steveray
SAWHORSE
I would say rating, lock?, and panic would be nice little notes on a door schedule and not make it too cumbersome..Paul Sweet said:
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Construction Documents
- Thread starter Codegeek
- Start date
LGreene
Registered User
The fire rating is shown on the door schedule (unless it's a really bad door schedule) and also a hardware set number for each door. With this number you could go to the specification and look at the hardware set for a particular door if you had a lot of time and patience. For many projects it wouldn't be feasible to put the complete hardware sets on the plans as requested above. I've had quite a few projects with more than 100 hardware sets.steveray said:
I agree that a notation for panic hardware on the door schedule would really help the plans reviewers. You might also want a notation for any electrified hardware - like delayed egress, controlled egress (I-2), etc. The hardware sets for any doors with electrified hardware should include an operational description which tells you how the doors work, without you having to interpret each piece of hardware in the set. The requirements for electrified hardware have changed in the past few editions of the codes, and the 2015 IBC has some changes that will help clarify these sections. I just worked on revising the IBC Commentary to make it more clear and accurate.
Beyond these items, I think you could have some CYA notes in whatever documentation you provide with your plans review, covering basic things like single operation to unlatch (except residential dwelling units), listed hardware on fire doors, general info about accessibility, etc. If anyone would find it helpful, I could draft up a list of basic hardware requirements that you could edit and use as either a cheat sheet/checklist or the CYA notes.
I am hearing a lot of rationalizations for the behavior of the building official that do not make sense so I will offer some facts and structural engineer’s perspective.
There is a system developed by the Construction Specification Institute that defines what information should be located in the specifications and where in the specifications. The AIA and various engineering organizations recognize and support this system and most projects are based on this system. The wording of IBC Section 107.2.1 suggests that the authors of that code section were aware of this system and intended that the code would not prohibit the use of this system. When the plan checker insists on information being located on the drawings instead of in the specifications the plan checker is undercutting the designer’s organization of the construction documents.
I have designed projects of various sizes where the drawings did not contain specification information. The General Notes were maybe 3 sentences long. The projects got built without pushback or noticeable problems. The reality is that Contractors have learned to read specifications.
Assumptions about what the workers need in the field are not supported by experience.
On other than a small project there is no way that you can place all of the information necessary to document code compliance on the drawings. Thus when the plan checker asks for information on the drawings he is explicitly saying that he only wants the subset that he will check. The problem is even if the building department decides not to check certain things the designer still needs to comply with all of the requirements in the code.
When the designer is forced to place information on the drawings that should be in the specs this makes it easy for the Contractor to look on the drawings and ignoring the remainder of the requirements in the specifications. If the information is only located in one location, such as the specifications, the contractor will learn to look there. In addition duplicating or placing similar information on the drawings increases the likelihood of problems and contractors Claims. There is a classic book telling Contractors how to mine for claims that makes this point. The arbitrary requirements by plan checkers encourages behavior that results in more contractor claims. Thus accommodating the plan checkers desires, that are not codified, creates greater risk for the Owner.
The reality is that the plan checker does not have the power to correct all of the problems with construction documents. In fact such attempts only contribute to the problems. Plan checkers should focus on whether or not the project complies with the code. If it is not clear where the information is then ask the designer for clarification. If your fees are not adequate to accommodate what is considered good industry practice then maybe you should increase your fees.
The Owner not the plan checker or the building official is responsible for compliance, thus the Owner and his consultants need to be given the control over how the information is presented. Since when do plan checkers share in the legal liability for non-compliance?
Besides protecting the safety of the public another purpose of building regulations is to give the Owner and his consultants some certainty regarding what they must do to comply. Underground regulations and arbitrary demands defeat this purpose.
There is a system developed by the Construction Specification Institute that defines what information should be located in the specifications and where in the specifications. The AIA and various engineering organizations recognize and support this system and most projects are based on this system. The wording of IBC Section 107.2.1 suggests that the authors of that code section were aware of this system and intended that the code would not prohibit the use of this system. When the plan checker insists on information being located on the drawings instead of in the specifications the plan checker is undercutting the designer’s organization of the construction documents.
I have designed projects of various sizes where the drawings did not contain specification information. The General Notes were maybe 3 sentences long. The projects got built without pushback or noticeable problems. The reality is that Contractors have learned to read specifications.
Assumptions about what the workers need in the field are not supported by experience.
