Specifications; notes on drawings 1

[ajk1]

I know that National Master Specs (NMS) in Canada have rules for wording to be used in writing specs, and the rules include not to use "shall be" type of sentence construction, but rather to use the "imperative" verb. Example: Say "Provide A490 high bolts", rather than "Bolts shall be A490".

My question: Is it better to have the imperative verb at the start of the sentence than elsewhere, or does it not matter?

For example, are the following equally acceptable?

"Provide new A490 bolts unless noted elsewhere on drawings"
"Unless noted elsewhere on drawings, provide A490 bolts."

 

[Shotzie]

I prefer the first option, but that's only because I think the useful information should lead and the U.N.O. is typical and would apply to most specs.

 

[bridgebuster]

Ditto, it also reads easier.

 

[JAE]

We use "shall" all the time. (USA). Not sure why some lawyers thing it matters.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[KootK]

I like the first one better too. In my opinion, anytime you eliminate a comma, you're making your communication clearer and more direct. It's not like you're trying to be Chaucer here.

 

[Hokie93]

I would break the first option into two sentences since I have a dislike for the word "new" on structural drawings. I would phrase the note as:

Use ASTM A490 bolts, unless otherwise noted. Do not re-use ASTM A490 bolts.

Or, you could start the first sentence with "provide".
Provide ASTM A490 bolts, unless otherwise noted. Do not re-use ASTM A490 bolts.

In response to JAE's comment, I recently learned that the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) requires the use of "must" in lieu of "shall". This was news to me as I have been using "shall" my entire career, including on NAVFAC projects.

 

[cvg]

most US government agencies require use of the imperative. For requirements, shall or must is used. for directives, use the imperative. for example:

requirements

Reinforcement must be free from loose, flaky rust and scale, and free from oil, grease, or other coating which might destroy or reduce the reinforcement's bond with the concrete.

The design of the bucket shall provide means for positive regulation of the amount and rate of deposit of concrete in each dumping position.

directive

Remove forms in accordance with ACI ACI 301, Section 2.

 

[CarlB]

As Hokie93 mentioned, Navy requires use of "must" vs "shall". Supposedly the Federal Government should now be using "must" for mandatory requirements.

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/

There is some good instructions on use of notes on drawings in this design guide:

https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/unified-facilities-criteria-ufc/fc-1-300-09n

The first point relative to this discussion shown below.

7-4 PROPER USE OF NOTES ON DRAWINGS
-Be consistent with grammar used in notes on drawings. Wherever possible use imperative statements to describe work to be accomplished by Contractor. For example, instead of using “Contractor must provide,” use “provide.” It is understood that the notes are written for the Contractor’s action.

 

[Settingsun]

I've read that 'shall' has fallen out of favour because it can be interpreted (or at least argued if necessary) that following the other instructions will result in the 'shall' clause being the outcome without any action from the contractor. 'If this is done then that shall be the outcome'.

 

[IFRs]

Providing commas shall be prohibited

 

[BAretired]

Why not avoid repetitious use of "shall", "must" or "provide" and just say:

Bolts: A 490

BA

 

[mronlinetutor]

I object to just list the bolts and not specify what to do with it. Are you going to swallow it if it fails.

I use shall in my architectural drawing because the shall is a future tense. It is something that the contractor to do after the plan is drawn.

disclaimer: all calculations and comments must be checked by senior engineers before they are taken to be acceptable.

 

[BAretired]

I object to just list the bolts and not specify what to do with it. Are you going to swallow it if it fails.

Start the list with a note such as:

"Except as otherwise noted, materials shall conform to the following specifications:"

Structural Steel: CSA G40.21 300W
HSS: CSA G40.21 350W
Bolts: ASTM A490
etc.
​

This removes repetitious garbage and is easier for the contractor to see what he needs for the project.



BA

 

[ajk1]

As usual, I agree with what BARetired says. In fact, the use of the colon ) as BARetired suggests in his example is one of the acceptable wordings given in the Canadian National Master Specification (NMS).

I would however, in your second example, say, "Provide materials conforming to the following specifications", and this would be in Part 2 Materials part of the specification. Part 3 of the specification it is said what is to be done with the bolts (that is where you find out that you are not going to swallow them).

As to my question about where to put the phrase "unless noted otherwise", the consensus here seems to that it should be at the end of the sentence, not at the beginning. That was my feeling as well. Is there any official document that says that?

to cvg - what you say seems to me to make sense. It seems also to conform to the Canadian NMS requirements. The NMS says to avoid "shall be". I don't think it says there is anything wrong with using the the stand-alone word "shall" when used as you indicate in you example.

I cannot recall having seen the word "must" used in a structural building specification. I think anyone who thinks the word "shall" means "maybe" must be the product of modern education. Anyway, we are not so litigious here in Canada as in the U.S. and my opinion is that in Canada we shall continue to avoid "must" unless there is an official Canadian document saying otherwise. Even if I put away my Oxford dictionary and look at my American Webster dictionary it says therein that "shall" means "must". It does not say it means "maybe".