Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Construction’

SAFETY EQUIPMENT

This morning as I was driving into work, I turned into the parking lot and had to stop because a worker wearing ear protection and carrying a weed whacker stepped into the travelway without looking up and stopped in the middle of the lane to make an adjustment to his equipment, again without looking up.  After several seconds he didn’t move and never looked up.  I have to assume that the reason he stepped in front of the car in the first place was because he didn’t hear the engine for the ear protection.

This begs the question: when does use of a safety device become endangerment?

The proper use of any safety appliance such as a hard hat, safety glasses, steel toed boots, fluorescent green vest and similar personal protective gear is essential for a safe workplace.  But simply putting on the equipment doesn’t guarantee a safe workplace.  It requires the most important piece of equipment; that located between our ears.  As we go about our jobs, and daily life for that matter, we need to be constantly aware of the world around us, even while focusing on the job at hand.  Simply paying attention would prevent a whole host of accidents.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

I first published the article below in 2010.  With Virginia’s adoption of the 2015 edition of the I‑Codes, it will be necessary to update office master specifications to reflect the editions of the various standards referenced by the current code.  With this in mind, it is appropriate to republish the article.

 

REFERENCE STANDARDS:  NOT JUST ALPHABET SOUP

-Raymond E. Gaines, RA, CSI, CDT

Specification writers often use reference standards in construction specifications.  Their use or misuse can make the difference between a specification that is enforceable and one that is rife with conflicts and ambiguities.

Consensus standards are nothing new.  ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials) which develops and publishes consensus standards for materials, products, systems, and services has been around since 1898, and ANSI (American National Standards Institute) was established in 1918.  These are just two of the organizations that produce consensus standards used in the construction industry.  Others that produce frequently used standards are AAMA, ACI, AISC, AITC, NFPA to name a few.  This is, of course, not an exhaustive list by any means.

Reference standards are frequently cited in construction specifications as well as building codes.  Their inclusion in these types of documents by reference makes them part and parcel of the code or specification.  Chapter 35 of the International Building Code is a listing of the standards that are referenced in the text of the code including the dates of publication of the various standards.  Inclusion of the publication date is extremely important, as these standards are periodically reviewed and updated.  The building code, however, incorporates a specific version of a given reference standard.  Compliance with a later (or earlier) version of the same standard doesn’t necessarily assure compliance with the code.

The same is true of specification writing.  When incorporating a standard by reference it is important for the specification writer to be specific as to which edition of the standard is to be used.  In the event that a more recent version of a particular standard is referenced, it is incumbent on the specification writer to ensure that the referenced document is not in conflict with pertinent provisions of the building code.

A common mistake made by specifiers is to restate provisions of a standard referenced in the same specification such as specifying curing procedures for concrete when a reference to the appropriate ACI standard is sufficient.  Another common error is to reference two conflicting standards such that compliance with one creates a conflict with of the provisions of another.  Phrases such as “latest edition” or “current edition” should be avoided as well for similar reasons.  Specifying blind should also be avoided.

These are but a few reasons among many for specifiers to have a thorough working knowledge of the standards they reference in their specifications.  This becomes a monumental task, as the library required is monumental in size and it requires constant updating.  While this article isn’t intended as a promotion of the use of a particular guide specification such as Masterspec, Spectext, or SpecLink, the producers of these and similar documents are better able to stay on top of the latest developments in consensus standards and use of these or similar products is a reasonable way to manage risk.  Use of a good guide specification alone, however is not a substitute for knowledge on the part of the specifier.

Good library maintenance, continuing education, and CSI certification on the part of the specifier can help in the preparation of a quality specification which is clear, correct, complete, and concise.  Participation in monthly CSI chapter meetings is a start in the right direction.  The best way to gain information on this and other topics is to become a member of CSI.  Your career may depend on it!

 

Read Full Post »

I’ve seen a fair amount of twitter traffic over the last couple of days regarding the documents that are handed to specifiers by architects. The principal complaint has to do with lack of detail in the drawings.  This is in step with complaints I’ve heard (and sometimes uttered) over the years about unprepared graduates coming from our architecture schools.  I was once one of them.