On other than a small project there is no way that you can place all of the information necessary to document code compliance on the drawings. Thus when the plan checker asks for information on the drawings he is explicitly saying that he only wants the subset that he will check. The problem is even if the building department decides not to check certain things the designer still needs to comply with all of the requirements in the code.
When the designer is forced to place information on the drawings that should be in the specs this makes it easy for the Contractor to look on the drawings and ignoring the remainder of the requirements in the specifications. If the information is only located in one location, such as the specifications, the contractor will learn to look there. In addition duplicating or placing similar information on the drawings increases the likelihood of problems and contractors Claims. There is a classic book telling Contractors how to mine for claims that makes this point. The arbitrary requirements by plan checkers encourages behavior that results in more contractor claims. Thus accommodating the plan checkers desires, that are not codified, creates greater risk for the Owner.
The reality is that the plan checker does not have the power to correct all of the problems with construction documents. In fact such attempts only contribute to the problems. Plan checkers should focus on whether or not the project complies with the code. If it is not clear where the information is then ask the designer for clarification. If your fees are not adequate to accommodate what is considered good industry practice then maybe you should increase your fees.
The Owner not the plan checker or the building official is responsible for compliance, thus the Owner and his consultants need to be given the control over how the information is presented. Since when do plan checkers share in the legal liability for non-compliance?
Besides protecting the safety of the public another purpose of building regulations is to give the Owner and his consultants some certainty regarding what they must do to comply. Underground regulations and arbitrary demands defeat this purpose.
RLGA
SAWHORSE
After reading through these posts, I, like Lori Greene, feel the need to "throw in my 2 cents' worth."
As a professional specifier (Certified by CSI), I take exception, as well as would many of my colleagues in this field, to some of the comments posted here. While I don't disagree that some architectstake specifications lightly and produce poorly prepared specifications, I, and all the professional specifiers I know, take specifications very seriously and would never copy specifications from a previous project without considering the conditions and issues of the project at hand. Every set of specifications I edit is solely for the project for which it was prepared. Architects who consider specifications at the last minute and rush their preparation, or think that specifications are secondary to the drawings, are only opening themselves up to greater risk.
Most owner-contractor agreements state that specifications and drawings are complementary, and state "what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all" (AIA Document A201-2007). Thus, if the drawings do not indicate the information, but the specifications do, then the contractor must provide it. For example, if the drawings only note "wood paneling" for a space that is required by code to have a Class A finish, but the specifications state that wood paneling is to have a flame spread index of 25 or less and a smoke developed index of 450 or less, then the contractor must provide wood paneling with a Class A rating. If the contractor installed wood paneling that did not have a Class A rating “because it wasn’t shown on the drawings,” then that contractor will have to replace all of the noncomplying paneling at his own expense, since the specifications, which are part of the contract documents, provided the qualitative requirements for the paneling.
I have frequently encountered comments from building officials and plans examiners asking for content appropriately located in the specifications be placed on the drawings. I have, on most occasions, argued successfully that the specifications clearly address the code requirements in question and that placing the information on the drawings is unnecessary. Drawings are to provide information on the location, size, quantity, and interrelationship to other building elements; specifications provide the detailed qualitative requirements.
As a current board member of CSI at the national level, I want to thank Mark K. for bringing up CSI and mentioning its organizational structure for specifications. The standard he mentioned is called "MasterFormat" (not to be confused with MasterSpec, which is the AIA's master guide specification system). MasterFormat locates specifications within divisions and sections based on the work result of the item specified. Using door hardware as an example, it is a work result associated with door openings, which are specified in Division 08 "Openings." Door hardware requirements can be found in Section 08 71 00 “Door Hardware.” Additionally, each section is organized per one of CSI's other formats called "SectionFormat." SectionFormat divides each specification section into three parts: PART 1 GENERAL, PART 2 PRODUCTS, and PART 3 EXECUTION. Understanding the organizational structure of specifications will make it easier to find the information you are seeking. Plans examiners would be well-advised to learn and understand this organizational structure of specifications.
Conversely, specifiers should know how to properly specify for code compliance within the specifications. As a matter of fact, I'm teaching a session titled “Common Pitfalls When Specifying for Code Compliance” at the CSI Academies in Indianapolis held March27-29.
