Who writes structural specifications?

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions #6
1

For a majority of my projects, I write the structural specifications (concrete, steel, CMU, wood) with input from the structural engineer. That said I am having a change of heart. As structural codes and requirements get more complicated I would prefer to have the engineer put together these sections with review by the architect and specifier.

Some structural sections are pretty straight forward, for example steel deck, structural steel, steel joists, cold-formed metal studs. There is little information that the architect needs to include, mainly primers and recycled content, maybe insulation for flutes for acoustic decks. AESS is a separate section written by the architect/specifier.

Rough carpentry, sheathing and glulams are also pretty straight forward with little input from architect other than FSC requirements and appearance of exposed glulams.

Concrete, on the other hand, will take a lot of coordination back and forth, unless I can figure a way to separate out architectural items such as finishing, flatness/levelness, sealers, curing compounds, etc.

What do you do in your practice?

2

David,
Perhaps this is a regional thing, but in New England we rarely prepare structural sections. I usually only do cold formed metal framing.
I expect the structural engineer will prepare their own sections, which they rarely edit and usually conflict with their drawing notes.
Sometimes projects with new sustainability requirements will spur the structural engineer into a detailed spec review and update.

3

It’s about 50/50 in my practice. I always give clients the option, suggesting that the specs are likely to be more clearly written, complete and coordinated if authored by me, but that the engineer retains responsibility for technical content.

CIP Concrete is a section that is most likely to be generated by the engineer. When high-quality exposed finishes are involved, I will often produce a Section 033520 “Exposed Concrete Finishing” to address formwork and finishes, coordinated w/ provisions in 033000 for materials, curing, testing, etc. This is treated similar to AESS, where that spec focuses on visual characteristics and references 051200 for basic requirements.

4

Before I retired (retirement is GREAT for general info!) I was with WDG for 37 years, with offices in both Dallas and Washington, DC. During that time, we did projects all over Texas and up and down the east coast as well as far afield as Ohio and Michigan. In many cases we worked with local structural engineers. I had a master system that I had developed over time, totally coordinated with all sections for terminology and drawing notes terminology. This included structural sections of all types and including specialty sections such as various structural glazing systems.

What I would do would be to send those section masters to the structural engineer, and tell him that he should edit them as required, including verifying any standards, and making any additions that he required, just to send me text inserts to include. Never had a problem with that, and would make all their changes, though often putting information in the more appropriate parts and articles than they selected, sending them back to him for review and notes about why I might have it in a different location.

I would then look up any of their references to assure they were correct (sometimes resulting in asking him to check again since I found conflicting or even discontinued standards/references).

All of these inclusions, I would then keep in my master sections, along with notes about choosing different options (based on the different engineers desiring different options).

After the review came back again, a full draft would be issued at about 75% drawing completion that they would then get to review and comment on.

This all went very well. And the only times of having to do more work that usual was the first time with an engineer. After that, smooth sailing.

Did the same with other disciplines like Landscape, Interiors, etc.

The only sections we did not do this way was MEP. And those we let them use their own masters, but they were very closely review and marked up for coordination with appropriate section names/numbers, as well as terminology.

Some may say this takes a lot of time. Yes, and no. It really depends on your working tools. I did not have a highly automated system, just a word processing on a computer. For the majority of my career, I had no assistant.

On the other hand, perhaps success was based on my sport of choice, fencing. Nothing like after a trying or stressful day to go to the club and beat on someone with a metal rod -grin!!

5

David, I prepare the specs for smaller structural firms, I require the Structural PE to read the specs and provide comments, I perform editing and than forward the specs to the PE who must take ownership of the specs for the specific job. Believe it or not I do this pro-bono. Its usually on projects with long time clients and as you said, standard spec sections. I have only had one project where the PE used the specs without my permission. In hindsight I wish I had charged a fee, a lot of potential fees were left on the table, and most of the engineers never said thank you.

6

A recent thread concluded with some incisive thoughts from Mark Gilligan on this topic. One idea he put forth suggested that the three-part format of specifying does not meld well with the way structural engineers put their work together (At least I think that was what he meant). This begs the question of with whom are we trying to communicate? Contractors, obviously, but should we adapt our communication style to their needs, or should we expect them to bend to ours?

7

To David’s question about how well CSI spec formats and principles meld with the way structural engineers work; Specs don’t meld well with architectural designers and drafters either. And that is well and good. If we all thought alike, we would all make the same mistakes. By looking at a project from different points of view, and with respect for each other, we just might make a decent building possible.

8

I do not agree with the contention that the three part format does not work for structural specifications. This has never been a problem.

Engineers need more training regarding the basics of writing a specification section. When I was young the local CSI chapter held classes on specification writing. Such classes should be advertised to engineers.

I have pointed out that the need to accommodate each architects unique formatting requirements is counter productive.

I believe that each structural engineering firm should maintain a master specification that it then customizes for each project. When the architect or specification writer presents the engineer with a structural specification to be edited it sends the wrong message. Working with a firm master has been much more efficient and made it easier to incorporate changes to the master. If working with an architects master the tendency is to minimize the changes thus resulting in a less thorough specification than if based on a company master.

I have not been impressed by commercial master specification sections for structural work. Architects structural master specifications are not much bette in many cases.

9

Thank you for clarifying, Mark Gilligan. In the thirty-odd years I have been around this business, most structural engineers seem to get along just fine putting all of their requirements on their drawings.

10

It would be wonderful if more engineers took the interest in specs that Mark Gilligan does. I don’t recall ever encountering this in 30 years of consulting. The reality is that spec writing seems to be a low priority for all types of engineers. Involvement of an experienced consultant can at least help to produce something that clearly conveys requirements, even if based on commercial masters that might be lacking.

11

Ditto Jeffrey, Mark G has certainly provided some insight from the viewpoint of the Structural PE that has been helpful. Kudos to you Mark.

12

I’m an in-house specifier for an architectural firm and my experience has been more along the lines of what Mark Gilligan outlines … each structural engineer has masters (commercially available like MasterSpec or SpecLink, or some type of custom office master) that they work with to produce their own specifications. Occasionally, I’ve run into engineers who don’t have access to a master for a particular section, and I’ve sent them one of ours to edit, but that has happened as infrequently as approximately once every few years.

The “bigger issue” I have with structural engineers is getting them to produce specifications for the “small jobs” where the consultant has probably not included this scope of work in their fee. This is usually resolved by pointing to our agreement with them that indicates they will produce specifications in the format that we require. This is standard language in many Architect-Consultant Agreements (see AIA C401-2017, Paragraph 2.5 for an example).

To David’s other point about coordination of concrete finishes, I’ve had success in pulling those requirements out of the concrete section and writing a separate section to cover them. I tell the engineer to take those requirements out of their section and refer to mine, and they are usually happy to oblige.

13

I agree with the practice of decoupling the structural specifications from provisions dealing with painting of steel and concrete finishes. There still needs to be some coordination so the engineer and the specification writer need to talk.

14

I do both. When I send the structural engineer sections to edit, I include a disclaimer that they are being sent as a courtesy only, and the SE is solely responsible for the structural related content etc.

15

I can’t understand why we treat specifications so differently than drawings when it comes to things like this. Do the architects and specifiers who send structural sections for the engineers to edit also send the engineers templates for the structural drawings and details for them to edit?

16

I agree with the Guest.

The problem exists in part because engineers have no training regarding the writing and use of construction specifications and because the practice of sending the engineer specification sections to edit creates pressure on the engineer to accommodate the architect..

This allows the engineer to avoid taking ownership of the specifications.

The engineer has a natural desire to accommodate the desires of his client and when the architect presents a specification section for review this puts the engineer in a position of either rejecting the offer from the architect or compromising on the edits.

Early in my career, mid 70’s, before the wide availability of word processors I made considerable edits to a structural specification provided by the architect which caused the specification writer to request additional fee to make the edits which were more than expected. The Architect then suggested that we should pay for this additional cost. My principal then politely requested that I decide what were the minimum edits that should be made. This had a negative impact on the quality of the specification section.

17

I disagree. My career goes back just as far. I was always an internal specifier to an architectural firm. 1976 to 1983 with SOM in DC where they did not have a structural in-house group, and it was office policy to always send the our structural sections to the engineer. Again, it was stated that they would take ownership of them, and that if they found something they disagreed with or wanted added, we would do so. We never had a problem working with across that time some 6 different structural engineers.

From 1983 - 2017, with WDG in DC and Dallas and with projects variously around the country and often with structural engineers from the local area, I couldnt count the number of structural groups we worked with. Again, ultimately no problem. Some expressed concern, but when they saw the product we sent and that all the edits would be input on our side, they all agreed, no reservations.

In addition, we always considered that a cost of doing business, not an extra. It was always known that there might be some extra effort with a new engineer, but it never became an issue.

Perhaps its the difference between sending something for review as opposed to sending something that states we want to use this as a baseline. And, letting them know up front that anything they want to add we will do it for them.

18

William, I can’t understand why your approach is that much better than having the engineers write their own sections. Seems like a more efficient approach to let the engineers work from a base master they are familiar with and understand rather than making them learn your office’s master. Not only that, but making an edit to the specification is much more straightforward if the entity responsible for the content is responsible for changing the content.

Was there ever a situation in your 40+ years where the structural engineer wanted you to make an edit you disagreed with? What was the outcome? Did you make the edit understanding that they were responsible for the content, or did you push back trying to compromise their editing of your section?

19

I think the situation has changed for the better over the years. Back in the 80s, I occasionally did something like William describes because when structural engineers did have their own masters, they were frequently horrible. Typical problems were that the didn’t follow CSI formatting particularly well (mixing up what should be in each part, using poorly structured language, etc.), and that they would include all sorts of Division 1 and contract provisions. I would send them my Division 1 in advance along with an in-house guide for consultants, and sometimes copies of CSI SectionFormat. But sometimes it didn’t seem to matter much. I’d end up redlining like crazy and eventually got something usable. Also, oddly, some structural engineers wouldn’t write wood framing specs. I also had to do earthwork specs fairly regularly - the engineer would simply comment on the work I produced.

The problem seemed to largely dissipate as the years went on. I’m not sure if the engineers in our market finally figured out specs, or if the architecture firms I later worked for had better consultants.

20

Here is a condensed version of why I am having a change of heart about writing structural specifications.

  1. I am not a structural engineer.

  2. The structural engineers need to take responsibility for their own scope of work regardless whether they can write well or not.

  3. By writing the structural specifications, I am essentially doing their work and increasing my liability.

  4. If the structural engineers wrote their own specifications, they could better coordinate with their general structural notes.

  5. By having their own masters, the structural engineers would be more familiar with their own language and could further refine their standard language from project to project.