Masterformat 2004 numbers and titles

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

Author Message Doug Brinley Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 11 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 07:36 pm:    Anybody know where 'truck scales' or 'axle scales' fall in the new Masterformat? Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 76 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 09:32 pm:    That's a weighty question. Bob Johnson (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 01:11 pm:    10 88 00 Scales Doug Brinley Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 13 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 11:41 am:    a weighty question - you wrascals! I thought 10 88 00 scales also, except these are industrial equipment, $40,000 each, and have electronic instrumentation. It seems weird these would be in the same neighborhood as flags, banners, and security mirrors, eh? David R Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 01:43 pm:    Seems like it ought to be in Division 34, but I don't see it in there anywhere. As an option, perhaps 11 10 00 - Vehicle and Pedestrian Equipment, but I don't see it there either. Maybe someone from the MF Task Team can assist? Is it too late to get this item into the final edition? Bob Johnson (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 05:07 pm:    The other location for process engineering scales would be 41 14 36 Weigh Scales. Doug Brinley Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 17 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 05:26 pm:    Thanks Bob, I am using that number. Shelby N. Gordonswyth Senior Member Username: shelbyng Post Number: 10 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 03:09 pm:    I understand that, finally, "Division 0" is to be officially sanctioned. Or is it "Division 00"? Do we call it "zero," "zero-zero," "double-O," "ought naught," or just "oh-oh"? John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 182 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 03:20 pm:    Try, "uh-oh" David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Junior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 2 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 03:27 pm:    So . . . Would that mean a contractor's construction attorney looking for discrepancies and loopholes in the front end documents would be a . . . Double-nought Spy? Dennis Hall (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 08:51 pm:    Shelby: Even though all Division numbers are written with two digits, it is still Division Zero. We don't say Division one - one, its eleven. Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 88 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 09:50 am:    anybody know where "Interior" expansion joint covers might best be specified? I searched and searched through the entire MF04 and could only find expansion joint covers listed in section 07 95 00,,, but that's exterior envelope stuff. I was hoping to find an "Interior Expansion Joint Covering" section somewhere but had no luck. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 98 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 10:01 am:    079500 is title "Expansion Control" but doesn't indicate it's limited to exterior work. Try 079513 - Expansion Joint Cover Assemblies. Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 89 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 10:17 am:    I agree Sheldon that 0795xx does not specifically say "Exterior". However the title of Division 07 "Thermal and Moisture Protection" certainly suggests exterior components. As you look through Division 07, nearly every work result has to do with exterior building envelope type stuff (with the exception of the fireproofing and firestopping that we're used to seeing located there in 0780xx). I would never think to look in Division 07 for those accordian-shaped PVC deals that fit between two suspended ceiling Ts, or for some polished brass floor joint assembly. Seems like Division 09 would have been a more logical location. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 282 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 10:33 am:    Perhaps Division 09 seems more logical on first blush. But, Division 07 seems a whole lot better than 05800 where that stuff is now. Division 5, Metals?! Clearly '04 will continue to have anomolies like '95. This is one of the results of widespread rejection of the idea of a more wholesale reworking of MasterFormat. Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 70 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 11:03 am:    If you had a parking ramp, would you specify expansion control in Div 09? It would be more complicated if there were 2 places for it. With all of the attention to air barrier systems, expansion control may have to control air leakage as well as differential movement. Robert W. Johnson Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 3 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 11:05 am:    All expansion control assemblies in MasterFormat 2004 are at 07 95 00, relocated from 05800 in 1995. This includes interior and exterior expansion control just as joint sealants in Division 07 have not been limited to exterior joint sealants. Tony Wolf (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 02:13 pm:    When the 6-digit numbers appear in the project manual, are they to be shown as 3 pairs separated by spaces? It sure helps readability, but I see them shown with and without the spaces. Is this clearly stated somewhere? Colin comment - CSI has left the format open. The MF2004 book uses xx xx xx. ARCOM, BSD and others have adopted xx xxxx. I am leading to the latter and use it on the pages with MF2004 numbers. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 297 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 03:33 pm:    To quote from the newly published MasterFormat: "When displayed graphically in master guide specifications, project manuals and elsewhere, it is recommended that delimiters be used between pairs of numbers to enhance readability. MasterFormat 2004 recommends that a space be used as the delimiter between Level 1 and Level 2, and again between Level 2 and Level 3... There are several options for graphic display of the first four Levels within the system as follows: 11 22 33.44 (recommended) 11 2233.44 112233.44" Dennis Hall (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 03:29 pm:    Tony: The applications guide in the book presents three graphic display options. xx xx xx - Preferred display (used in all CSI publications. xx xxxx - alternate xxxxxx - alternate (perferred for file naming) You are correct in the paired numbering scheme (xx xx xx) is easier to read and that is one of the main reasons it is the preferred graphic display scheme. Mitch Miller,AIA ,CSI,CCS Senior Member Username: m2architek Post Number: 21 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 03:48 pm:    I am adopting the following format: "xx.xxxx" it will be easy to read, quickly identifies the division and will automatically word wrap. the format "xx xx xx" will not word wrap, and reads almost as a date. If we need to expand beyond the six digits we will use: "xx.xxxx.xx" Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 73 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 03:55 pm:    To keep numbers together and still use the spaces, use a "hard space." That will keep all the numbers together on the same line. For MS Word: CTRL + SHIFT + Space For WordPerfect: CTRL + Space (at least I think that's what it is; I'm not a WordPerfect user) Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 99 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 04:33 pm:    CTRL + Space is correct, to obtain a hard space in Wordperfect Tony Wolf (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 05:02 pm:    Thanks to all. But I must say, having this degree of flexibility in the appearance will add to confusion. Why could not just one format be designated? Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 100 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 05:58 pm:    Don't go there. D. Marshall Fryer Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 45 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 08:38 am:    For the same reason as the committee that was assigned to develop a better horse, but couldn't agree whether to give the camel one hump or two. C. R. Mudgeon Senior Member Username: c_r_mudgeon Post Number: 33 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 11:52 am:    Sounds like a lot of volunteers for future task teams. Dennis Hall Senior Member Username: dennis_hall Post Number: 7 Registered: 10-2004 Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 08:06 pm:    The task team agreed on xx xx xx but the industry wanted other options, so we reluctantly agreed on the three options. Damn, I hate it when we try to respond to commentary from users! David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 397 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 08:21 pm:    No comment. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 32 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 11:13 am:    I have been asked by some here in my office - When will the ARE reflect the new MasterFormat? It seems there may be a concern that if they study the '95 version, they may not be preparted to answer questions if they are quizzed on the '04 version. Has anyone seen or heard anything from NCARB on this matter? Thanks in advance . . . Dennis Hall Senior Member Username: dennis_hall Post Number: 8 Registered: 10-2004 Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 04:22 pm:    No, but AIA is now selling MasterFormat 2004 in their bookstore and online. NCARB will be exhibiting at the CSI Convention in Chicago and Stephen Nutt (former CSI staffer, now NCARB staffer) will be at their booth. I am sure he will know the answer or can find out. Roy Crawford Junior Member Username: roy Post Number: 2 Registered: 03-2005 Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 06:51 am:    As a Civil Engineer attempting to make the conversion to MF '04 I am troubled by the inclusion of all Wastewater Treatment process being included in Division 44 and called in all cases Water Treatment. Division 33 does break out between water and sanitary. Anyone else having this issue? Gary L. Franks, PE New member Username: engineer9 Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2005 Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 08:12 am:    Division 33 covers the distribution / delivery of utilities (water, sanitary, electrical power, etc.) to "users". Once the delivery is made, the service enters into either the Facilities Services Subgroup or the Process Equipment Subgroup. Water treatment, whether it be potable, sanitary or industrial, is a "process". Hence, to avoid a great deal of duplication the MFETT elected to combine all water treatment (potable, sanitary, industrial) under one banner, Division 44. Douglas Ashcraft New member Username: dgashcraft Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 11:03 am:    Does anyone know where one would specify what the industry calls "composite steel deck"?. this is steel deck that is embossed so as to transfer shear to the concrete slab so that the two work compositely together to carry load. MF04 has a section called 05 31 13 - Steel Floor Decking and also a section called 05 36 00 Composite Metal Decking. From the description given of composite metal decking I don't think this is the same product that traditionally has been called "composite steel decking". I think MF04 has confused the issue here and I would like some clarification. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 44 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 11:21 am:    I believe that type of decking remains in 05 31 00 Steel Decking as a particular type of steel decking. 05 36 00 is referring to some new decking that has come on the market with a composite of materials. You are right, the terms used here might cause some confusion. Dennis Hall (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 01:17 pm:    In regard to the question of MasterFormat and the ARE, according to the folks at NCARB, the next update of the exam will be in the spring of 2006. At this time they know that the exam will be changed to reflect MF 04 but are not sure that they will make the spring 06 timetable. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 114 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 01:10 pm:    A Mechanical Engineer friend of mine ask me what to do with the common work results for his three new divisions 21, 22, and 23. The application guide discusses common work results only at the division level. For work within a division the solution is easy money reference users to XX 05 XX and off you go. However, many projects do not need different sections for “General Duty Valves” 22 05 23 and the corresponding sections in 21 and 23 are essentially identical. He was tempted to go to an empty Division (20) and place these common works results there. I encouraged him not to do this. He said OK, but asked me what to do. My initial response is to have him place the common materials in one of the three divisions (HVAC came to mind for him as it has most of his work in it) and cross reference to it. So here is the sticky part. I know he could leave the title alone but we both felt that modifying the title to “23 05 23 General Duty Valves” would generify it for the other sections and not violate the numbering system. I hope this gives us the best of both worlds, the numbering system intact and a mechanical engineer who doesn’t have to triplicate 5 or 6 sections. What do “ya’ll” think Marc PS posted this on the MAI instructor board too Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 167 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 01:21 pm:    First off, what the %$&@! is "generify"? Second, I agree with you. Somehow, I think this is what the future Division 20 will end up doing (you'll notice that the Site and Infrastructure Subgroup also has an unused division - Division 30 - which I think will be utilized for the same purpose). Something needs to happen to address this problem so that we don't have the "say it X times and in X places." Susan McClendon Senior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 10 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 01:40 pm:    When we were working on our translation from MF95 to MF04, I asked Mike King about this issue (since he was mechanical lead on MFETT) -- apparent repetition in Divisions 21, 22, and 23, regarding common piping products (pipe, hangers, valves, meters and gages, etc). He said they seriously considered this and believed that there were variations between these systems in regard to these products. That is, the three sections would not necessarily be identical. If that is true, then maybe people who think they will be identical haven't yet tried to sort out which requirements are needed for each. Maybe because people are used to including all in the same section, they don't realize what differences there might be. In any case, SpecLink includes the common work results sections for piping products in all three divisions, not in a single division. However, we also include instructions for referencing one section if that is preferred -- we assumed that the sections referenced would be the plumbing sections, since plumbing is always used in buildings, whereas HVAC doesn't necessarily involve piping systems. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 168 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 01:50 pm:    I guess my question to the engineers would be, "how much of a variation is there?" If it's significant, then a separate section may be appropriate. But if it's minor, something that can be addressed by a paragraph or subparagraph, why replicate everything else just for that? Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 116 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 04:30 pm:    I thought so too and suggested plumbing. But more importantly is the "say it once" thing. It's more important to get it right and have consistency in where it's found then placement. Look at some of the things we've moved. Why were louvers a specialty when they fill a hole just like a window? Yet, people found them for years in division 10. Well anyway this engineer wants to use only one set of sections and I'm tempted to let him. Michael J. King (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 08:45 pm:    Greetings for the involved. Susan was correct in her quoting my position. To carry it a little further, I offer the following: 1. Yes there are some overlaps in some of the "Common Work Results" sections at the beginning of Facilities Services Subgroup, but not as much as one might think. These sections (valves, hangers and supports, meters and gages, and so on) became hugh sections in MF95 to accomodate all the different requirements for plumbing and HVAC. Fire suppression has different requirements and most of the stuff is not common to plumbing and HVAC. While some overlap exists, the details of the requirements for these similar products (more particularly the work results) vary according to their application. In otherwords, the description and application requirements for ball valves are different between plumbing and HVAC. The subject that has the least variation among three of the divisions in the 20s is "Common Motor Requirements for . . ." followed closely by "Hangers and Supports." For the rest, the difference is in the details. 