Architectural Insight

A Few Predictors of Building Failure in New Construction

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:21:00 +0000

The following suggested predictors of building failure in new construction are based on years of experience tracing building failures to their causes. While the failures may express themselves as discrete detail flaws, underlying causes are often found in contractual decision making, project administration and management, and in conceptual design. The following predictors do not guarantee building failure, but they do indicate a heightened risk of failure.

Building from Schematic Design or other preliminary design documents – Schematic Design Drawings or other preliminary drawings that are prepared in CAD or a related computer program can appear quite precise, so it is possible to mistakenly expect such drawings to be sufficient for construction. Schematic Design Drawings typically lack sufficient detail for construction and may not be well conceived in terms of how materials and building components relate to one another. There is a high risk of building performance problems, including but not limited to building envelope leaks, when Schematic Drawings or other preliminary drawings are used as the basis of construction.
Eliminating or drastically limiting the Architect’s role during construction – If the Architect is dismissed from the construction phase of a project, or if the Architect’s services are reduced below the standard of practice in order to save cost or expedite construction, there is a heightened risk that changes and substitutions will be made without the review and scrutiny of the Architect, who would be expected to consider the compatibility of changes and substitutions with the design intent or even with code requirements and is expected to know more than contractors do about these matters. (Similar problems can occur if the Architect’s construction administration services are delegated to inexperienced staff, who may not have sufficient knowledge about the materials and systems they encounter on the construction site.)
Insufficient consideration of climate and weather – Success of building designs and design features in one climate are not good predictors of success in a different climate. This is true for building envelope designs in different geographic locations, and it is true for interior design features, materials, and details that are mistakenly used in exterior applications where they are inadequate for exposure to weather, including precipitation and exterior variations in temperature. It is also true for moisture sensitive interior materials that are subjected to high humidity related to building use (e.g., a swimming pool environment).
Assuming that the selection of an innovative, energy efficient product or system will, on its own, lead to a durable, energy efficient building – Examples include rot failures related to SIP (structural insulated panel) construction where panel joints were not properly sized and sealed and where OSB facing material was exposed to moisture in the belief (espoused by the panel manufacturer) that OSB was a waterproof material that need not be protected from moisture.

Certainly, there can be other predictors of building failure in new construction, and avoiding the predictors above may not lead to a trouble free building every time. Still, the issues above appear to be common enough to warrant their listing as predictors of building failure.

Planning for Concealed Site Conditions

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:15:00 +0000

Discovery of concealed site conditions can raise havoc with a project, possibly disrupting the construction schedule and adversely impacting the project budget. Here's a link to an article I wrote a few years ago to share some of my experience with concealed site conditions: Planning for Concealed Site Conditions

Delegating for Architects

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:14:00 +0000

Project results are directly related to the effectiveness of project communications. Successful delegation of responsibilities and tasks depends on effective communication. Download "Delegating for Architects" to read more about this.

Value Engineering

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:33:00 +0000

Any discussion of value engineering (V.E.) is likely to produce a rush of criticisms of the process if you work in an architecture or engineering practice. The architects and engineers are likely to recall bad experiences when V.E. was started late, approaching or following the completion of construction documents, at a time when the project schedule did not allow sufficient time to fully consider consequences and implement V.E. changes in a comprehensive and well coordinated manner. They are likely to complain that "V.E. stripped the value out of the project."

A better approach to V.E. is to start it earlier, when material and system decisions are being formulated and before a lot of time is invested in developing applicable details and specifications.

The Whole Building Design Guide (http://www.wbdg.org/resources/value_engineering.php) offers an excellent synopsis of V.E. and a clear picture of the advantages of doing it earlier in the life of a project.

"By Others" and "N.I.C."

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:03:00 +0000

The terms "By Others" and "Not In Contract" (or "N.I.C.") can add confusion to construction documents if the intent of the terms is not well established within the documents. The note "By Others" on a drawing may be intended to indicate that an item is to be provided by a different trade under the same overall construction contract, and "N.I.C." may be intended similarly to indicate an item that is to be provided by a different trade. However, these notes may have different meanings for different readers. Without further clarification, a general contractor seeing a note "By Others" or "N.I.C." may take it at face value to mean the item is not part of the general contractor's scope at all, even if the intent of the note was to indicate its exclusion only from the work of a particular trade or subtrade or a particular bid package. It is better to develop and use terms that convey the intent more precisely. For example, if an item shown on a site plan is intended to be provided by an electrical contractor whose work scope is also established on other drawings, it may be appropriate for the site plan to include the term "By Electrical Contractor" in a note relating to the item. Alternatively, it may be practical for all items that are not intended to be part of the site work to be noted "Not by Site Work Contractor", provided the term does not contradict a general contractor's contractual authority to assign such work. Drawings which are specifically intended to describe the work of a particular trade or subtrade can benefit from a List of Abbreviations or a List of Terms which clarify the meaning of such notes in order to minimize confusion.

Reviewing the Contractor's Application for Payment

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:39:00 +0000

On most public construction projects, the Architect reviews the Contractor's monthly Applications for Payment (a.k.a. "Requisitions") and certifies the amount to be paid to the Contractor for that month. If the Application is made on AIA Document G702, the front page includes the names of the Project, the Owner, the Contractor, and the Architect, an Application number, date(s) indicating the period covered by the Application, an overview accounting of the monetary status of the construction project, starting with the original contract sum and including a calculation of the Current Payment Due, considering change orders, the total amount completed and stored to date, Retainage to be withheld, and previous certificates for payment. The front page also includes a Change Order Summary, certification by the Contractor, conditions (terms) of certification by the Architect, and the amount certified. Continuation sheets should break down the contract sum and progress according to the approved Schedule of Values (see The Schedule of Values deserves close attention) and also include a detailed accounting of the status of work on approved Change Orders.

The Architect should review even the basic information on the front page before looking at the detailed information on the continuation sheets. It helps to have a copy of the previous month's Application in hand for comparison. Once you determine that the current month's Application is for the appropriate project (seriously), check the Original Contract Sum. In more than one instance, a contractor has changed the Original Contract Sum on an Application for Payment, resulting in an increase in payment without an approved Change Order. The Original Contract Sum should remain the same for the life of the Contract. Before turning to the continuation sheets, the Architect should apply the same scrutiny to the rest of the front page calculations and the wording of the certification. Different certification language may carry different liability.

Detailed information on the continuation sheets is typically generated as part of a "pencil requisition" process and in anticipation of work to be completed by the end of the month. The Architect needs to consider whether the final Application for the month represents work that was actually accomplished by the end of the month. If the Architect is aware that an anticipated material delivery did not occur, then the Architect should not certify payment for that. Likewise, if the Architect is aware that a specific work item was not completed, then the Architect should not certifiy payment as if the item had been completed. Necessary adjustments to the continuation sheets must be carried over to the front page and to the overall amount certified by the Architect for the period covered by the Application. It may be practical for the Contractor to make the necessary adjustments and then resubmit a corrected Application for the Architect's certification. If timely payment is an overriding concern, then the Architect may need to make the adjustments by annotating the Application, certifying a reduced amount, and notifying both the Owner and the Contractor of the reasons for the adjustments. (See also It takes timely money to make a project go )

Manage Design Costs with Early Project Overtime

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:46:00 +0000

One of Mike's PM tips for managing design costs on a project: "If you know you are going to have to work overtime on a project," he said, "do it in the beginning. It costs less to do overtime when there are only one or two people working on a project." (See Purposeful chaos (the 2-minute design offense))

This makes a lot of sense when considering a project on a compressed time line. If you're trying to figure out how to get all the work done in a short period of time, the least attractive alternative is having an army of designers and drafters burning the midnight oil and generating design questions as the completion deadline approaches. Eleventh hour overtime can quickly burn through budgeted hours and fee dollars, and too many new or unanswered questions at that stage can lead to unplanned chaos.

It's also interesting to consider how this principle of early overtime might benefit progress and labor costs on a construction site. Early trades - like earthwork, concrete, and steel - set the stage for a larger work force, and trades can multiply as the project becomes ready for their work.

Masonry Details, Toledo

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:35:00 +0000

Shop Drawing Review Comments

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:25:00 +0000

While it can be frustrating for an architect to review shop drawing submittals that appear to lack adequate preparation or attention to contract requirements, it is still important for the architect to maintain professional decorum in the review comments. This is equally true for the review of resubmitted shop drawings that do not include corrections noted by the architect on a previous submittal. An inadequate resubmittal may warrant separate correspondence from the architect to the contractor noting the repeated deficiencies and, if applicable, the possibility of adverse effects on the project schedule; but the review comments and correspondence should communicate clearly and without sarcasm or accusations. For example, "Why can't you get it?" is not a proper architect review comment on a shop drawing submittal.

