Structural Specifications

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

Author Message Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1201 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 05:05 pm:    I'm going through my third structural specification section that was marked up by the structural engineer. As a result, I've come to the realization that most structural engineers (Mark G. is one of the exceptions) do not prepare "specifications"--they prepare "generalizations." Since this S.E. apparently cannot operate a wordprocessing program, they mark up my masters with a red pen and email me the scanned edits. Their markups practically keep everything (e.g. Reglets for structural precast when only structural tees for a roof deck are used; masonry veneer anchors when there is no veneer; and many, many, many more examples. Come on, really!?). It's not like they just skipped over those unused parts without crossing it out (which would make sense) assuming that I would use logic and delete them. No, they actually edited the content within those sections! Don't they even understand what their own structural design involves? Sorry, just venting... Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 725 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 05:07 pm:    I think I've worked with them before. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 135 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 05:19 pm:    Before I send sections to Structural, I delete the things I know for sure we don't need. At things I'm uncertain about, I write notes in the Section Text to the engineer (bold, asterisked, and highlighted yellow) telling them to delete the article or paragraph if we don't have it on the project. It helps. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1202 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 05:32 pm:    Liz, typically that is what I do, too. However, the owner (a governmental agency) wanted unedited specifications at DD (Don't ask me why--who knows what goes on in a bureaucrat's mind). Anyway, the architect forwarded these completely unedited sections to the structural engineer without me knowing and that is what I got. This will be chapter one of my next book: "The Life of a Specifier--From Graduation to Commitment." Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 136 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 05:35 pm:    Aaack! I feel your pain. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 690 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 07:57 pm:    I find the most interesting mark-ups are the ones with an "X" in the middle of a paragraph or a page and I'm supposed to know what is the extent of changes. I also like how "architectural" considerations, such as finishes on concrete, are simply ignored. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 536 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 09:26 pm:    Did the SE's edits bear any relationship whatsoever to the page full of structural notes on their drawings? And did the page full of notes bear any relationship whatsoever to the design of the project? Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 741 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 10:59 pm:    Excellent point, Phil. Structural consultants like to put specifications on drawings, which sometimes conflict with their specs in the project manual. You're not done yet, Ron. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1073 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 09:44 am:    The biggest frustration I have with Structural Engineers is that they don't listen to lowly spec writers. Countless times I will review an SE's specs only for basic coordination and find the same repeated problems, I will advise them of the necessary changes and once and a while they will actually make those changes, but than on the next job, the problems appear again, they don't change their masters. Its gotten to the point where I don't have to waste my time reviewing their specs, I just paste the previous review on an email and resend it. The last time this happened, I received a comment from the head SE, asking me to "cool it, give us a brake, ease up on the comments"...seriously, that job was a condo job, any sign of negligence like citing 10 year old building codes is fuel for a condo attorney (vulture) to strike, but they simply do not care. MEP Engineers seem to be a bit smarter and more compliant, even appreciative at times. This frustration is why I have on some projects offered to prepare structural specs as part of my fee, once the engineer agrees to take responsibility for the specifications. Yes Ron I agree this board is great for venting. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 744 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 01:59 pm:    My experience has been different. Although I occasionally have to repeat a discussion about mortar, to convince the structural engineer that the higher the compressive strength the better, we get along well. Other consultants often refuse to coordinate their specs with the front end, insisting that they include information about bidding, submittals, dates, etc. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1778 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 05:27 pm:    On a very recent project, the MEP consultants kept including Division 20, Section 20 0000, virtually a repetition of many Division 00 and 01 requirements, and often in conflict. Eventually, I just deleted it after lengthy discussion with the PM on the project.