2. MASTERSPEC elected to create separate sections for each division. There appears to be duplication when reading the section titles, but while there is a little overlap the resulting three sections are different in size, and each is shorter than the combined version. This is due primarily to limited application (i.e., plumbing applications versus HVAC applications) of products within each division. Also note that so far this discussion is focussed on "mechanical" subjects and has ignored the similar issues with electrical, communications, and electronic safety and security. Then there is the real common ground of integrated automation, which integrates systems specified in many divisions of the facility services subgroup and facility construction subgroup, but has very little in common with any of the rest of the divisions in the 20s. 3. While it is tempting to use Division 20 (and BART did), this would not the equivelant of 15050 and 16050. This is mainly because the Facilities Services Subgroup has all the services (roughly 2-1/2 divisions expanded into seven with three divisions reserved for future expansion) and they are vastly different. If it were possible to have a division that could consolidate the common work results for "mechanical," then we could include those overlapping subjects in Fire Suppression, Plumbing, and HVAC. But what about Integrated Automation, Electrical, Communications, and Electronic Safety and Security---what do these subjects have in common with "mechanical"? I believe it would be confusing to users to have a "Common Work Results for Facility Services" that includes subjects from the remaining divisions in the 20s. It would lead to the impression that all the requirements one might need for facilities services MUST be in the 20s. NO SO. 4. Although MASTERSPEC as separate sections in each division, we believe it is okay to have, for example, one "hangers and supports" section (say in Division 23 or 22, not required in 21) to which one can reference. After all, each division has sections that make cross references to sections outside that division and even outside that subgroup. MASTERSPEC believed, and it proved to be so, that the resulting split of subjects by application made the sections shorter and the titles more descriptive of the content. Sorry about the "unregistered visitor" status. I am away from the office and cannot remember numbers larger than 5 digits. Mike King mking@arcomnet.com Michael J. King, FCSI (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 11:29 pm:    Susan was correct in her quotation of me. I will add the following in response to Ronald and Marc: 1. The variations are in the details of the work results. Among the subjects of valves, hangers and supports, meters and gages, and so on, the similarity is that fire suppression, plumbing, and HVAC all require them. The variation is in the details of the applications for each. In MF95 scheme, these common sections became very large because of the need to accommodate the requirements of plumbing and HVAC for Division 15 and electrical and communications for Division 16. MASTERSPEC elected to create separate sections and the resulting split created sections that were limited in their scope resulting in more finite scope and content; each was smaller than the combine original version. To be specific, a description of a ball valve and its application in hydronic piping is different from a ball valve for plumbing (different attributes and applications). So there are, for example, valves with similar names (ball valves) that are different for plumbing than for HVAC. The subject that had the most similarity was "Common Motor Requirements for [fire suppression] [plumbing] [HVAC] Equipment." These three motors sections are virtually identical. Perhaps in a future update we will, again, consolidate them into one. The next most similar section is "Hangers and Supports for [Plumbing] [HVAC] Piping and Equipment." No hangers and supports required for fire suppression because the work results are mandated by NFPA. Mechanical insulation is another subject that has some overlap, however, there are fewer appropriate choices and fewer requirements for applications in plumbing than for HVAC. 2. It is tempting to use Division 20 for these subjects, but there is a difference here between the organizational structure of MF95 and MF04. The 20s are for A L L facility services where before we had a no such subgroup, only "mechanical" and "electrical" divisions. What is the same about MF95 and MF04 is that the "common work results" (formerly "basis <Insert Division name> materials and methods") is at the beginning of each division. We also had a common work results section in Division 2 for common utility "stuff." While the separation of plumbing and HVAC in MF04 created some similar "common work results" titles, they are only similar between those two divisions. Remember that MEP went from approximately 2-1/2 divisions (part of 2, part of 13, 15, and 16) to 7 divisions with 3 reserved for future expansion. And so, while plumbing and HVAC have some common subjects, they are not common to fire suppression (although a person not trained or experienced in this subject might believe they are) and they are obviously not common to "Integrated Automation," "Electrical," "Communications," and "Electronic Safety and Security." There seemed to be some commonality among electrical, communications, and electronic safety and security; but one only needed to witness the heated discussions on the task team to know that was not actually the case. 3. While MASTERSPEC created separate and similar sections at the beginning each division, we believe it is okay to create, for example, one hangers and supports section (in either 22 or 23) and cross reference that section for piping and equipment sections in the other division. After all, we have many sections that cross reference sections in other divisions and even in other subgroups. MASTERSPEC found, however, that the resulting split of these similar subjects among the divisions created sections that were shorter than the combined sections having titles that were more descriptive of the content. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 171 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 12:26 pm:    Michael: I want to thank you for your well-stated posts. I have only one question, which kind of goes back to Marc's original post: Using "hangers and supports" as an example, Section 22 05 29 is titled "Hangers and Supports for Plumbing Piping and Equipment," but if we reference that section from Division 23, it is no longer "for Plumbing Piping and Equipment." Should the title be truncated to "Hangers and Supports," renumbered and retitled (i.e. 22 05 31 "Hangers and Supports for Mechanical Services"), or left as is in MasterFormat 2004? Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS Member Username: mking Post Number: 3 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 10:17 am:    Greetings, First, let me apologize for two similar postings. I didn't pay attention to the notice when posting the first, that it would not be immediately posted because of needing to be first reviewed. So, thinking I pushed the wrong button, I attempted to recreate it with a second posting. Sorry. Perhaps there are some nuggets in each. Ronald, you are correct. It might seem inappropriate to reference a Division 22 Section with such a specific title from Division 23. However, I do not advocate changing the MF04 title, which would violate the rules unless you selected another number within that numbering range and that does not seem appropriate either. In MASTERSPEC we are most recently making cross references by the leading phrase "comply with the requirements in Division 22, Section <Insert title> for <Insert work results for which you are making the reference>." That kind of cross reference will work without regard to the specificity of the referenced section title. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 118 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 10:55 am:    OK, if the job is simple enough NOT to require 3 separate sections for hangers etc. and I don't want to truncate the official section name. My first choice is to 1: Direct fire suppression and HVAC to plumbing and use the full name and number. 2. Use a slightly different number and name and place it in the mechanical division of my choice. People being what they are, the first solution will be used sporadically. The title is SO specific that it will take a lot of training to convince a fire suppression contractor that a portion of his “work result” is found in an HVAC or plumbing section. I know. I know. “They’ll get used to it”. And “Individual products can be anywhere and referenced from anywhere.” But it will be painful. Just to get them to read the spec prior to the lawsuit is a victory! I’m going to pass this discussion on to the engineer. He may want to use XX 05 15 etc advancing the last digit 1 (Or not.) I may be drummed out of the corps for this, but I’d rather push a little now and more later than push all the way now and get “Division 20 sections” Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS Intermediate Member Username: mking Post Number: 4 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 08:53 am:    Marc, your best response here was "I'm going to pass this discussion to the engineer." He or she will tell you, first of all, fire suppression has its own requirements for hangers and supports mandated by NPFA 13 and a reference to plumbing or HVAC will not be appropriate because they have special requirements, not common with plumbing and HVAC. The first place piping contractors will look is in the piping sections for the requirements of the system. The "work results" is "domestic water piping," "sanitary waste and vent piping," "hydronic piping," "steam piping" and so on. When they read, in those "work results" sections, that the work results for hangers and supports are in another section, then they will go there. This is as opposed to one saying, "I wonder where the hangers and supports are specified." You will also rarely find a cross reference from the "common work results" sections to the various systems sections. It's not practical to do so, because it requires listing in several of these "common work results" sections all the equipment and systems sections for which they apply. That's creates the need for many large lists which is likely to require constant revising as systems evolve through the design process. What is interesting about hangers and supports is that the product and installation requirements for say, clevis hangers, are specified in the hangers and supports section. However, the spacing for those devices is more appropriately in the piping section. This is because the spacing for hangers depends on the choice of piping materials for that particular system, and the spacing requirements vary dramatically from plastic, to copper, to steel, and to cast iron. And you thought this was simple, but unlike most architectural specifications, facility services sections have much more interdependence and cross referencing is the norm and is critical. These cross referencing issues are also why many engineers wrongly feeling they must assign work (say who does what). We all know that practice must be avoided, but accurate, correctly worded cross referencing is important. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 119 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 10:29 am:    Thanks, I've e-mailed the engineer. Dennis Hall (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 09:23 pm:    As the editor for the Division 20 BART sections, we first tried to get them to live with separating these common work results into the various Divisions, but soon we realized that different engineers have different opinions regarding wheather these are the same work result or different work results. Personaly, I think it is more important to understand your project, how the concepts behind MasterFormat, and to design your project manual to meet the needs of your project rather than to just blindly follow the rules. Mike has correctly described the reasons for the multiple sections for similar work results and the engineers and specialty contractors on the MFETT all agreed with this approach. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 120 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 02:46 pm:    In what section would high-security retractable vehicle barriers be specified (either the wedge type or hydraulic retractable bollards), that are installed in building driveways. 34 71 13 is for vehicle barriers (though the retractable type is not mentioned), and the 34 71 00 roadway construction grouping notes that it is for "construction specifically intended for roadways". The 11 15 00 Security, Detention, and Banking Equipment grouping does not have a slot for this, nor does Section 11 12 00 Parking Control Equipment. Given my druthers, I'd put it somewhere in the 11 10 00 Vehicle and Pedestrian Equipment grouping. Any suggestions? Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 179 Registered: 05-2000 Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 03:04 pm:    Div 32 includes paving on a project, as compared to paving for a highway for transportation. I set up a section - 32 3400 for buidling security and moved high security fences, bollards and devices like these there. I figure 11 1000 is for a parking structure and gear Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 49 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 04:11 pm:    I would recomend the 11 12 00 location which is not intended to be restricted to parking structures. I believe 32 34 00 is designated for Fabricated Bridges. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 182 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 04:49 pm:    The military, in their current Unified Facilities Guide Specifications, has this classified (somewhat IAW MF1995) as Section 02840 "Active Vehicle Barriers." MF2004 has "Active Vehicle Barriers" in Section 34 75 13.13. I'm not sure if this was the intent of the MFETT, but appears to be a logical spot. Although it's level 2 title is "Roadway Equipment," it could still apply. Most military installations use these at the main entrances, in the road, and not necessarily into a parking lot. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 376 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 08:38 am:    After looking over MF '04, I'm going to go with 34 75 13 as the most appropriate, and MF seems to have intended this location for this equipment. The driveway to a building is a roadway, too, albeit a private one. It just doesn't seem to fit as well in 11 12 00, which is more specifically related to parking. A retractable barrier as you describe has wider uses than just parking. (Plus, I kind of like the idea of having some sections in these new Divisions.) William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 416 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 01:34 pm:    I agree with Ron and the others about 34 75 13.13 Active Vehicle Barriers (right out of the MF2004 list). That is what these vertical hydraulic bollards are considered by the manufacturers. If it was not the intent to have this kind of device in 34, then they should have placed this title elsewhere. They are definitely not 11 12 00, they are not parking control equipment. They might be used as such, but what we are using them for is vehicle barrier security devices. They may be used in a location that has no relation to parking at all, but prevent a vehicle being used as an attacking device to breach the perimeter of the building. I do feel that out there in the 'transportation' division, they are lost. I think that the topic would be better served in a different division such as 11. Maybe this is one of those products, like several, that depending on what kind of project it is relates to where it is specified. If you had a purely transportation project, 34 is great. If you have a building requiring security systems like active vehicle barriers (such as hydraulic bollards), maybe it works best in 11. But not under parking control devices. Food for though. William Randall T. Bailey, PE, CSI, CCS New member Username: baileyr Post Number: 1 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 12:02 pm:    I am confused about Level 4 titles, and would appreciate some enlightenment. I understand that, acording to MF04, Section numbers in project manuals should be used only out to Level 3 (6 digits), as opposed to Level 4 (8 digits). Does that (stop-at-level-3) logic apply to TITLES as well? Or, would a user-defined Level 4 title be used with the Level 3 number? i.e. for this Section: 01 32 16.13 CPM Project Schedule, which would be the intended number/ title: 01 32 16 Construction Project Schedule or 01 32 16 CPM Project Schedule? Second question: I am curious about which section numbering convention is receiving greater use, three-pair or two-four convention? Thank you. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 58 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 02:13 pm:    Level 4 titles and numbers (01 32 16.13) may be used in project manuals for detailed classification. Level 5 titles and numbers (01 32 16.13.ABC) are recommended only for internal use within firms and not for use in documents (project manuals) used outside of a firm. Users could make their own choice to stay within Level 3 titles and numbers with 6 digits and avoid the use of Level 4 numbers with 8 digits in project manuals if they want. Use of Levels 4 and 5 are explained on Page 4 of the Introduction and Applications Guide in MasterFormat 2004. Only designated titles should be used with designated numbers at Levels 2-4. A designated title should not be given a different number, nor should a designated number be given a different title. The user is free to assign any new number and title that logically fits within the organizational structure. Following these recommendations, potential titles and numbers in the construction progress schedule area: 01 32 16 Construction Progress Schedule (Assigned) 01 32 16.13 Network Analysis Schedules (Assigned) 01 32 16.34 CPM Schedule (Possible Level 4) 01 32 17 CPM Construction Progress Schedule (Possible Level 3) Chris Grimm, RLA, CDT, MAI, CSI Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 8 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 11:28 am:    In response to Mike King's June 27th discourse, and others' questions about what appears to be duplicated content in Common Motor Requirements for... sections (Mike said "The subject that has the least variation among three of the divisions in the 20s is 'Common Motor Requirements for . . .'") : I just did a compare docs on 2x0513 sections and found there is no variation at all in the 3 motor requirements sections besides the spec numbers and titles. Couldn't they be combined into a single section somewhere and then incorporated where needed by reference? For the record, I also did see first hand that what Mike says about considerable variation among the "Common Work Results for ..." sections is true. There are extensive differences between them, with some overlaps.