MasterFormat '04 "Tickler" File...

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

Author Message David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 17 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 02:03 pm:    Thought there might be a need to set up a new thread wherein contributors could post items for future consideration by the next MF Task Team. Basically, a list of suggestions, comments, or possibly new or missing items not currently in MF '04 that might be worthy of consideration for possible inclusion into the next edition of MasterFormat (all consolidated in one location). That way, we all won't have to burden Dennis with keeping track of all tose little scraps of paper. <g> David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 18 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 02:39 pm:    Okay, I'll start. 1. Bullet-Resistant Fiberglass Panels Could be part of a wall assembly, or incorporated into a millwork assembly. Can't seem to find a good location in MF '04. Manufacturer currently has it in 13070, so it must not have been obvious to them where to put it in MF '95. Most logical place seems to be somewhere in 06 80 00. Some additional expansion of the Level 2 numbers would be helpful, maybe even add some Level 3 numbers, to address this product. 2. Electromagnetic Shielding; Radio Frequency Shielding In our instance, aluminum plate lining various rooms to isolate from electrical interference caused by welding, transformers, and the like. 13 49 00 - Radiation Protection seems like the only place where this is addressed, but all the level 3 numbers only mention lead (implying that 13 49 XX designates the overall 'lead' category, and the _13, _16, and _19 represent the various configurations in which the material is shaped). For hospital work, we use lead only for the Radiology aspect (true "radiation"). For the MRI enclosure, we use copper sheet (have also used galvanized steel on occasion). If the Level 2 number is for lead, and the Level 3 numbers are for the configuration, where do the other materials - Aluminum, copper, galvanized steel - receive equal recognition and flexibility? 13 50 00 is already taken. 13 49 23 does not work, since these are not "partitions" per se, but rather mere components of an overall wall assembly. Again, it would seem some additional expansion of the numbers may be in order. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 87 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 03:38 pm:    Good points. Some suggestions: For #2: Use 13 05 00 "Common Work Results for Special Construction". Then define your own Level 3 numbering (i.e. 13 05 10 Electromagentic Shielding). For #1: Even MF95 didn't address the plastic bullet resistant materials. Again, suggest using 13 05 00 and defining your own number and title. Remember the "work results" aspect: if it's integrated in millwork, then I'd include it in that section, since it's part of the "work result." Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 03:47 pm:    So if we are worried about materials being resistant to plastic bullets, what about rubber bullets, or steel bullets, or ....? Ah, ya gotta love our English language! Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 88 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 03:56 pm:    Anon: Picky, Picky... ;-) Robert W. Johnson Intermediate Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 4 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 04:17 pm:    Protection against radio frequency and electromagnetic fields is specifically mentioned in the 13 49 00 explanations as included under Radiation Protection. The Keyword Index also lists 13 49 00 for EMI and RFI shielding. The lead material example titles under 13 49 00 do not imply it is only for lead material. You could use any number from 13 49 01 to 13 49 99 except those that are listed. 13 49 46 might be a good choice for Radio Freqency Shielding since "46" is used as the Level Three number for serveral other RFI shielding products. Robert W. Johnson Advanced Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 5 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 05:37 pm:    Note that MF 2004 now includes recommended terminology by the inclusion of alternate terms in the explanations and by direction from other terms to the the recommended terms in the Keyword Index. "Balistics-Resistant" is given as the preferred terminology for "bullet-resistant." It would seem logical to specify balistics-resistant fiberglass panels with the assembly of which they are a part or if a separate section is desired to specify them by material at the location you mentioned - 06 82 00 Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic. Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 34 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 04:06 am:    A CLA engineer and I have been pondering where to locate ONE section that will specify cable trays for the work of Divs 25, 27 and 28. All "low-voltage" conductors are meant to occupy the trays - away from higher voltage interference as much as possible. Using xx 05 xx is a logical start. We are inclined to make it 25 05 19, even though most of the conductors and cables that will reside in the trays come from the work of Divs 27 and 28. We figure a user would look in the first CLA Division first. It's mildly disturbing that cable trays in the three CLA divisions are numbered: 25 05 19 27 05 46 28 05 33 Other work common to the three Divisons - such as raceways, hangers, and grounding - is likewise jumbled in sequence and numbering. It would be neater to get these titles more uniformly organized in future editions. To solve the problem of one cable tray section location serving three divisions, we will likely use Related Sections references somewhere in Divs 27 and 28 - but where? In what section of each Division? Every blooming section? By the way, there is a problem in locating the cable trays where they optimize cabling yet avoid obstructions. Rather than try to predict the best cable tray routing on one of the T-Series drawings, we think it better to leave the contractor and the CLA subcontractors in charge of coming up with the route that serves best: subject to submittal and comment from other design disciplines and trades, or course. Ideas? Comment? Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 108 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 08:36 am:    Tom: I agree it is best for the contractor and the applicable subcontractors to determine the specific cable tray locations. For review of information such as this, we specify coordination drawings in Division 1, for all but the simplest projects. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 14 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 12:00 pm:    Tom I don't know what document you are looking at but it is not the published MasterFormat 2004. The following are the listings you are talking about: 25 05 28 Pathways for Integrated Automation 25 05 28.29 Hangers and Supports for Integrated Automation 25 05 28.33 Conduits and Backboxes for Integrated Automation 25 05 28.36 Cable Trays for Integrated Automation 25 05 28.39 Surface Raceways for Integrated Automation 27 05 28 Pathways for Communications Systems 27 05 28.29 Hangers and Supports for Communications Systems 27 05 28.33 Conduits and Backboxes for Communications Systems 27 05 28.36 Cable Trays for Communications Systems 27 05 28.39 Surface Raceways for Communications Systems 28 05 28 Pathways for Electronic Safety and Security 28 05 28.29 Hangers and Supports for Electronic Safety and Security 28 05 28.33 Conduits and Backboxes for Electronic Safety and Security 28 05 28.36 Cable Trays for Electronic Safety and Security 28 05 28.39 Surface Raceways for Electronic Safety and Security The same subjects have the same numbers across the three divisions. I think you will find the same numbers for most of the subjects that are common across divisions. This is particularly true for the common work results subjects in the divisions of the Facility Services Subgroup. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 105 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 12:38 pm:    Robert: I think you've just highlighted Tom's problem. I think the issue is that he has one tray with 3 different systems utilizing it. Where does he specify it? I know MasterFormat isn't suppose to identify trade jurisdictions, but I'm wondering if this is exactly what needs to be done in this case. If it's all done by the same subcontractor, there's no problem, but what if 3 subs are used? If he specifies cable trays in Div. 25, does the IA subcontractor provide the trays? The same goes for the other two divisions. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 15 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 01:14 pm:    Ronald There was a long protracted debate in the MasterFormat Task Team about whether to include a division with common work results for the Facility Services Subgroup. The total task team went along with the decision of the task team members who repesented those subject areas in not including such a division. If such a division had been included, it would have made Tom's problem easier. The project delivery method used for the project could make the project manual instrumental in the division of the work among trade contractors or not. Assuming that the division of the work remains with the contractor, then the only obligation of the specifier is to make sure everything is covered in one location in a clear and understandable manner. It is then the contractor's responsibility to determine what work what subcontractors are responsible for. In the situation where the contractor or CM is part of the team when the project manual is prepared and the project manual includes identification of bid packages, it is still the contractor's or CM's responsibility to determine how that is to be done. Only when it is a separate prime contract type of project delivery does the owner and the A/E team become responsible for the division of the work among contractors. It is all to easy for us to become involved in issues that we are not really in a position to solve. Who has the expertise and/or responsibility to determine who should provide the common cable trays? If you can answer that question on the project (sometimes not so easy to answer), then you should be able to assemble the project manual in a rational mammer. I would say that for most project delivery methods, this usually means putting it in a logicial location (there may be serveral logical choices that work as in this case) and making sure the related work sections make proper references to it. And yes I am aware of the recent thread of discussion of the benefits and dangers on referencing other sections. We do however have a responsibility of to specifiy so that location of the work in the project manual is clear without ambiquity. How it is subcontracted is another issue. C. R. Mudgeon Senior Member Username: c_r_mudgeon Post Number: 40 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 03:26 pm:    If I understand the problem, it's not who is going to do the work, but if there is a way to specify it in a single place as was done in the old Masterformat. You could go up a level and make 24 05 00 Common Work Results for Stuff That Uses Wire. Or more generically 20 05 00 Common Work Results for Facility Services. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 16 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 07:11 pm:    It can be specified in one location just like other things that are used for multiple purposes or within multiple assemblies or systems, but in this case there is more than one choice of where to locate it. The numbers you suggest are in divisions reserved for future expansion and are not recommended by MasterFormat. Michael Chusid Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 12 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 11:34 pm:    COLORED CONCRETE STAINS 03 35 00 Concrete Finishing doesn't work because it can be applied after the concrete is "finished" and it can be applied to other types of concrete besides CIP, 09 93 00 Staining and Transparent Finishes doesn't feel right because the work is so closely tied to concrete and other types of concrete work. (I guess by this argument, wood stains would be in Div 06) In any case, I think Concrete Stains need to be included in INDEX and cross-referenced in the explanations. Any feedback? Jo Drummond, FCSI Junior Member Username: jo_drummond Post Number: 2 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 01:12 pm:    I'm amused at what I see is an overactive attempt at achieving "work results". If tile has become "tiling", why hasn't steel become "steeling", or escalators and moving walks become "escalatoring and moving walking"? D. Marshall Fryer Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 49 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 02:49 pm:    I'm waiting for them to change "Acoustical Panel Ceilings" to "Acoustical Panel Ceilinging" That's when we will know that MasterFormat has jumped the shark! Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 97 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 03:22 pm:    I’ve been struggling with this whole issue since it was first introduced. There are a lot of examples of silliness, or potential silliness; earthworking; Drilled Piering; Structural Steeling; etc. I’m not an English Teacher so I can’t be sure of the proper terminology but this whole deal sounds to me like we are using “Verbs” (tiling, painting, roofing) in place of Nouns in section titles (titling?). “Tiling” should be the activities associated with providing tile products; “What are you doing?” “I’m Tiling”. The Work Result would then be Tile; wouldn’t it (or would it be “tiled”)? Once the work of the Structural Steeling section is complete, would the Work Result be Structural Stolen? I apologize. Sometimes I just can’t help myself. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 29 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 04:16 pm:    I'm reminded of a quip from a Comedian - Gallagher I think it was - who once said: "Why do we call them "buildings" when we're already buildin' them - why don't we call them "Builts?" Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 118 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 06:47 pm:    Everyone should take advantage of the seminars offered by CSI. Dennis Hall does an excellent job explaining why things are the way they are. As he explains, the work result is not tile; it is the tile as installed. A specification for tile only would have no need for Parts 1 or 3, and that specification would not describe what we really want - tile stuck to the floor, along with various submittals, quality assurance/control requirements, etc. The work result is obviously better described by "tiling" (a gerund) than by "tile". Fortunately, the MFETT exercised good judgment, and did not force us to use silly expressions similar to those expressed above. Had we started with a clean slate, we might - repeat, might - have been able to come up with a completely consistent naming convention, but the vagaries of the English language, coupled with tremendous inertia, prevent an elegant solution. Another "defect" is the lack of a truly hierarchical organization. When TechCom first took on the issue of updating MasterFormat, it was my hope that such an organization could be developed. Unfortunately, building products and processes, or work results, did not evolve in a linear manner, and I quickly realized there was no hope for any more than intermittent hierarchical organization. Of course, you have to take anything I say with a grain of salt, as I am not an Accredited MasterFormat Instructor. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 17 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 07:56 pm:    A comparison of terminology used in MasterFormat (including before it was called MasterFormat) reveals an inconsistent history in the type of terminology used. Some of that obviously relates to changes in the technology over the years as well as increased sophistication. But it also reveals inconsistent terminology within editions and oscillation between an emphasis on “work results” versus “products.” The following is an non-scientific comparison of a few listings in the format since it’s inception. In each of the following listings, the similar terms are listed in their order of appearance in the 1964, 1972, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1995, and 2004 editions of the format (---- signifies not listed): Glass, Glazing, Glazing, Glazing, Glazing, Glazing, Glazing. ----, ----, Glass, Glass, Glass, Glass, Glass Glazing. ----, ----, Glazing Plastics, Plastic Glazing, Plastic Glazing, Plastic Glazing, Plastic Glazing. Mirrors, ----, Mirror Glass, Mirror Glass, Mirrored Glass, Mirrors, Mirrors. ----, Structural Metal Framing, Structural Metal Framing, Structural Metal Framing, Structural Metal Framing, Structural Metal Framing, Structural Metal Framing. Structural Steel, ----, Structural Steel, Structural Steel, Structural Steel, Structural Steel, Structural Steel Framing. Decking, Metal Decking, Metal Decking, Metal Decking, Metal Decking, Metal Deck, Metal Decking. ----, Metal Roof Decking, Metal Roof Deck, Steel Roof Deck, Steel Roof Deck, Steel Roof Deck, Steel Roof Decking. ----, Metal Floor Decking, Metal Floor Deck, Steel Floor Deck, Steel Floor Deck, Steel Floor Deck, Steel Floor Decking. ----, Unit Masonry, Unit Masonry, Unit Masonry, Unit Masonry, Masonry Units, Unit Masonry. Brick, Brick Masonry, Brick Masonry, Brick Masonry, Clay Unit Masonry, Clay Masonry Units, Clay Unit Masonry. Concrete Masonry Units, Concrete Unit Masonry, Concrete Unit Masonry, Concrete Unit Masonry, Concrete Unit Masonry, Concrete Masonry Units, Concrete Unit Masonry. ----, ----, Reinforced Unit Masonry, Reinforced Unit Masonry, Reinforced Unit Masonry (Non-Reinforced Masonry Systems), Masonry Assemblies, Multi-Wythe Unit Masonry. ----, Refractories, Refractories, Refractories, Refractories, Refractories, Refractories. ----, ----, Corrosion Resistant Masonry, Corrosion Resistant Masonry, Corrosion Resistant Masonry, Corrosion-Resistant Masonry, Corrosion-Resistant Masonry. (This information reads much better in a tabular form, but that doesn’t translate into this discussion forum. If you would like a MS Word file with it in a tablular form send me an email at rwj@jandjconsultants.com.) The terminology chosen for the 2004 edition was selected on the basis of the guiding principles determined by the expansion task team. One of those principles was that the format was primarily for the purpose of organizing project manuals on the basis of “work results.” Sheldon does a good job of explaining that concept in the posting above. The task team thought this was very close to the original stated primary purpose for the format in the early 1960s of arranging specifications by “units of work” and was also compatible with the OmniClass system of tables of organizing all information for the built environment. When there was an appropriate choice about the type of terminology, a term reflecting the concept of “work results” was selected versus a “product” type term. For work that centers on a manufactured product, the “work result” type term is