As a professional specifier (Certified by CSI), I take exception, as well as would many of my colleagues in this field, to some of the comments posted here. While I don't disagree that some architectstake specifications lightly and produce poorly prepared specifications, I, and all the professional specifiers I know, take specifications very seriously and would never copy specifications from a previous project without considering the conditions and issues of the project at hand. Every set of specifications I edit is solely for the project for which it was prepared. Architects who consider specifications at the last minute and rush their preparation, or think that specifications are secondary to the drawings, are only opening themselves up to greater risk.
Most owner-contractor agreements state that specifications and drawings are complementary, and state "what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all" (AIA Document A201-2007). Thus, if the drawings do not indicate the information, but the specifications do, then the contractor must provide it. For example, if the drawings only note "wood paneling" for a space that is required by code to have a Class A finish, but the specifications state that wood paneling is to have a flame spread index of 25 or less and a smoke developed index of 450 or less, then the contractor must provide wood paneling with a Class A rating. If the contractor installed wood paneling that did not have a Class A rating “because it wasn’t shown on the drawings,” then that contractor will have to replace all of the noncomplying paneling at his own expense, since the specifications, which are part of the contract documents, provided the qualitative requirements for the paneling.
I have frequently encountered comments from building officials and plans examiners asking for content appropriately located in the specifications be placed on the drawings. I have, on most occasions, argued successfully that the specifications clearly address the code requirements in question and that placing the information on the drawings is unnecessary. Drawings are to provide information on the location, size, quantity, and interrelationship to other building elements; specifications provide the detailed qualitative requirements.
As a current board member of CSI at the national level, I want to thank Mark K. for bringing up CSI and mentioning its organizational structure for specifications. The standard he mentioned is called "MasterFormat" (not to be confused with MasterSpec, which is the AIA's master guide specification system). MasterFormat locates specifications within divisions and sections based on the work result of the item specified. Using door hardware as an example, it is a work result associated with door openings, which are specified in Division 08 "Openings." Door hardware requirements can be found in Section 08 71 00 “Door Hardware.” Additionally, each section is organized per one of CSI's other formats called "SectionFormat." SectionFormat divides each specification section into three parts: PART 1 GENERAL, PART 2 PRODUCTS, and PART 3 EXECUTION. Understanding the organizational structure of specifications will make it easier to find the information you are seeking. Plans examiners would be well-advised to learn and understand this organizational structure of specifications.
Conversely, specifiers should know how to properly specify for code compliance within the specifications. As a matter of fact, I'm teaching a session titled “Common Pitfalls When Specifying for Code Compliance” at the CSI Academies in Indianapolis held March27-29.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you both RLGA and Mark K for mentioning CSI; it's a great organization. While I'm not a member, our office participates in many events and I've given presentations to our local CSI Chapter on a few occasions. I think more CSI Chapters should reach out to code officials to help educate them on how specifications are written and why they are structured the way they are and even take it one step further by educating the code official on what is a true set of construction documents - plans and specifications.
http://www.csinet.org/Main-Menu-Category/Communities-2109-14280/Chapter-Locator
I am going to have someone from our group call them and see if they will come give a short talk
I am going to have someone from our group call them and see if they will come give a short talk
JBI
Registered User
In my experience contractors rarely look at (nevermind 'read') specification documents. The exceptions being larger contractors on larger jobs.
The notion that if DPRs only put certain information on plans and the rest in specs will somehow 'force' the contactors to read the specs is naiive at best.
IMHO, the details of the hardware (brand, model number, listing, etc) should be in the specs, but identifying which door and hardware types go where should be in the plans.
Last, usually if the specs are outdated, the plans are likely outdated as well.
The notion that if DPRs only put certain information on plans and the rest in specs will somehow 'force' the contactors to read the specs is naiive at best.
IMHO, the details of the hardware (brand, model number, listing, etc) should be in the specs, but identifying which door and hardware types go where should be in the plans.
Last, usually if the specs are outdated, the plans are likely outdated as well.
JBI
The question of whether or not the Contractor reads the specs and what should be done are for the Owner and his consultants to worry about and not something the building official is able to control. The Owner with the assistance of his consultants is responsible for compliance and thus should have the necessary flexibility in creating the construction documents. The building official should focus on the questions of whether the design complies with the adopted regulations and whether the installed work is code compliant.
You may disagree with my, and I suggest a common, approach but unless you are willing to accept personal responsibility for the design as the designer of record it should not be yours to dictate.
