How do you use the ASTM "M" designati...

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 151 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 02:58 pm:    Some ASTM documents have an "M" designation; an example is: "ASTM A36/A36M" According to ASTM, this is a "combined standard, n — an ASTM standard in which rationalized SI units and inch-pound units are included in the same standard, with each system of units to be regarded separately as standard." (See http://www.astm.org/FormStyle_for_ASTM_STDS.html) My primary question is whether it is acceptable in construction communications to leave out the "M" designation; to cite, for example, "ASTM A36"? Further: - When do you use the "M" designation and why? - What problems have you had because an "M" was or was not used? - Should a building product manufacturer's technical data sheet state the full designation or is it acceptable to use the simplier form for brevity? Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Justatim Senior Member Username: justatim Post Number: 84 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 04:16 pm:    I always use the complete standard nomenclature "ASTM A36/A36M." Shortening it would be incomplete and perhaps confuse the contractor as to whether an ASTM A36 standard from before 1997 is being referenced. Likewise, I would expect manufacturers to keep their product data up to date. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 788 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 10:35 pm:    If you reference A36 any questions about compliance will be determined using the inch-pound units while if you reference A36M they will express the values in SI units. There may be minor differences in the required values but none that would impact safety in my opinion. In my experience ASTM A36 is the common reference in the US. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 152 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 - 11:32 pm:    Mark - Here is the language in ASTM A36/A36M: "The values stated in either inch-pound units or SI units are to be regarded separately as standard. Within the text, the SI units are shown in brackets. The values stated in each system are not exact equivalents; therefore, each system is to be used independently of the other, without combining values in any way." I am writing about a technology that is inch-pound or SI agnostic. Do I have to write ASTM A36/A36M or is it enough to say ASTM A36? There does not appear to be an ASTM A36M standalone document. If I was only interested in using metric data, how should I state that? Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 191 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2016 - 12:25 pm:    In the interest of accuracy, it seems logical to cite the standard exactly as ASTM intends. Although the M standard titles are a wee bit cumbersome, it's better to be accurate and avoid confusion. A simple statement that the metric values apply should be sufficient to indicate the intent. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 827 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2016 - 03:05 pm:    I vote for consistency in specification writing or in article writing. If you use SI, SI(M), or M when referring to units of measurement elsewhere in the document, then use the corresponding ASTMx, ASTMx/ASTMxM, or ASTMxM when referring to standards. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1410 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2016 - 03:49 pm:    I use the "short form" name. We state in Division 01 that the applicable version is the one current as of the date of the publication of the project manual. We detail our drawings in inch units, not millimeters, and while we know that some products come in mm measurements, they are not installed that way. Brian E. Trimble, CDT Senior Member Username: brian_e_trimble_cdt Post Number: 82 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2016 - 04:54 pm:    This is a topic that comes up often. I chair ASTM's Committee on Standards (COS) and we are considering revising some of the language in ASTM's Format and Style manual to be clearer on this subject. It all depends on whether the product committee wants to use hard metric units, sometimes called "rationalized" units or just soft metric units where the metric is just a conversion of the in-lb values. As explained previously, A36/A36M has both in-lb and SI units in the same standard. Instead of writing two different standards (which was done in the past), they combined the two different requirements with their respective values in the same standard. The two sets of units may not just be converted values so they are really separate and distinct. So the appropriate way to reference the standard is to write, ASTM A36/A36M since either units could be used. Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, May 27, 2016 - 12:27 pm:    "We state in Division 01 that the applicable version is the one current as of the date of the publication of the project manual." This is a common practice. However, most building codes are not kept as up-to-date as standards are, so you run the risk of specifying something that doesn't meet code. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 156 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, May 27, 2016 - 03:53 pm:    Paul -- Really good point. A related issue is that the product literature and test reports upon which a designer based decisions or approved a submittal will usually be based on no-longer current versions of standards. If you are buying testing services, please make sure the test reports indicate the version of the standards used in the testing. Many labs do not do this. FEEDBACK, PLEASE: When I write product literature for a building product, it has been my custom to omit the date of standards. The manufacturers like this because they do not want to advertise that their tests - performed at great expense - may be based upon no longer current standards. I think many designers and builders like it too, because it presents less information that they have assimilate. I have always justified it by pretending that, if it is important to a design, then the customer will request actual test reports. And besides, I tell myself, many of the changes in standard editions are procedural or administrative and do not bear on product performance. QUESTION: When should a manufacturer's product data cite the specific version of a test standard? Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 996 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, May 27, 2016 - 07:15 pm:    Re: M. If ASTM has included metric and inchpound together in one standard and the designation reflects that, such as ASTM A36/A36M, that is the correct designation and should be listed accordingly. As Justatim noted, to list A36 without A36M would imply an earlier version of the standard and could lead to confusion and unnecessary risk. Regarding Codes vs. current versions of standards you should note that Code currently used in many jurisdictions probably obligates you to use older versions of the standards. Requiring current version may be contrary to Code requirements. Michael, regarding your Feedback question, I would prefer to see the date that the manufacturers are compliant with though frankly in many cases I'm happy if the correct standard is listed regardless of date. I find it very frustrating when product literature between manufacturers of similar products list multiple standards, especially when none of them have listed correct or applicable (let alone current) standards.