Construction Documents Coordination Matrix

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:56:00 +0000

It may look a little "geeky", but this matrix can be an effective tool for considering interdisciplinary coordination needs. The design disciplines for a project are listed across the top and down one side. The intersection points represent coordination between disciplines (e.g., between Civil/Site and Electrical). Seeing the possibilities in this format can help to minimize coordination gaps. On a given project, the extent and specifics of coordination will differ from point to point, and the design displines may also differ. Still, seeing an intersection point can prompt thoughts about needed coordination between any two disciplines. For example, where Civil/Site meets Foodservice, it may bring to mind the need to coordinate the locations of exterior condensing units with site work. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Looking at this coordination matrix, it is also easy to see how extensive coordination really is (and must be) on an architectural project. On some complex projects, coordination can be seen as a full time job in itself, from the coordination of consulting agreement scopes of work to the coordination of sub-trade scopes of work and the dotting of i's and crossing of t's in construction documents.

Construction Documents Peer Review

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:07:00 +0000

Joe Iano (see Iano's backfill ) shared with me an approach to quality review of construction documents that is used by a prominent firm where he is employed in Seattle (see the AIA 2009 Honor Award Firm of the Year Olson Sundberg Kundig Allen Architects in the May 2009 issue of Architectural Record). Joe said the firm has senior non-project staff review construction documents together with staff who developed the documents for a given project. The issues, concerns, and comments that are raised during the review can go a long way toward mentoring less experienced staff.

A similar approach could work in utilizing the services of an independent peer review architect who can review the construction documents together with the staff who developed the documents. Compared to a "redline only" mark-up of drawings and specifications, the interactive review process can include a substantive conversation that carries longer term value for the firm, while taking advantage of review expertise outside the firm.

The 50-50 Rule

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:13:00 +0000

Jobs vary in the proportion of time required for technical work ("stuff") vs. people work (communication, cooperation, management, etc.). Some jobs may consist of less than 50% stuff, but most jobs done effectively require at least 50% people work. If you are doing a technical job in architecture (or most any other field), and you think that your job is 100% or near 100% "stuff" and 0% or near 0% "people", you are probably not doing your job effectively, and you are probably neglecting at least 50% (the "people" part) of your job.

When you develop drawings - plans, sections, elevations, details, etc. - and specifications, you depend on other people to understand and make effective use of those drawings and specifications to produce desirable results. Your work must effectively communicate with others, be they other designers, consultants, owners, users, permitting authorities, estimators, bidders, contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, and others. And the value of your work - especially technical work - is diminished by the extent that it does not effectively communicate with others.

While jobs do vary in the actual proportion of "stuff" vs. "people", a good approach to a technical job is one based on a consideration that at least 50% of the job is people related. That's the 50-50 rule.

More Doors and Doorways (Spain)

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:45:00 +0000

Doors and Doorways (Spain)

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:30:00 +0000

Dutchmen for a technical ground grid

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Sun, 10 May 2009 12:53:00 +0000

Our fast-track, high-tech building project was nearly complete. The tenant's expensive computer equipment was rolling in, and the sophisticated equipment power system was being tested. Then the electrical contractor reported a problem. The technical ground grid did not test out as required. All the components were in place, but there was a widespread loss in the system. Investigation isolated the loss to the computer room raised floor system in nearly every room of the building. The grid of the raised floor system was an intended major component of the technical grounding system. Computer equipment would be grounded to the floor grid, and an electrical grounding conductor tied each room's floor grid to the technical ground rod system outside the building. Through further investigation, the contractor found that the perimeter of the raised floor system was in contact with drywall screws at the floor line, providing unplanned continuity between the raised floor system and the metal stud partition framing throughout the building. It seemed like a monumental problem, and the team had almost no time to correct it before the tenant's scheduled start-up date. An eleventh hour brainstorming session turned up a solution worth trying. Small pieces of thin plastic laminate were installed in one room to separate the raised floor perimeter frame from the drywall screws. The fix proved effective, so the plastic laminate "band-aids" were used throughout the building, and the tenant's start-up occurred on schedule.

The Architect's role at the construction site

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:02:00 +0000

As construction began on a building, the architect's field representative was approached by the electrical subcontractor. The subcontractor wanted the architect's approval to install all distribution conduit at a specific level and prior to construction of interior partitions and mechanical distribution systems. It sounded like a great idea, a really clean and efficient installation for the electrical subcontractor that also appeared to offer post-construction advantages for the owner. However, it did not consider other construction and schedule needs. Had the architect given the nod to the electrical subcontractor, it would have interfered with the general contractor's responsibility and authority for scheduling and coordinating the work of the subcontractors, and it would have interfered directly with the work of other sub-trades. Further, the owner had no interest in the advantages proposed by the electrical subcontractor. At best, it was a good idea for some other project.