The question of whether or not the Contractor reads the specs and what should be done are for the Owner and his consultants to worry about and not something the building official is able to control. The Owner with the assistance of his consultants is responsible for compliance and thus should have the necessary flexibility in creating the construction documents. The building official should focus on the questions of whether the design complies with the adopted regulations and whether the installed work is code compliant.
You may disagree with my, and I suggest a common, approach but unless you are willing to accept personal responsibility for the design as the designer of record it should not be yours to dictate.
JBI
Registered User
Mark K
IMHO = In my humble opinion.
Merely pointing out that assuming contractors will do as designers want them to is (generally) folly, be it a 'common' approach or not. That's the difference between 'ideal' and 'real' world application.
IMHO = In my humble opinion.
Merely pointing out that assuming contractors will do as designers want them to is (generally) folly, be it a 'common' approach or not. That's the difference between 'ideal' and 'real' world application.
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
One problem is when I go to do an inspection I don't know if a spec book was included with the plans if it's not on the job site.
ADAguy
Registered User
To each of you all, your levels of professionalism and patience are showing clearly.
Not only must we consider the plan reviewers/AHJ's but also the tradesmen who are lugging our plans around and the CM's who rely on the subs because many of the CM's lack trade experience.
Exclusive of the E & O issuers who want less rather then more on the plans, I have always held to the principle of overdoing my plans rather then underdoing so that I and the reviewer can part company as quickly as possible. This leads to ever increasing improvements in our relationships when we meet again.
Not only must we consider the plan reviewers/AHJ's but also the tradesmen who are lugging our plans around and the CM's who rely on the subs because many of the CM's lack trade experience.
Exclusive of the E & O issuers who want less rather then more on the plans, I have always held to the principle of overdoing my plans rather then underdoing so that I and the reviewer can part company as quickly as possible. This leads to ever increasing improvements in our relationships when we meet again.
Couple of thoughts.
Construction Documents, what they are and are comprised of, have been defined in many places.
Some have suggested CSI, which focus more on the spec.
Likewise AIA (both in their Architects Handbook for Professional Practice and their corresponding contracts) which focus on them being complimentary documents. The specs typically address the quality issues. The drawings the quantity issues.
Of course everything is created to communicated to all parties what the work is to be installed.
Now concerning door hardware. the schedules on the drawing can describe sufficient and basic information as to the type of hardware. Office versus classroom vs panic. While not getting into the level of detail of the specifications (which can be in many forms and formats).
Before the materials reach the site, hopefully, the items to be ordered and installed have been reviewed. this is where the specs are easy to use. From there, the installer simply needs to know that this door is to be equipped with this hardware and go from there.
Concerning the officials not have specs on them.
Do you not requires a set of the approved documents to be onsite? If they are not onsite, isn't this a bigger issue. just asking.
All that stated, I tend to like a KISS approach myself, but sometimes that options just don’t hunt (Feds).
Construction Documents, what they are and are comprised of, have been defined in many places.
Some have suggested CSI, which focus more on the spec.
Likewise AIA (both in their Architects Handbook for Professional Practice and their corresponding contracts) which focus on them being complimentary documents. The specs typically address the quality issues. The drawings the quantity issues.
Of course everything is created to communicated to all parties what the work is to be installed.
Now concerning door hardware. the schedules on the drawing can describe sufficient and basic information as to the type of hardware. Office versus classroom vs panic. While not getting into the level of detail of the specifications (which can be in many forms and formats).
Before the materials reach the site, hopefully, the items to be ordered and installed have been reviewed. this is where the specs are easy to use. From there, the installer simply needs to know that this door is to be equipped with this hardware and go from there.
Concerning the officials not have specs on them.
Do you not requires a set of the approved documents to be onsite? If they are not onsite, isn't this a bigger issue. just asking.
All that stated, I tend to like a KISS approach myself, but sometimes that options just don’t hunt (Feds).
RLGA
SAWHORSE
lunatik:
Although the owner may provide the contractor with "complimentary" drawings and specifications, I think you meant to say that the drawings and specifications are "complementary." :razz:
Although the owner may provide the contractor with "complimentary" drawings and specifications, I think you meant to say that the drawings and specifications are "complementary." :razz:
mark handler
SAWHORSE
I wish my printer provided "complimentary" drawings and specificationsRLGA said: