Terminology in Construction

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions #4
1

William Pegues referred to our discussion on terminology in the “Is Painting a Coating?” thread. We are part of a four-session Coordinated Technical Meeting (CTM) program for our chapter in April. It is our chapter’s third such event, held every other year so far.

This year we are looking at terminology from various points of view. The other speakers include two waterproofing contractors, a public agency owner, and two institute/government representatives (including buildingSMART and BIM). Paints and coatings are sure to be discussed, as will many of the preferred terms presented in CSI documents and standards.

One of the misused terms that always bother me is when someone references an article or a paragraph in a specification as “Section 1.02-A”. I’d like to know if anyone has any favorites to suggest for our talk.

2

Waterproofing, dampproofing, air barrier, vapor barrier, sealant, calk.

3

A favorite discussion from a colleague at my previous job: grout, as it is used in drawing notes.

Grout between the column base plate and the footing.
Grout between the ceramic tiles.
Grout the cores of cmu.
Grout for the precast panels.

Is grout always cementitious? Is it spreadable, stiff, pourable, a finish? Is there one reference standard for grout? Does grout contain aggregate?

The many undifferentiated uses of the term “grout” in drawing notes illustrates why we need specifications.

4

When is it a sealant and when is it a calk?

5

Lynn,

The following question came to me regarding the difference between sealants and calking.

The following definitions are from the Glossary, Architectural Specification Guide for Sealants,
Thiokol/Specialty Chemicals Division, and Glossary, Sealant, Waterproofing & Restoration Institute Sealants: The Professionals’ Guide. These glossaries define terms that are common to the building trade.

"Thirty years ago building sealants did not exist. Buildings were sealed with oil-base caulks, which provide
adequate protection from the effects of weathering. As long as joint movement was minimal, leakage could be avoided by simply filling the cavity with calking material. When joint movement became a factor,
the change marked a turning point in the specification and use of calking compounds.

The introduction of the curtain wall in the early 1950’s represented more than a new architectural design.
It opened another chapter on joint design, joint movement, and joint sealants. Non-masonry substrates,
such as aluminum are affected significantly by temperature extremes. Changes in weather cause
excessive movement, creating conditions that make it impossible for caulks to perform. They harden,
crack and fall out of joints, leaving clear passage for moisture and water to enter building.

To meet the stringent requirements of the curtain wall structure, new products were developed for the
construction market. These chemical compounds cured to a synthetic rubber (or elastomeric) “sealant” as
they became known, and unlike their oil-base predecessors, were formulated to expand and contract with
constant joint movement.,1

Calking (verb): Process of sealing a joint.

Calking (noun): A material used for joint sealing where minor or no elastomeric properties are required.

Seal (noun): A generic term for any material or device that prevents or controls the passage of water.

Sealant (noun): An elastomeric material with adhesive qualities that joins components of a similar or
dissimilar nature to provide an effective barrier against the passage of the elements.

  1. “Sealants: The Professionals’ Guide, 1990 Sealant, Waterproofing & Restoration Institute.”
6

Cool. I’m going to copy/paste that and send it to the whole office - as most of them are confused by the 2 terms and use them interchangeably.

Most contractors don’t seem to grasp the difference, either.

I love language.

Thank you for a clear, written answer that I can use! (and enforce).

7

I think SWRI provides a good background history of the evolution of the terms.

I would, however, never use the terms related to calk or calking in construction documents. Calling non-elastomeric joint sealants calking means you now need to check every location to see if the right term is used. You are just asking for confusion and error. I would just use JOINT SEALANT everywhere on the drawings and specify the appropriate materials by location in the spec. Donot allow anyone to use the term calk or calking.

8

Robert,

I would agree 9 out of 10. I have used the term CAULK (in Canada) or CALK for bedding under exterior thresholds. I will cease and decist if you provide me a better product and term for this location.

It is hard to convince drafters to stick with JOINT SEALANT. They do not seem to realize the term refers to the sealant itself and the backer rod or other bond breaker.

I constantly observe “SEALANT ON BACKER ROD” or “BACKER ROD AND SEALANT.”

9

Good suggestion, Bob. Thanks - now all I have to do is get to all the “folks who draw” and tell them to eliminate “calk” from their vocabulary. (And “caulk”, too). I’ll begin with the next set of drawings I see…

Wish I could simply put out something like an APB!

10

Part of the problem is packaging/guide Specifications/catalog data. Not to hijack the thread, but examples Wayne provided demonstrate the problem when “caulk” or “seal” are used as verbs. If manufacturers use two (or more) terms for the same product in a guide Spec it can muddy the waters. Examples: "Caulk joints with polyurethane sealant…“Seal joints with polyurethane caulking…”.

The packaging may use one term or the other…or both. Guide Specs and product packaging are often not handled by the same departments, with data sheets bouncing around in both.

You can often end up with 3 different ways of describing the end results from the same manufacturer, or a submittal with your terminology reversed. You know it’s the right product but can you state “no exceptions taken”?

Caulk/Sealant is just one example; there are many more dual-description products used in construction. Just in my little world of coatings and waterproofing we have the aforementioned example, “paint/coating”, “acrylic latex enamel”, “weatherproof/waterproof” etc.

I’ve pointed this out to manufacturer reps but it never seems to get back to the big cheeses in tech support, sales, and marketing.Drives me nuts when I’m doing a parallel 3-product Spec. Unfortunately none of the manufacturers and a very small percentage of contractors are members of the Sealant, Waterproofing & Restoration Institute around here. I had forgotten about them until I read the definitions post - over 30 years connected in some way to these processes/products and nobody has ever mentioned them to me.

Maybe it’s just me. :wink:

11

I recommend drafters not to use the term caulk or caulking and define it as Joint Sealant just in case they do. Interesting that Mr.Yancey indicates that Joint Sealant also includes the bond breaker and backer rod. Then there is BSD who has the Section 07 90 05 - Joint SEALERS. I believe they do this to combine both 07 91 00 Preformed Joint Seals and 07 92 00 Joint Sealants into one section. I have kind of been considering defining this new term sealers as both the sealant and bond breaker and backer rod. Not sure it matter to much as my spec indicates when to use bond breaker and backer rod even if it is not noted on the Drawings as such. That way, the drafters can keep using Joint Sealant. Not sure I can get them to start using Joint Sealer consistently.

12

I note with some amusement that the MasterFormat Section name “Joint Sealants” escaped the general trend toward “gerundization” of section names so prevelant throughout the document (“painting” instead of “paint”, “tiling” instead of "tile:, etc.). Although many of use had a good laugh over the results, this was a reflection of understanding MasterFormat as organizing “work results” not products.

To following along this line of thinking, in terms of sealing or filling a joint, one may use a sealant material (widely understood to have better elastomeric and adhesion properties) or a caulk material (much less elastomeric). Of course, then there are the epoxy sealants.

I also see that certain joints need “filling” not necessarily “sealing.”

13

At one time, I used both terms - caulk and sealant - in my specifications. Caulk was acoustic sealant and the sealant around frames, both of which are relatively static; sealants were those products used in moving joints. I later omitted references to caulk in the sealant section to avoid confusion, but kept caulk in the gypboard section for a while. I finally eliminated caulk altogether because of the difficulty in explaining where to indicate it on drawings. Now it’s sealant everywhere.

I confess I am guilty of violation of the MasterFormat distinction between preformed joint seals and joint sealants; I put compressed seals in with the sealants. When I go to trial, I’ll use the odd way MasterFormat treats these products as my defense. 07-9123 is for backer rod, but 07-9200 includes both sealant and backer rod. Does anyone write a separate section for backer rod? Or a separate section for acoustic sealant?

14

I’ve never seen a separate section for backer rod. I’ve seen it…or more precisely, NOT seen it…when its not mentioned at all.

However, if the Section includes language directing installation in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions (or details or whatever) AND backer rod is correctly indicated and described therein it’s still a part of the Section as much as an indirect item as a required type of installation equipment.

I’d estimate that out of the thousand or so sealant joint Specs I’ve seen where backer rod (or other flexible or non-adhering backing; sand, backing tape etc) is essential it’s not mentioned.

Unfortunately, it’s also often not used or something inappropriate used instead. I’ve seen rags, newspaper (a common item) and all sorts of "debris used as “backer” when joint sealants have “failed”.

15

I do a separate section for “acoustical construction” which not only covers acoustical sealants but also other small construction items that are part of an acoustical separation of symphony spaces. The point (to me) of the separate section is that for acoustical construction, I require full time, ongoing inspection of all of the required work.

16

What is “finish hardware?”

In which Section is installation of finish hardware specified?

17

It’s in the same section with Finnish carpentry, right after Swedish hammers.

18

Seriously, why would you specify installation in a separate section? I’ve often wondered - even before “work results” came along - why some specifiers have the product wood doors in one section and the installation in a different section. I specify both in the same section, and the contractors have no problem getting the doors from a supplier and having the installation done by someone else.

19

Sheldon:

'cause that’s the way it’s done! Them finish (Finnish?) carpenters puts the locksets in the wood doors. Do they puts the locks in metal doors too?

When I get a “Finish Hardware” (sometimes retitled “Door Hardware”) spec Section from a hardware manufacturer’s rep or even a paid door hardware consultant, often there is a reference to “Section 06200 - Finish Carpentry” for installation of hardware.

These are the guys what are selling high-tech access control systems but who are stuck in the 1960’s about trade jurisdictions for hardware installation.

I still don’t know what is “Finish Hardware,” contrasted against “Door Hardware.”

In Phoenix, is it “Phinish Hardware?”

20

08 71 00 Part 3 Execution seems fairly straight-forward to a hardware beginner like me:

SDI and DHI have good standards for prepping and installing hardware. There’s not a whole lot more to add. I seem to have a page and a half of Part 3 before the hardware schedule. Not sure why you would put anything in Division 06, other than “because we’ve always done it that way”.

Any suggestions for getting my new colleagues to drop that horrific term “Preamble” for everything in 08 71 00 other than the hardware sets? Maybe I can object on constitutional grounds?