An architect visiting a construction site can feel a rush of power as construction personnel approach with questions. "Finally," you may hear them exclaim, "someone with answers!" This is an opportunity to show your knowledge of construction, the project, and the construction documents, and it is also an opportunity to make a complete fool of yourself. You have to be careful to stay within the limits of your contractual role*, which is normally to observe construction for consistency with the construction documents and to communicate with the contractor's superintendent. This can be challenging when workers are gushing with excitement to hear your opinion about what should or could be done. A question may be valid and may warrant a prompt response, but the architect's reply should be consistent with the requirements of the construction documents, and it should be made through proper channels. You have to observe construction, but you should do what you can to avoid a claim or the appearance that you personally directed a worker or subcontractor to make a change. One subcontractor can sound very convincing when presenting a question or a dilemma, but there may be other factors, interests, and requirements to consider.

[*The architect's contractual role during construction is typically established by the General Conditions of the Contract such as AIA Document A-201 or by similar documents and/or amendments thereto.]

Masonry Design: Not-Quite-Through-Wall Flashing

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Thu, 07 May 2009 14:04:00 +0000

Through-wall flashing is a common water management feature of masonry cavity wall and veneer construction. It is most effective if its outer edge is beyond the outer face of the wall and is turned down to form a drip edge and help water fall away from the joint under the flashing. It can be ineffective and result in leaks into a building if the outer edge of the flashing is concealed within the wall. In at least one case, a leak was attributed to flashing that stopped above the core holes of extruded brick. The design relied on the through-wall flashing to protect the building interior, but water which was intended to be conveyed out of the wall by the through-wall flashing was instead allowed to re-enter the wall and subsequently find its way to the building interior. Apparently, someone did not want to see the edge of the flashing coming out through the wall. At the time of construction it was common for the flashing to be coated with asphalt, and the asphalt coating - not especially attractive in any case - would melt under sunlight and over time it would drip and stain the face of the wall below. More attractive materials are widely used today, including drip edges of proprietary compositions or even stainless steel. The more attractive materials are likely to be more expensive. However, stopping the flashing within the wall may be the most expensive option of all, considering the possible costs of leak remediation.

Change Order Process Diagrams

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:40:00 +0000

Comment on this post to request a pdf copy of these process diagrams.

Email is Snail Mail for some

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Wed, 06 May 2009 12:42:00 +0000

We all have our preferred means of communication, and we are inclined in this digital age to think that faster is better. But, in some situations, exclusive use of lightning speed technology may actually delay communication. The growing popularity of email years ago gave rise to the derogatory term "snail mail" to describe older and slower postal service or even "express" systems for delivery of hard copy mail.

But, for some, "snail mail" still beats email. In one situation an executive who touts his company's use of computer based technology remains reluctant to make personal use of it. Sending this CEO an email message actually guarantees as much as a 2-week communication delay. His orders to his assistant - who actually receives his email - is to print it all out once every two weeks and put it into his in-box in a neat stack. He may then read it along with letters, magazines, advertisements, and other mail.

This may seem like an extreme case these days, but it illustrates the importance (and advantage) of utilizing several means of communication to deliver a message. Don't forget face to face conversation, the telephone, the postage stamp, arm waving, signing, the bullhorn, and other potentially effective ways to deliver a message. (See also Practice the Hand-off.)

Can you recognize a flat tire?

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:18:00 +0000

One architect, when interviewing prospective employees, would typically say, "You may have to mow the lawn sometimes." There wasn't much lawn to mow around that office, but the statement was an effective way of saying that we all have to pay attention to practical matters, and that may mean doing a few things that are not on your personal career agenda. In the midst of rapidly advancing technologies, practical awareness and practical skills continue to be important and useful.

Specialization and automation risk some loss of practical awareness. As we come to rely more on technology and automatic systems, we can lose our internal ability to recognize a problem. The recent addition of a tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) as a feature on automobiles exemplifies such a risk. While TPMS may signal a loss of tire pressure that is not obvious to an observer, the presence of TPMS is likely to lull a driver into thinking that it is not necessary to consider the condition of the tires before traveling. Then, if the TPMS malfunctions and does not signal the driver of a loss of tire pressure, there is a risk that the driver will continue to operate a car with an under-inflated or flat tire, possibly damaging or destroying the tire...or worse. "Hey! The TPMS didn't tell me there was a problem!" With or without TPMS, a driver needs to recognize the symptoms of a low or flat tire and to react appropriately. One of the long term effects of systems like TPMS may be TLOA (total lack of awareness).

GPS, spell-checker, and CAD (see CAD doesn't care) are other examples of helpful technologies that may, as a side effect, reduce our internal awareness of problems. In a similar way, BIM (Building Information Modeling) offers the promise of more ways to consider a building project in its formative stages, but it will still fall to the operator or viewer to recognize a problem that needs to be corrected (see What's wrong with this picture?).

Metal Roofing Specifications: "No Visible Oil Canning" equals Mission Impossible.

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:36:00 +0000

On my first visit to the job site after the roofing contractor had started installing standing seam metal roofing, the Clerk called me aside and said, "I think we've got oil canning."

I looked at the newly installed metal. It looked fine.

"Wait a while", he said. As the sky changed and the angle of the sunlight changed during the day, oil canning appeared, then disappeared, then reappeared differently. "The specs say 'no visible oil canning'," the Clerk accurately noted.

The spec writer's best intentions, possibly influenced by the designer's best intentions, were that from Day One and under any and all light conditions the metal roofing would exhibit no visible distortion. Seeing the situation in the field, a part of my mental faculties that were still intact suggested we had a problem that was more perceived than real. Over the next few days I visited and photographed a number of other projects with metal roofing - from afar, up close, and under different light conditions. These appeared to be carefully crafted installations with little or no distortion related to the installation. Yet under some light conditions and viewing angles, they all exhibited 'visible oil canning'. I put the findings into a little presentation for the client, who had been alerted to the oil canning condition by the Clerk. Following the presentation, the client was satisfied that the metal roofing was normal in terms of visible oil canning. The spec writer? Well, that's another story.

(Visit http://www.smacna.org for an October 2005 newsletter article on oil canning and information about how to minimize it.)

Construction Tolerance

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:33:00 +0000

Where codes or regulations establish minimum or maximum values and allow no tolerance outside the limit, industry standard construction tolerance should be incorporated into the design. For example, concrete ramps that must comply with "zero tolerance" maximum slope requirements for wheelchair accessibility should be designed at less than the maximum slope, such that allowable construction tolerance for concrete surfaces will not result in a slope that exceeds the maximum for wheelchair accessibility. If the maximum slope for wheelchair accessibility is 1:12, a design slope of 1:13 (or 0.95:12) may provide sufficient tolerance for construction to meet the slope regulations.

Masonry Design: Separate hung masonry from foundation-supported masonry

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:01:00 +0000

When drawing up elevations for masonry walls, in addition to locating control joints (arguably "expansion joints") to accommodate expansion and contraction related to temperature and moisture, it is important to consider how masonry supported on lintels hung directly from deflecting structural steel will move differently from masonry that is supported directly by the building foundation. While "loose" lintels supporting masonry over openings usually rest on foundation-supported masonry at the ends of the spanned opening, hung lintels should be isolated from foundation-supported masonry in a way that allows for independent vertical movement related to deflection of structural steel. If the hung lintel overlaps the foundation-supported masonry, a soft joint similar to that below a relieving angle may be appropriate below the end of the hung lintel. And the control joint above the lintel should also be located to allow for independent movement of the two masonry conditions. Determining the location of the ends of the hung lintel is important for construction that will properly respect the different needs of the two conditions. It gets more complicated for hung lintel assemblies suspended from beams that are interrupted by columns. In any case, careful consideration should be given to the locations of control joints within the wall area that is supported by the hung lintels.

In some cases the best control joint locations for wall performance will not be the best locations for aesthetic intent. But, then, cracks are not usually attractive in appearance.

Roof Drainage Design: Foresight or Afterthought?

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:18:00 +0000

If we could just get it a little further away or get it to go over there, everything would be okay.

Purposeful chaos (the 2-minute design offense)

noreply@blogger.com (Albert R. Russell, AIA) — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:59:00 +0000

While throwing staff at a project at the last minute is likely to be counterproductive (see Staffing a design project), an imminent project deadline can ignite productive and purposeful chaos that is otherwise hard to generate. Consider the possible accomplishments of the "2-minute offense" or "no huddle offense" that are so well known and widely used during the last minutes of a football game. A scripted sequence of plays may produce effective results in a short time. Deadlines and completion milestones are important for efficiency, because work tends to fill the time available, and it will likely take more hours (and therefore cost more for labor) to do a task without an imminent deadline. Interim or "partial completion" deadlines with well-defined scopes of work and timely, attentive reviews can be helpful in keeping a project on schedule and also on target in terms of design intent. Architecture is like other work when it comes to efficient production.

Mike (see Paint the Color Chip and Mike's Abridged Edition) offered another idea for managing labor costs on a design project. "If you know you are going to have to work overtime on a project," he said, "do it in the beginning. It costs less to do overtime when there are only one or two people working on a project."