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”?
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…
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.
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).
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.