ENGINEERING
When specifications don’t solve the problem
Specifications are passed down a lengthy chain. In the process of this journey, the intent behind the original specification can be lost, resulting in sub-optimal solutions that entail a risk to your project. This risk can be avoided simply by getting the specification right. Here, Adam Fox, director at vibration isolation specialist, Mason UK, offers three key principles for writing a good specification.
If acoustic hangers are specified for a project, the specification might, for instance, require spring hangers which offer a natural frequency below 8 Hz.
At its heart, a specification is a document that both defines a problem, and offers a solution. It also establishes a set of criteria whose satisfaction entails the successful implementation of that solution. This definition is a useful way of thinking about some common pitfalls that can emerge when writing a specification, so I’ll return to it shortly. For now, let’s begin with why this
matters so much. Part of the reason why a specification is such a crucial document is because of its finality. As an acoustic consultant, once you produce this document and hand it over to the contractor, then that may well be the last you see of it. For a hospital or medical facility, getting this right is especially important. Noise and vibration emanating from nearby traffic, heating and ventilation systems, or the operation of equipment, is not only a form of noise disturbance, but can also interfere with the functioning of equipment like MRI scanners.
Blissful ignorance If a sub-contractor further along the chain picks a sub-optimal solution – to save on cost, or time to install correctly,
One would not specify the same size acoustic hanger for a small pipe as a much larger pipe. The supplier ‘should be proactive, and ask questions about load requirements’.
or if an irresponsible supplier recommends a product that will not deliver the outcome, the acoustic consultant who wrote the specification may not know. There is a consequent risk both to the project and the end- customer, who will incur cost to resolve any deficiencies further down the line. The consultant might have written the document setting out the correct solution, but their intention has been lost in the chain. How does this happen, or, more importantly, how can you prevent this from happening when you write your specification? Having been called upon to provide
retrofits where things have sometimes gone wrong, I’ve often pondered whether a more tightly written specification would have reduced the risks, and, if so, what general principles might govern the writing of a document like that? It is a tricky one to pin down, but here are three key things I think might help lower the risk to your project:
n 1: Make sure you answer the ‘how’ question
Let’s return to the definition offered at
the outset. The specification should define a problem and a solution, but here’s the important part: it needs to outline the criteria that determine whether that solution has been implemented correctly, and in full. Take, for example, the following scenario. An acoustic consultant is called in to identify a source of noise and vibration in a hospital. They identify that the culprit is a pump on the roof of the structure. The problem, therefore, is the pump, and the solution is straightforward: you need to isolate it. However, in this example you are missing the third component in our definition. Specifically, how do you isolate it? You need to identify the right engineering principles and incorporate these into the criteria. For example, you might specify the frequency and what other properties the isolator should have as a starting point. Now, you are not only offering a solution, but also providing clear instructions as to how that solution is implemented. The same problem arises when
isolating for specific types of equipment. Take, for example, something like an electronic microscope or ultrasonic
May 2022 Health Estate Journal 69
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