I’ve stated before in this forum that I was more fortunate than many in that I had an excellent mentor in Thomas R. Wyant, Jr., AIA, CSI. He filled in the many of the gaps that my professional education left void.  He also introduced me to CSI.  Tom paid attention to detail, both in terms of the documents we produced and in terms of the constructed result of our work.  For the 30 years that my practice has existed, I have made a concerted effort to pay this forward.

In spite of our best efforts, however, there is no such thing as a perfect set of construction documents. So the sketchy sections that initially go to the specifier should only serve as a conversation starter.  An experienced spec writer will see immediately what is missing and start asking questions.  It is this dialogue that results in details being fleshed out.  Assuming that there is enough time in the owner’s timetable for this conversation to take place, the construction documents should be adequate to allow the project to be built.

That said, we need to be educating all of the parties to the construction project – including the owners. Owner’s expectations should be realistic in terms of both budget and timing.  The A/E should be able to have enough time to produce the documents and make a reasonable profit in the progress.  Likewise, the contractor should have adequate time and funds to do his/her job appropriately; again at a reasonable profit.  In the end, the owner should have a facility that meets his/her needs that also provides an environment that is functional and meets the needs of the end user.

It boils down to communication, which is essential for a successful project. Such communication is possible through a common language which is facilitated by CSI formats and proper use thereof.  Individuals who hold a CSI certification or certificate will be well versed in the use of the various formats and will benefit the construction team on which they serve.

Read Full Post »

As we begin a new year, many have established new year’s resolutions for themselves, usually geared toward self improvement. A substantial portion of those resolutions have already been broken, and it’s only January 3rd.

Picking up on my last post, I would encourage construction professionals out there to make one of the following resolution:

a.  I will pass the CDT exam this year

b.  I will pass the CCS exam this year

c.  I will pass the CCCS exam this year

d.  I will pass the CCPR exam this year

You will note that there is not an option “e. None of the above”.

In support of your efforts to pass one of these CSI Certificate/Certification exams this year, I will be facilitating a CDT study group for members and friends of the Central Virginia CSI chapter who are preparing to sit for the CDT. In the past, I tweeted quotes from the CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide on an almost daily basis in advance of upcoming exam windows.  They can be found by searching #CSIcertification and #CDT on Twitter.  My intent is to pick up where I left off with that practice.  My Twitter Handle is @Ray_Gaines_FCSI.

Other study materials are available at csiresources.org where you can sign up for the exam, and download various study materials. You can also sign up for the CDT One Day at a Time daily e-mail study program at specguy.com.  Check with your local CSI chapter to see if they are hosting a study group.  Absent a local study group, there is a lot of material available on YouTube from various CSI chapters.

In the interest of professional self improvement, I would encourage you to resolve to do this in 2017.

Read Full Post »

“Designing and constructing buildings, civil structures, industrial facilities, interior design projects and other structures and facilities is one of humankind’s most difficult endeavors in spite of the fact that it is a common activity” 1

In the last couple of posts, I’ve discussed the importance of construction document coordination and the importance of mentoring relative to the construction process. The time has come to consider the logistics of project delivery.

Arguably, the best source of knowledge on this topic is the membership of The Construction Specifications Institute. The best tool for measuring this knowledge is the CSI Certification Program which grants one certificate to and three advanced professional certifications of construction professionals who have demonstrated a high level of expertise within the construction industry.  The CSI Certification Program dates to the 1970’s with the establishment of the Certified Construction Specifier (CCS) program.  Since that time, the CDT Certificate Program and two other advanced certifications have been added for product representatives (CCPR) and construction contract administrators (CCCA).

With this post, I will focus primarily on The Construction Documents Technology (CDT) Program. The program is aimed at anyone who writes, interprets, manages, or otherwise utilizes construction documents.  The CDT is a prerequisite for CSI’s advanced certifications, but is an important accomplishment on a stand-alone basis.  The certificate is a useful tool to all parties to the construction process including, but not limited to, designers, constructors, material sup[pliers, product representatives, and more.  The program is useful to owner’s representatives as well, particularly if they are responsible for developing multiple projects.

