Performance versus prescriptive specifications
The four ways a requirement is written and who carries the result, what ES-1 and ED-1 do for roof edge metal, a method for writing a performance requirement with worked checks, and the defects that show a specification has failed.
4 lessons · about 40 min · 11 diagrams · 0 videos
Version 1.0.0
Builds on these modules
Related Academy lessons
Lessons
0 of 4 complete
Lesson 1 · 11 min · 12 slides · 7 questions
Performance versus prescriptive specifications: principles and terminology
The four kinds of requirement, how performance and prescriptive wording differ, who carries the risk when plans are prescribed, the federal preference for performance, and a real federal section sorted sentence by sentence.
You will be able to: Name the four kinds of requirement this course uses, say what each states and who carries the result, and sort the sentences of a real specification section by kind.
Not startedStart →Lesson 2 · 10 min · 11 slides · 7 questions
Performance versus prescriptive specifications: materials, standards and design constraints
ES-1 as a test standard and the loads in RE-3, why it sets no safety factor, what installed as tested means, how the building code uses it, and ED-1 on thickness for flatness and thermal movement.
You will be able to: Say what ES-1, ED-1 and the building code each do for roof edge metal, which ES-1 test a coping needs, and which rules about thickness and movement are prescriptive.
Not startedStart →Lesson 3 · 10 min · 11 slides · 7 questions
Performance versus prescriptive specifications: methods and worked application
A five-part method for writing a performance requirement, reading published ratings against a required pressure, working joint spacing from a prescriptive limit, and finding the flatness minimum for a face.
You will be able to: Turn a need into a performance requirement with a result, criterion, test method, evidence and verifier, and work three checks with every input labelled as data or assumed.
Not startedStart →Lesson 4 · 9 min · 10 slides · 7 questions
Performance versus prescriptive specifications: defects, verification and case study
Four recurring failure patterns, why a field change breaks an assembly that was tested, what a federal quality control plan inspects, and a hypothetical case taken from a vague clause to a fix.
You will be able to: Recognise the four ways a specification fails, say what a federal quality control plan checks, and work a hypothetical case from a vague clause to a fix with evidence.
Not startedStart →
Practical task
Rewrite one vague wind clause for a coping as a performance requirement, then check a published rating against it, and note what in the clause is prescriptive and what is performance.
Hand in
- A rewritten clause with the five parts: result, criterion with a unit (the pressure left for the engineer of record to state), named test method, evidence to submit, and who verifies
- A sorted copy of ten sentences from a real specification section, each marked prescriptive, reference standard, performance or proprietary
- A worked check of one published rating against an assumed required pressure, with every input labelled as published or assumed and the factor shown as the engineer's choice
- A short list of what would make the evidence invalid, including any change from the tested installation
Rubric
| Criterion | Meets the standard when |
|---|---|
| Five parts | The clause states a result, a criterion with a unit, a named test method, evidence and a verifier, and does not invent a pressure. |
| Sorting | Each sentence is placed under the right kind and the reason is one short phrase. |
| Worked check | The arithmetic is shown, units are written, assumed inputs are labelled, and the answer says the rating applies only to its listed configuration. |
| Installed as tested | The list names cleat, fastener and spacing changes as breaking the tested assembly and says who must agree before any change. |
| Ownership | The packet says the wind pressure and any factor of safety belong to the engineer of record, and gives no legal conclusion. |