Contributed by Sheldon Wolfe CSI's practice documents - MasterFormat, SectionFormat, and the Practice Guides - present a unified and consistent approach to preparing and interpreting construction documents based on AIA or EJCDC general conditions and related documents. They also are applicable to documents produced by most other organizations, though some modification may be necessary. When teaching CSI classes, I emphasize the overall organization of these documents as a first principle; with that in mind, it's easier to understand why things are organized the way they are, and to see how they all work together. This sometimes leads to comments and questions, such as, "That's not the way my office does it!" and "Why don't this manufacturer's specifications follow those rules?"
Together, CSI's practice documents provide a firm but adaptable framework for preparing construction documents. They provide enough structure so, as the old adage says, there is "a place for everything and everything in its place." On the other hand, they are sufficiently flexible to allow one to specify just about anything imaginable. Although these documents create a fairly complete framework, they do not go into great detail about how to address all matters: there is no standard specification for concrete; a number of optional methods are offered; there is no boilerplate text for any part of a specification beyond article titles, and even those are suggestions. The specifier, following the principles of the practice documents, is left to supply the remaining detail. Obviously, this leaves a lot to be done. If a specifier were to start with nothing more than access to products, it would take a long time to assemble a set of master specifications. The widespread availability of reference standards is of inestimable help, making it possible to easily define performance testing methods and properties. However, even with these standards, writing even a simple section could take many hours, and the amount of research that would be required for a complex system or assembly could be overwhelming. (Reference standards are not without their own problems; see my previously written "Faith-based specifications.") Fortunately, a few entrepreneurial people, and later, manufacturers themselves, saw an unfulfilled need and began to produce master guide specifications for a great variety of construction products and systems. Unfortunately, the results typically have not followed the rules established by AIA and CSI documents. Even worse, guide specifications often are used verbatim or with only minor changes, and without much concern about how well they are written. A common excuse is that they are incorporated late in a project, but it's not unusual to see them become office masters with little change. Manufacturers have a defensible position; they are in business to sell products, and they have a tendency to stack the deck any way they can in their own proprietary specifications. I'm not saying it's right, and it definitely doesn't comply with CSI practice guides, but it's understandable. How many times have you seen a manufacturer's guide specification that requires the product be produced by only that manufacturer, not once, but two or three times? From their viewpoint, it makes sense to identify the manufacturer under Section Includes, Quality Assurance, Manufacturers, Components, Assemblies, and a few more times under Execution. Some manufacturers also like to include a variety of restrictive specifications that have little to do with performance or quality. I won't be surprised if some day I see a manufacturer's specification that includes something like, "Label: Must include the words Acme Widgets, Inc." Still, I can't get too excited when a manufacturer writes a specification that eliminates the competition. They still offer useful information, and the price is right. The sad thing is that some designers apparently don't realize what's going on, and leave all of the proprietary provisions in place - and then call it a competitive specification! Regardless of how guide specifications are written, the designer should modify them so they express what is needed by the owner and the project.
3 Comments
Contributed by Sheldon Wolfe Among the things specifiers grumble most about are the typical architect's lack of knowledge about how things work and how they go together, and the belief that "If I can draw it someone can build it!"
Some architecture schools do include courses about the practical aspects of architecture, but those courses are often optional, so most architects graduate with a lot of knowledge about visual design, planning, and presentation, but little understanding of materials or construction. It's fine to have a presentation about masonry, but so much more could be learned from participants getting their hands dirty. It's easy to draw a 4 x 4 x 8 brick, but what does it feel like? It takes no more effort to draw a 3-5/8 x 2-1/4 x 11-5/8 brick or a 3-5/8 x 3-5/8 x 15-5/8 brick, or, for that matter, a 12 x 8 x 16 concrete masonry unit, but what difference does it make to the mason? It doesn't take any longer to draw a large masonry unit, but does the size affect installation time? Until you pick up a brick, mix the mortar, and try to build a wall, you simply cannot appreciate what your details mean in the real world. This shortcoming presents a tremendous opportunity for continuing education programs. In June of 2000, twenty-five architects from my office went to the masonry apprentice school in St. Paul for an afternoon of fun, down-and-dirty continuing education. The program was set up by Olene Bigelow, our local International Masonry Institute (IMI) rep, and contact for the Brick Industry Association (BIA). The apprentices set up a series of stations, each showing a specific part of the job. Demonstrations included reading drawings and specifications, estimating, mixing mortar, laying brick and CMU of various sizes, installing door frames, and more. After the book learnin' discussions, the architects got their hands dirty at each station and learned how their decisions affected construction and schedule. The Minneapolis-St. Paul Chapter of CSI visited the school and followed the same program. It's easy to complain about what architects don't know, but they are not alone. Specifiers may know more of the technical properties of materials, but many have had no more practical experience in construction than architects. I used masonry as an example, but similar programs could be done for everything that goes into a building. ALL of us can us do better if we know more about how other team members do their jobs. Contributed by Jerry Fossey How do I specify Metal Composite Material (MCM) manufacturers vs. fabricators?
This is probably one of the most confused topics in the ACM/MCM industry, so I hope that this short post will help clarify the difference between the Manufacturer and Fabricator of Metal Composite Material (also known as Aluminum Composite Material or ACM). MCM consists of two skins of metal sandwiching a core material, which provides greater rigidity and superior flatness than sheet metal or plate. The MCM Manufacturer is the one that makes sheets of MCM, in a process where the skins and core are fused together in a continuous coil process. There are also some manufacturers that press skins to a core one sheet at a time, however this is generally known to be a lower quality bond, which is important when you consider the harsh conditions an exterior building envelope is required to withstand. The MCM Fabricator cuts, routs, folds and otherwise processes the MCM to fabricate panels to mount on the building. These fabricators can either have their own tested installation system using aluminum extrusions, or they can use a third party’s installation system. So which one should I specify? The MCM Manufacturer or the Fabricator? The answer is BOTH! There are many testing requirements, some of which apply to the Manufacturer and some to the Fabricator. Anything related to the MCM itself, such as fire rating and surface finish belong to the Manufacturer. Tests that require panel fabrication generally apply to the Fabricator, such as wind loads and water penetration. It is important then to clearly differentiate between the Manufacturer and the Fabricator in your specifications. I hope this helps build a greater understanding in the Composite Metal Wall Panel industry! |
AboutLet's Fix Construction is an avenue to offer creative solutions, separate myths from facts and erase misconceptions about the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry. Check out Cherise's latest podcast
Get blog post notifications hereArchives
March 2022
Categories
All
|