In general, a CDT has knowledge of project delivery methods, design and construction processes, and construction documentation. With this knowledge, a CDT is able to perform his or her job more effectively because he/she understands the roles and relationships of the participants in the construction process and also understands what constitutes effective construction documents.

By understanding what is required by the construction documents, a contractor who holds the CDT delivers a project more closely resembles what the designer intended. Design professionals who hold the CDT are more likely to produce cohesive and coherent construction documents.  Product representatives and material suppliers are more likely to propose products that are compliant with the drawings and specifications.  The result? A better project for all parties.

It is for this reason that I prefer to do business with individuals who hold the CDT.

 

  1. The Construction Specifications Institute, Project Delivery Practice Guide (John Wiley & Sons)

Read Full Post »

We’ve all heard the expression “Don’t sweat the small stuff” which is good advice for daily life, but is it appropriate for us as design professionals to apply this to our professional lives? I would argue that this advice can’t apply to our work.  All too often, documents are released for construction with dimensions missing, slopes that don’t work for one reason or another, unsupported loads, or poor coordination in general.

Within the last hour, I’ve been asked to review center line dimensions on a foundation plan and elevations on a site plan related to accessible slopes. Both are easily overlooked, particularly within a profession that has a reputation for being more concerned with aesthetics than functionality.  Overlooking these issues can result in unnecessary expense during construction or liability on the part of the design professional.

Over the years, I’ve seen multiple coordination errors between disciplines such as site plans indicating backfilling against a framed wall, slopes that do not comply with accessibility guidelines, pavement that is too flat to adequately drain. I have also seen multiple cases where structural drawings didn’t reflect what was indicated on the architectural and similar issues with HVAC, plumbing, and electrical.  In other cases, headroom over stairs and similar issues have been ignored by designers not thinking the design through in three dimensions.  And I haven’t even mentioned the project manuals produced by repurposing the previous project’s specifications that may or may not be appropriate for the project at hand.

Granted, it is not at all easy to manage the competing priorities of the various design criteria. For example, it is essential to maintain accessible slopes on a site.  This is difficult to do in rolling terrain, but designing for runoff is relatively easy in these locations.  On a flatter site, designing for accessibility is easy, but in grading parking lots, avoidance of birdbaths because design slopes are too flat becomes a problem, especially in freezing weather.  Ensuring the integration of ductwork and plumbing with the structural system becomes an issue when the budget requires a low floor to floor height.

Use of BIM as a panacea for document coordination is not the answer. The model/documents still have to be checked and carefully coordinated by an experienced professional.  All of this is further complicated by the fact that Owners often do not want to pay sufficient fees to support this level of detail, but better to spend the money on document coordination than on demolition and replacement of components in the field.

Bottom line is this, every one of us on a project team needs to be diligent in coordinating the documents. I would encourage design professionals to do their due diligence in coordinating the documents to minimize RFIs.  Constructors, if you have questions, I would encourage you to issue the RFI or ask the necessary question(s).  Attention to detail on the part of all parties will result in better communication of the design intent.

Read Full Post »

Several years ago, I received a binder from a window manufacturer in response to a contact I made at Construct. The size tables in the catalog indicate which window units are in compliance with emergency egress and rescue requirements.

Fast forward to last week. Because of the age of the binder, we went to the manufacturer’s website to ensure that the sizes we are looking to use are still available.  What we found is that there are a wider choice of sizes available than there were eight years ago, but several of the windows that were labeled as egress compliant in the old catalog did not bear that designation on the website.  This is complicated by the fact that with the 2012 edition of the IBC, Exceptions 1 and 2 to Section 1029.1 have been eliminated.  Put succinctly, fully sprinklered buildings and buildings with two means of egress are now required to have emergency escape windows that were unnecessary under the 2009 IBC.

We contacted the manufacturer who steered us to an obscure feature on the website that allows the user to check the clear opening of each window size. The user is then left to make his/her own determination of whether the window complies with Section 1029.  Yes, this information is available via the website, but it is not readily apparent to the first time user.

So Mr./Ms. Manufacturer, please consider this your wake-up call. If the information is available, please put it where we can find it on your website.  Otherwise we will likely go to your competitor who has the information in a readily accessible location.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »