to be cool, I don't know how many times I'm heard the word goniff and had to explain to the speaker that calling someone a goniff is not a compliment, kind of the same conversation regarding the word schmuck. Hell, Yiddish was spoken by my mother all through my childhood and I barely use it in conversation and only to another Jew. Mark, a word of advise next time you use a Yiddish word in a conversation perhaps you should check the ancestry of the person you are referring to, considering most of my parents family were killed in the concentration camps, you damn right I have chutzpah. Mark, pardon my French, but the word Schmuck comes to mind right now, but I mean it in a nice way. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1753 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 06:39 pm:    Since I was born in New York and according to Lenny Bruce, all New Yorkers are Jewish, I'd like to offer the definition I was given for "chutzpah": it's when a person is being tried for the murder of his/her parents and throws herself/himself on the mercy of the court because he/she is an orphan. I grew up with many other words and phrases, but now that I live in the Mid-west, I'm no longer considered Jewish (at least by Lenny's definitions) Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 639 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 07:55 pm:    English consists of many words from other languages. I consider chutzpah to have crossed over to general usage. When using the term I was not aware of your ethnicity. Are you aware of my sensitivities regarding my Irish heritage? By the way I thought it was generally recognized that architects had strong opinions. Personally I have often been frustrated by the quality of structural specifications so I have some sympathy for your frustration. The point I was trying to make is that engineers would develop specifications and the quality of the specifications would improve if there were consequences such as not getting additional work. Having the consultants use the architects master for their specification sections may make things look better on the surface but it just encourages the engineer to avoid addressing issues about the technical quality of the specification. In my experience Architects master specifications for structural issues often include out of date provisions. Commercial structural masters often are written around a certain type of project or practices in a different part of the country. Even so the masters may not address all of the relevant code provisions. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1050 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 08:13 pm:    Mark, your quote "By the way I thought it was generally recognized that architects had strong opinions." You mean recognized by Engineers don't you? Cause I hear the same about Engineers, all the time. Actually I may have an architect's license, but I haven't signed/sealed drawings in 16 years, I write specifications, that's my preferred hat to wear. Being an architect pleases my architect clients, oh and by the way I write specs for many engineers, usually as a professional courtesy, could be why I work to the wee hours 7 days a week. Maybe I will learn one day to stop being such a nice guy. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1051 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 08:19 pm:    Lynn, in what part of NY were you born? I was too, 60 yrs ago in the Bronx. My parents moved to Florida when I was 5. Went back once after college to see what it was like, I was the only Jewish white boy when I got off the subway, and after 15 minutes I got back on the subway, fearing for my life and holding my Minolta under my jacket, praying I'd make it back to Manhattan in one piece. Have not been back since....maybe one day. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, February 07, 2014 - 10:20 am:    I agree that coordination of the specs between the architect and the engineer is sometimes difficult but the real issue is that they actually be coordinated regardless of who provides the master or inputs the actual information. The concrete specifications are a good example of where the A & E both need to have input. Should the team specify lightweight aggregate to reduce steel sizes on suspended slabs or will this add additional months to the construction schedule while we wait for the slab to dry out enough to install moisture sensitive floors. Depending on the client, climate, financing, building size/type, etc. the correct decision is almost always going to involve some form of compromise. Finding the most appropriate compromise/solution is almost certainly going to require some cooperation between the A&E and it is hard to cooperate if we are harboring ill will. Happy Friday everyone. Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 20 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Monday, February 10, 2014 - 04:11 pm:    The reason structural engineers put abbreviated specs on drawings [aka 'general notes'] I've been told is that record spec books are even more likely to be lost than record drawings by clients. As more and more projects have drawings and specs issued as PDFs that the owner can keep in multiple locations on their networks, perhaps structural engineers can be persuaded to put specification requirements in the project manual specs. However, I've also heard it argued that plan examiners will not look at project manuals and want basic structural spec requirements on drawings. The problem is that duplications of subject matter always lead to conflicts that have to be resolved during contract administration. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 641 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, February 10, 2014 - 06:55 pm:    The reasons for General Notes are simple: Individuals have not been educated ho to write specifications. Engineers have done jobs without specifications and have not had any problems. It is easier to add a couple of free form notes to the drawings than to integrate the information in a specification section. Plan checkers have been permitted to require information on the drawings so they do not have to look in the specifications. Architects continue to hire engineers who do not prepare specifications. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 674 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - 07:32 am:    Mark's next to last comment about "plan checkers" should be number one on the list. AHJs don't really understand the concept of construction documents and many refuse to accept specifications. Structural engineers are responding to what the must do for the project to be permitted. This does not excuse conflicts between these general note and the specs. There are also items addressed in the specs that are not included in the general notes. James Sandoz, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 138 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - 09:11 am:    Peter, your comment about no excuse for conflicts between general notes (usually on Drawings) and specifications made me think. No matter where information appears in a set of documents it needs to be coordinated. Perhaps we need to add a fifth 'c' to the specifiers' mantra: Clear, Complete, Correct, Concise, and COORDINATED! In my new job I've reviewed many sets of documents by various architects and engineers. In one case the drawings were beautiful.The details were correctly keyed to the wall sections, flashings, sealants, etc. were correctly shown, and the roof details were all consistent with a particular system. Then I open the project manual and the sections dealing with the building envelope are also well written, complete, and correct within themselves. But here's the surprise: The specifications describe a SBS mod bit roof and a curtain wall system; the drawings show a TPO roof and a storefront system! Yikes! Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - 01:15 pm:    Specs are respected even less after a building is completed than they are on the construction site. We have drawings for almost all of our college buildings, but specs for less than 10% of them. Structural notes on drawings should include design loads, soil bearing, and strength of major elements (A36 steel, 3000 PSI concrete, etc.), so somebody decades later will have an idea of what he's dealing with when designing renovations. Almost nothning from Parts 1 & 3 of the spec section belongs in drawing notes. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - 04:56 pm:    Paul; I agree that decades later drawings are a more likely available source of information and this is partially due to the fact that specs are undervalued within the industry. However it could also be argued that decades later the construction submittals may be a better source of information than the specs anyway. A record set of specs will often illustrate three options for a specify product while the original submittal may give you the actual information you are seeking. This is one more reason why record sets of specs become less valued as time passes. Granted for the structural steel example this may not be as true but when you are trying to hunt down the manufacturer and type of ceramic tile that was used (or something similar) the submittal is your best bet. Thus the spec is perceived as less important as a historical piece of data. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 642 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - 06:01 pm:    The purpose of the construction documents is to build a specific building. I have never seen a client that requires us to formulate our drawings in s certain manner for archival purposes. Thus I suggest we have no contractual obligation. Having dealt with the contractual obligations how do you know the general notes contain all of the information that the owner will need in the future? In addition placing the information on the drawings makes it easier for the owner to hire another engineer in the future. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 436 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - 06:11 pm:    Contracts virtually always include a requirement to issue asbuilt drawings. Traditionally this was often a copy of the Contractor's hand annotated record set provided by the Contractor with all the old school hand written notes and pasted over revisions. But with the advent of CAD, we the Architects usually provide it, and we are compensated for it. But I can think of only one client who has ever asked for and compensated for an As-Built Specification book. when you actually do delete all of the "equals' and clean it up. That seems to be the role of the submittals, the Product Data sheets, Shop drawings; Maintenace manuals and so on. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1754 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - 06:38 pm:    Jerome, I was born in Kew Gardens and raised in Hollis/St. Albans in Queens. (None of that probably means anything to you since you left at age 5!) I didn't escape until I was 27 and then it was to California. I did go back just to look in 1976; my neighborhood had changed, but the homes looked well-cared for. We didn't stop, just drove by. I wouldn't mind getting back there sometime, but I no longer have friends or even relatives in the area. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - 06:31 pm:    I agree there is no contractual obligation but that fact does not preclude the potential for plans and or specs to have value to a client at some point in the future as archival information. As Paul said plans are more likely to be available and as such more likely to be perceived as important as a piece of historical data. Making those plans more valuable to the owner in the future by providing some critical information on the plans could allow an Owner to hire another engineer. However it could also help to illustrate the value of the engineer your institution already has. It is possible that this is more likely to benefit the A/E when you are working with institutional clients as opposed to some other clients. James Sandoz, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 140 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - 10:52 pm:    I wonder where the continuing evolution of BIM fits into this discussion. If ALL information was readily available to the client/owner post-construction and was maintained accurately then graphic representations (drawings) and written information (specifications) would all have value in his mind. And, yes, "as built" would have to be a given. Hmmm. Sounds like an added service for the A/E. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 643 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - 02:13 am:    My job is to produce documents that get the building built and reduce the risk to my client. Putting information in general notes results in duplication which increases the likelihood of conflicts. So why should I try to rationalize placing information in General Notes? If the Owner values having documentation for the future it is very simple to place the project manual in the project files along with the drawings, as builts, and submittals. When only the drawings are available it is because the Owner did not care enough to keep the other information. I have no problem helping the Owner to save the information but I have no interest in trying to compensate for the Client's lack of interest in retaining documents. You can go crazy trying to invent obligations. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 715 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - 02:14 am:    Far too often, when a building is complete and the client has moved in, the information in the construction documents is lost. Most owners keep the construction documents, but most eventually relegate them to a cardboard box in a dusty storage room. They may as well not exist. That information still has value, but it is difficult to use and even more difficult to change. Later, when the owner decides it is time for a major remodel or addition, the construction documents are no longer accurate, because buildings begin changing as soon as they're occupied. Absent a good set of record documents, the owner won't know what products were used, because the specifications usually don't say exactly what was used in the building. When specifications do include manufacturer and model, they usually list three or more, and even then, a different product may be used. Smart owners will realize the value of the BIM model, and demand that it contain more information than just dimensions and notes. Properly prepared and maintained, the model will become the foundation for the owner's daily operations. The information it contains will be viewable as traditional drawings and specifications, but it will contain much more than that. It will be a living model of the building, with complete data for each component: what it is, who manufactured it, who installed it, how to maintain and repair it, MSDS, and more. It will "know" how each piece of equipment and each system should operate, and it will be used by the building automation software. Unlike the paper documents it replaces, the model won't be just stored, but used. James, designers may see all this as an added service, but it won't be long before it's an expected part of basic services, at least for large owners. James Sandoz, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 141 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - 07:16 am:    Sheldon, I agree entirely. Your description of what the BIM can be for the owner post-occupancy is spot on. I also agree the ongoing maintenance of the building model can be something that extends the life of the service the A/E performs for its client. Most A/E firms I am aware of rely on "repeat business." What better way can there be to keep an ongoing relationship with a valued client than to provide service that is on-going? Well, I've gone pretty far off-topic on this thread but I'll try to bring it around by restating Mark's last: All members of the design team should endeavor to reduce conflict and maintain consistency in the documents in whatever form they take. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 493 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - 09:07 am:    Of course, ongoing maintenance of the building model depends on receiving accurate information from the owner in a timely manner. And that means having conscientious and experienced people on the job. I've said for years, that systems are not panaceas, and BIM will not change that; it's a tool, a powerful tool, but it still depends on people who know what they're doing and who care enough to do their jobs well. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 716 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - 12:17 pm:    Yep, garbage in, garbage out. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 706 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - 03:10 pm:    Please keep in mind that there are typically two BIM for a project, one for design and one for construction. No one currently would consider it a sane decision to construct from the design BIM; it's not designed for that use and I doubt anyone would want the liability. The construction model, if modeled properly, should have record submittals embedded in it. In fact, the approved shop drawings should be the basis for much of the BIM. In conversations I've had recently, there have been statements made that the coordination drawings generated by the Contractor and their subs should be incorporated into the BIM and that either shop drawings or coordination drawings (or both) should be required for every Section in the Specifications so that they can be incorporated into the final construction BIM. Despite what Code officials may think, the engineered shop drawings from the steel fabricator and erector are what really should be reviewed. Unless the structural engineer is designing each connection, the structural design is not complete when issued for code review. OSHPD has some quirks, like requiring sealed shop drawings as part of their review if that's what the documents call for (steel, exterior skin, etc.) and, while that is a logistical hassle, it certainly makes sense. As more of the design is delegated to the Contractor, I wonder if more jurisdictions will start to require sealed shop drawings as part of the code review process. How do you think that will affect the bidding documents? Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 644 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - 07:12 pm:    If the fabricator designs the steel connections the IBC would deal with this as a deferred submission and should plan check the deferred submissions. OSHPD does not require sealed shop drawings. What they do require is to have a complete set of drawings submitted for plan review. Only in very limited circumstances they will allow deferred approvals. When the Owner decides to have a specialty contractor provide the design of lets say the exterior skin the contractor will often decide to submit sealed shop drawings instead of separate design documents. The contractor always has the option to produce design drawings for submission from which shop drawings will later be submitted. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 141 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2014 - 06:02 pm:    Stuff I never imagined I'd have to communicate to a structural engineer: "The Tilt-Up Concrete section isn’t a good place for the stair tread mockup instructions, since I specified the stair tread itself in the Decorative Metal Stairs spec section." Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 659 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2014 - 06:17 pm:    Liz The fact that the structural engineer addressed the issue is a sign that he/she is trying to help address the issue. The structural engineer probably put it in the concrete specification because since he had control of that section and was not able to access your specification sections. Remember the engineer probably never had a class in specification writing. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 142 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2014 - 06:20 pm:    Thanks, Mark! You're right, the engineer was trying to help. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 752 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2014 - 06:55 pm:    Structural engineers are my favorite consultants. Their work actually does have an impact on life safety; instead of abstract theory, they learn useful things in school; they don't care if the building resolves the tension between the earth and sky elements; they make sure things work before using them; and they worry about the building falling down so everyone else can focus on really important stuff like the perforation pattern in ceiling tile and alignment of stuff no one will see.