the often the same as the “product” type term. We are all creatures of habit. When something that has been static in our world for some time changes, it always creates a hassle. So it is when some words we have been used to seeing for years change, it takes some time to assimilate the change. The question is was it a change for the good? I think you can see from the above comparisons that the 2004 edition has tried to achieve a better level of consistent terminology than in previous editions. All of the previous editions included a mixture of types of terminology often using a “product” type term within the same major listing where a “work result” type term is used (Metal Decking, Steel Roof Deck, Steel Floor Deck). I am sure that there is still room for improvement for improving the consistency in this area, but I believe the 2004 edition has made significant improvements in achieving a more consistent terminology by following the above principles. I am an Accredited MasterFormat Instructor, but you can still obviously take anything I say with a grain of salt (that is if you still eat salt). John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 327 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 09:02 am:    Bob, I like a good challenge. Here's the data in a table: 1964 1972 1978 1983 1988 1995 2004 Glass Glazing Glazing Glazing Glazing Glazing Glazing ---- ---- Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glazing ---- ---- Glazing Plastics Plastic Glazing Plastic Glazing Plastic Glazing Plastic Glazing Mirrors ---- Mirror Glass Mirror Glass Mirrored Glass Mirrors Mirrors ---- Structural Metal Framing Structural Metal Framing Structural Metal Framing Structural Metal Framing Structural Metal Framing Structural Metal Framing Structural Steel ---- Structural Steel Structural Steel Structural Steel Structural Steel Structural Steel Framing Decking Metal Decking Metal Decking Metal Decking Metal Decking Metal Deck Metal Decking ---- Metal Roof Decking Metal Roof Deck Steel Roof Deck Steel Roof Deck Steel Roof Deck Steel Roof Decking ---- Metal Floor Decking Metal Floor Deck Steel Floor Deck Steel Floor Deck Steel Floor Deck Steel Floor Decking ---- Unit Masonry Unit Masonry Unit Masonry Unit Masonry Masonry Units Unit Masonry Brick Brick Masonry Brick Masonry Brick Masonry Clay Unit Masonry Clay Masonry Units Clay Unit Masonry Concrete Masonry Units Concrete Unit Masonry Concrete Unit Masonry Concrete Unit Masonry Concrete Unit Masonry Concrete Masonry Units Concrete Unit Masonry ---- ---- Reinforced Unit Masonry Reinforced Unit Masonry Reinforced Unit Masonry (Non-Reinforced Masonry Systems) Masonry Assemblies Multi-Wythe Unit Masonry ---- Refractories Refractories Refractories Refractories Refractories Refractories ---- ---- Corrosion Resistant Masonry Corrosion Resistant Masonry Corrosion Resistant Masonry Corrosion-Resistant Masonry Corrosion-Resistant Masonry Anonymous   Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 09:22 am:    Does this still apply? "A rose by any other name......." Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 6 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 10:34 am:    "Once the work of the Structural Steeling section is complete, would the Work Result be Structural Stolen?" LOL, Doug! Do we ever note or schedule "Tiling" on the drawings? Shouldn't we use customary terminology, as long as it's accurate? Has the foolish consistency of "Work Results" become our current hobgoblin? What about consistency with drawing terminology? Doesn't this take us in the wrong direction? As to "Work Results" - will we now have to say "the Work Results of This Contract" or "the Work Results" (instead of just "the Work") to refer to the Contractor's product? (Or, for that matter, would we say "the Working"?) A gerund is a verb form used as a noun. But the term "work" (at least "Work" with a capital "W") is a noun that represents the results of actions represented by the very same word, which is also a verb...just as "tile," installed (a noun), is the result of one who is hired to "tile" (a verb) the walls or floors. "Tiling" isn't a work result, TILE is. "Tiling" is the action that produces the result. What do we gain by using the gerund form, other than some perceived (and false) illusion of consistency? Use the "-ing" when it makes sense and is customary (as in, perhaps, "glazing"), but not for some gratuitous consistency! Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 18 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 12:43 pm:    John Thanks for the translation of the table. Some of us have more capabilities than others. Robert The titles in MasterFormat and the titles of sections in a project manual are one thing, and the titles of products and installation methods in the text of the specifications coordinated with the notations of those same items on the drawings is another. The change in the title of the specification section to "Tiling" does not change the term for the product "Tile" in the specifications or on the drawings. Recognizing that we are classifying "work results" in MasterFormat has no relation to contractual defintions such as work of the contract. The only place the term "work results" is being used is within the MasterFormat Application Guide and with the Project Resource Manual to explain the how the titles are classified. Another way of using terms that would relate to "work results" would have been by adding the word "Work" at the end of many titles (Tile Work). That idea was discussed but the decision was made to more consistently use the gerund type terminology. An examination of the past editions quickly shows a repetitive use of the gerund but very few instances of using the additional word "Work." It is hard to understand your argument that "Tiling" is not an acceptable term but that "Glazing" is. Webster's definitions are pretty consistent for the two terms: Tiling, noun, 1. the operation of covering with tile. 2. tiles collectively. 3. a tiled surface. Glazing, noun, 1. the act of furnishing or fitting with glass; the work of a glazier. 2. panes or sheets of glass set or made to be set in frames, as in windows, doors, or mirrors. The Art and Architectur Thesauraus also is consistent for the two terms: Tiling: Covering a surface with tiles, generally in some sort of fixative with as grout or mortar. Glazing: Use for the installation of glass, as in building openings or in front of a painting in its frame. All of theses definitions relate well to the use of the terms as a title for a "work result." It is true that one has been the customary term in our normal language while it will take some time before the other term becomes customary. Consistency in terminology is obviously more important to some than to others. This change in terminology was made for two fundamental purposes: (1) Help educate the users that it is a classification of work results and not products. (2) To achieve a more consistent use of terminology throughout the document. This concept was not extended to the creation of ridiculous words as everyone would like to have fun with. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 7 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 01:21 pm:    So, if one purpose is to "Help educate the users that it is a classification of work results and not products," how does simply using a gerund accomplish that? Would anyone have ever known? ("Tiling--oh, I get it! This is talking about work RESULTS, not just products!) Perceptive readers will have noticed that "Products" is, and has long been, only one of three parts--along with "Execution." If the other purpose is "To achieve a more consistent use of terminology throughout the document," how does it do that? Especially if doing so in so many cases would be "ridiculous," and in other cases would be inconsistenct with the accurate and perfectly adequate terminology long used on the drawings? It introduces more inconsistency than it resolves, even if perceived inconsistencies in the customary terminology were a problem, which they weren't. And why, when there are SO many significant--even sweeping--changes, do we need a whole set of changes to unfamiliar or non-customary terminology, for the sake of a "consistency" that can't, ultimately, be really consistent at all, and that, arguably, not only fails to clarify, but doesn't even directly address, the work results issue? Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 19 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 02:44 pm:    The statement was to “help” educate. The first words of the MasterFormat Introduction are: “MasterFormat™ is a master list of numbers and titles classified by work results or construction practices, primarily used to organize project manuals, organize detailed cost information, and relate drawing notations to specifications.” The MasterFormat Application Guide also states: “Some titles have been revised slightly to use terminology to more consistently reflect that MasterFormat is classifying work results rather than products.” It goes on to give some examples of titles that changed and others that didn’t. The PRM at 5.5.1 states “MasterFormat breaks the same information down by work results or construction practices that result from a combination of products and methods, ……” The change in terminology to reflect work results was not done in isolation. I think the comparison table above illustrates how the terminology is more consistent. Which is more consistent among the following: 1988 & 1995: Glazing, Glass, Plastic Glazing. 2004: Glazing, Glass Glazing, Plastic Glazing. 1988: Wood Decking, Metal Decking, Steel Roof Deck, Steel Floor Deck. 1995: Wood Decking, Metal Deck, Steel Roof Deck, Steel Floor Deck. 2004: Wood Decking, Metal Decking, Steel Roof Decking, Steel Floor Decking. 1988 & 1995: Concrete Reinforcement, Reinforcing Steel, Welded Wire Fabric, Fibrous Reinforcing. 2004: Concrete Reinforcing, Reinforcing Steel, Welded Wire Fabric Reinforcing, Fibrous Reinforcing. 1995: Flexible Pavement, Rigid Pavement, Paving Specialties, Unit Pavers. 2004: Flexible Paving, Rigid Paving, Paving Specialties, Unit Paving. I disagree with the statement about “significant—even sweeping—changes” in regard to terminology changes in relation to work results versus products. Most of the changes are using words that have been used previously, but inconsistently over and within the various editions. The change has been to use one type of word more consistently as illustrated above. Yes there are some other new words in MasterFormat 2004 titles such as (Concrete) Forming, Grouting, and Plastering; but they are words that we commonly use even though they have not been used in titles before. Tiling is one of the very few examples (I could not come up with another example in a quick review) of a word that does not have common current usage. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 8 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 03:13 pm:    I quoted you acurately--the quote starts with "Help." But does it, indeed, help? Really? Can we agree that this is really about terminological consistency, not "work results" versus "products"? And that, ultimately, real consistency in this would result in ridiculous terminology (as you admit)? Personally, I've never liked "reinforcement," but that was as much because I find it hardly ever used at least as much as its inconsistency with "reinforcing." And if we're going for consistency in terminology, let's not pretend it's to emphasize "work results." But let's DO aim for consistency with the terms long used on the drawings (the accurate ones, that is), not a pseudo-consistency of grammatical form. And I'm not sure you understood that the "significant --even sweeping--changes" referred to were not those of terminology, but rather the wholesale adding of more than twice as many divisions as we had before, the consequent shuffling of content and the introduction of a unique, unwieldy and inconsistent section-numbering system. THOSE are sweeping, not a few silly gerunds. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 20 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 03:18 pm:    Michael RE: Colored Concrete Stains The one listing for this product is in the products listing under 03 05 00 Common Work Results for Concrete; it is called coloring agent. The keyword index for Color Agents refers to that location as well as 32 13 13 Concrete Paving. The latter probably should have been 32 13 16 Decorative Concrete Paving. This also a case where an alternate term listing could be added to cover the various terms for this product. The listing of alternate terms is also a new practice in the 2004 document that I am sure will be expanded and improved in future editions. The new practice in MasterFormat 2004 of listing products in the explanations under the work results titles is a first attempt and will undoubtably be expanded and improved in future editions. In general, the 2004 document does not try to list every product used to produce factory or shop produced products or assemblies. The emphasis was placed on situations where there was a variety of alternative products under a title such as under sheathing, resilient flooring, fluid-applied flooring, etc. Major elements such as glass and glazing may be listed for windows, but just as reinforcing is not listed for precast concrete, so color agent is not listed. This question illustrates the short comings of MasterFormat to classify products, especially those that have a variety of applications such as colored concrete stains. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 9 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 03:41 pm:    One more thing...both the MF 2004 Introduction and the PRM mention "work results OR construction practices" (emphasis added). "Construction practices" are no more "work results" than are "products," and the "practices" part is addressed in Part 3 Execution of each section, just as products are in Part 2. The key feature of the section format is its clear distinction between the products and execution provisions in each section. Since quite a few sections don't involve "products" but DO involve "construction practices" (Division 1--oops, 01--comes to mind), it would seem more accurate to say that the new terminology is an attempt to "help educate" users that the organization is by "construction practices," not products. But in reality, "work results," in most cases, includes both "construction practices" and "products," so the latter statement wouldn't be true, either. So the basic premise (of the cited MF Intro and PRM statements) is fatally flawed, isn't it? Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 21 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 04:24 pm:    Robert You whole statement was “So, if one purpose is to "Help educate the users that it is a classification of work results and not products," how does simply using a gerund accomplish that?” My response was to explain that simply using gerunds was not intended to be the whole education effort. No we don’t agree, the change in terminology was made for both reasons. Sometimes it was for consistency; when it was, a “work result” type term was selected versus a "product" type term. In other cases a work result type term was substituted for a product type term such as in the case of Concrete Forming, Grouting, Plastering, and Tiling. I am in complete agreement with you about the importance of establishing a more consistent terminology to be used for the identification of products and installation methods within the specifications and on the drawings. I have been a proponent of trying to do something about that on an industry–wide basis for many years in articles, in presentations, and in private conversations. Many CSI leaders of the last few years can tell you of my conversations with them about this subject. I have been involved in some very recent postings on this site regarding that issue. I stand by my previous statement that the titles in MasterFormat are a different issue from the coordination of terminology used to identify products and installation methods within the specifications and on the drawings. I think the two biggest issues are getting those working on the drawings to keep to simple generic identifications without specification type information and to get specifiers to use the same simple generic titles in the specs in contrast to long detailed, but very accurate and precise, titles of products. Both parties error on side of trying to communicate well but create problems because they don't have enough understanding and empathy for what the other party is doing. We need to establish some industry-wide standards about the terms to use to help both sides accomplish this. The overall major expansion of MasterFormat in the 2004 edition is a whole different issue that has been dealt with in many locations including this site over the last several years. I stand behind my previous statement there is actually very few "unfamiliar or non-customary terms" that have been included in relation to terminology changes for consistency and for "work results." Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 22 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 04:54 pm:    Robert The best full definition for work results is in a ISO standard (ISO/DIS 12006-2 - Organization of Information about construction works — Part 2: Framework for Classification of Information): Construction result achieved in the production stage or by subsequent alteration, maintenance, or demolition processes and identified by one or more of the following: the particular skill or trade involved; the construction resources used; the part of the construction entity which results; the temporary work or other preparatory or completion work which results. Because this term has European origins, has not been used in North America, and because the offical definition is so long, we have come to use the short phrase "construction practice" to help to explain it. In constrast to your equating it to execution or installation, what we have meant by the phrase is how we group products and installation techniques together during the construction process of a project - basically how we get a project constructed. The use of the phrase seems to have helped some people understand the concept. That obviously has not been the case for you. That is always the danger of using such short phrases. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 10 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 05:52 pm:    Perhaps I should have written, "how does simply using a gerund HELP accomplish that?" I realize that it is intended to be just one part of a larger "education effort." I just don't think it really contributes to that effort at all. In fact, the object of that educational effort is questionable. What's the point? "Work results" are the combined result of both products and construction practices--it takes both to produce results. So the distinction that CSI makes, in its MF 2004 Intro and the PRM, between "Products" on the one hand, and "Work Results" and "Construction Practices" on the other, is flawed--it should be "work results" on one hand, and both "products" and "construction practices" on the other. It would be more accurate to say that section titles sometimes reflect "work results" (like Cast-in-Place Concrete), sometimes "products" (like Concrete Reinforcing, though that section may specify applicable execution provisions as well), and sometimes "construction practices" (such as Concrete Forming, which involves products that do not actually remain in the work results, or Quality Assurance, which seldom includes much in the way of products, even though it applies to products). In fact your subsequent post confirms this. You cite the ISO standard definition for work results, which, though it seems to belabor the obvious (perhaps to be expected if it's a joint effort of the French, British and Germans), confirms the very point I'm making! Note that its acceptable ways of identifying "work results" include all of the following (examples added): "the particular skill or trade involved (plumbing, painting, etc.); the construction resources used (in other words, PRODUCTS--structural steel, door hardware, TILE); the part of the construction entity which results (cast-in-place concrete, special exhaust systems, which though not discrete products themselves, are indeed the "work result" of combining specified "products"); [and] the temporary work or other preparatory or completion work which results (concrete formwork/forming)." So the ISO standard explicitly says that "work results" can be identified by (among other things) "the construction resources used". In other words, PRODUCTS! So what's the deal? What is this "educational effort" trying to do? Distinguish between "work results" and "products"? Why do that, since one can, in actual fact, be identified by the other? And, finally, even if this were worth doing, would calling a section "Tiling" instead of "Tile" really help? What do we gain? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 42 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 07:06 pm:    In giving a number of MasterFormat 2004 seminars with Donald Smith (HOK Houston), I have been struck by the usefulness of thinking in terms of work results and the absurdness of some of the possible names we could come up with using the simplified "gerund" method. How about "Saunaing"? "Projection Equipmenting"? maybe "Horizontal Louver Blinding" (where the western sun hits an occupant before someone has a chance to adjust the blinds)? "Automatic Sliding Entrance Dooring"? While Dennis and his team do provide us with ongoing sources of entertainment, I do appreciate the effort to emphasize that we are looking for "work results." If I specify carpet, might someone expect to complete the job by delivering a roll of broadloom to the general area? "There's the carpet you specified!" If we change the nomenclature to "carpeting," it seems to me that the desired result is a little more intuitively obvious. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 23 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 09:01 pm:    Robert I have previously explained the background and intended definition of the phrase “construction practice.” You can continue to provide your own definition and carry the argument where you want. I think you are missing the major point behind this whole discussion. The original “CSI Format for Construction Specifications” (later renamed MasterFormat) had as its major goal to provide a format for the consistent organization of specifications (later broadened to the project manual). It’s creators realized that it might also be used for the filing of technical data and product literature. Over the years, the format became thought of more and more as a method to classify products and that function became greater and greater. By the 1995 edition, MasterFormat was defined as “a master list of numbers and titles for organizing information about construction requirements, products, and activities into a standard sequence.” The MasterFormat Expansion Task Team (MFETT), though the work of the OCCS OmniClass effort, that MasterFormat was not really a product classification system and that the format’s stated purpose should be more restricted and go back closer to its original purpose. Thus “work results” was recognized as the classification principle to follow. Another benefit of this decision was that it provided a principle upon which to make terminology decisions and establish a more consistent use of terminology in constrast to previous editions as illustrated above. This does not mean that one cannot classify technical data or products by MasterFormat if they want. As the current application guide indicates, they just must be aware that there may be more than one location within the format for any particular product dependent upon how the product might be included in different work results. The posts above on Colored Concrete Stains is one small illustration of that. The MFETT thought that it was important to emphasize this change in the stated purpose of MasterFormat. One of the ways of doing that was to change the terminology to reflect work results in contrast to products when there was an appropriate term to use. You don’t think these changes are of any value. The MFETT thought that they were and others, as the post above indicates, do see some value in the changes. We all have our opinions; so be it; it would be pretty boring if we all thought the same. If you continue to investigate the subject of the classification of information about the built environment, I think you will find that the international community that has worked on these issues for several years and produced the ISO standards are smarter than you might think. I think you will find that they define their words carefully and use them with the same care. If they had meant “resources” to mean “products” as you have defined it above, they would have used different words. In fact the standard includes definitions of both of these and almost all the significant terms that are used in the standard: "Construction Product: Product, component or “kit of parts” intended for incorporation in a permanent manner in buildings or other construction entities. Construction Resource: Construction object used in a construction process to achieve a construction result. Construction Object: Object of importance to the construction industry. Constructed Entity: Independent material construction result of significant scale serving at least one user activity or function." “Resource,” as it is used in the definition of a work result as a much broader definition than the definition of product that you gave it. For example it would include the construction equipment used in the process. A “Constructed Entity” is not just an element of a construction project as you have described it, but is complete construction project of significant scale with at least one function (building, bridge, etc.). It really doesn't work to take this type of carefully crafted work by others and apply your own definitions and meanings to the words. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 110 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 09:09 pm:    OK folks, it's time for some perspective. MasterFormat does not, and never has, has any legal standing--nor should it. It is a guide. It tries to bring general uniformity and consistency to the location of subject matter. If you don't like "Tiling" for a section title, it is not illegal to use "Tile". The work will continue to be bid and built, and the MasterFormat police will not make midnight raids at your office or home. Bob Johnson is spot on when he said the biggest issues are "getting those working on the drawings to keep to simple generic identifications without specification type information and to get specifiers to use the same simple generic titles in the specs". Ultimately, the issue is consistency of communication. Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 35 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 11:59 pm:    The Framers of the First Format were not making grammatical distinctions. They were just calling things what most construction folk called them. There’s a not-quite-Biblical story that might tell us something about how the FFFs worked. Adam and Eve were sitting on the front stoop one afternoon, Eve with pad and pencil in hand, naming all the animals, as Directed. A queer-looking beast came galumphing down the road, immediately catching Adam’s attention. “Eve”, he said, “what is that ungainly thing?” Eve paused just a moment and said, “Adam, it looks like a chicken to me.” Adam said, “Put down ‘chicken’.” Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 36 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 01:26 am:    This is a good time to look at a typical division from “The CSI Format for Building Specifications”, published in March, 1963. [Every division started with a preamble similar to the one shown here. To fit 4specs format, italicized terms are shown in caps, and indentation is indicated by an “o”. Note the alphabetical order, and the fact that titles or headings are not mentioned – only subjects.] DIVISION 7 – MOISTURE PROTECTION Includes most items normally associated with preventing the passage of water or water vapor. The following list is typical of SUBJECTS that will be located in this division; subjects MAY be similar to section titles or to titles of paragraphs within sections. Dampproofing Flashing, including: o Roof flashing (masonry flashing in Div. 4) Insulation, roof Roofing, all types Sealants, field applied, including: o Calking o Preformed gaskets Sheet-metal work, including: o Downspouts o Gutters o Roof Ventilators Sheet roofing and siding, including: o Cement-asbestos o Metal o Plastic o Protected-metal Shingles, including: o Asphalt o Cement-asbestos o Wood Skylights and roof scuttles Waterproofing Weatherproofing (Concrete control joints and waterstops in Div. 3) (Gaskets and sealants for curtain walls: metal curtain walls in Div.8; precast concrete in Div.3) (Masonry control joints in Div.4) (Other insulation in Divs.4, 6, 13, and 15) (Paint in Div.9) There were 283 subjects in the 16 divisions. This one had 11; General Requirements had 8; Furnishings had 7; Electrical had 16. In an introduction, it was stated: “In the CSI Format, the word SECTION denotes the 'trade section' or 'technical section'; it denotes a basic UNIT OF WORK. “A DIVISION is a group of sections.” C. R. Mudgeon Senior Member Username: c_r_mudgeon Post Number: 41 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 10:37 am:    "Do we ever note or schedule "Tiling" on the drawings?" No, because drawings show materials and the relationships between them. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 119 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 12:11 pm:    Before my enlightenment, I couldn't figure out why we used terms like "decking" and "glazing" to specify products, and I changed all of my section titles from the gerund form to the noun form. One could go either way on this argument: Use the noun and say you are specifying the material, with the tacit understanding that you are also specifying procedures, accessories, and installation for that product. Or, say you are specifying the work result, which includes the material and procedures and accessories and installation - or whatever part of that work result you want to include in that section. In either case, one could use a section titled "Tile" if only that material were specified, or "Tile Installation" if it specified the installation but not the material. In the end, what we're after is consistency, but we also have to avoid silliness like "elevatoring". As noted above, the MasterFormat police aren't going to come knocking on your door. As also noted, specifiers, suppliers, and contractors will have no problem finding the correct section as long as it's in the right division. Use six digits or five, or even two; use "Flush Solid Core Wood Doors with Wood Face Veneer" or just "Doors" and we'll probably end up with the same thing. Go one step further, and use only one part in each specification section. Same results. Put the text sideways on the page, skip the outline format, use Star Trek font. Same results. Use long narrative sentences with lots of "shalls" instead of short imperative directions. Forget about white space in the text, use 1/4 inch margins and 7 point fonts. Repeat Division 1 provisions in every section. Repeat conditions of the contract in every section. Do whatever you want - but with each step away from standards (guidelines if you prefer), the potential for miscommunication increases. (Be sure to verify with an AMI.) Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 37 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 01:54 pm:    You can use a noun for almost everything if you keep it in the singular and think "work" appended to each title. If you try it out on MF04 titles in Facilities Construction, you will see that from Operation and Maitenance for Site Remediation (Work) or Site Survey (Work) (Div.02) through Window Washing Scaffolding (Work) (Div.14) it looks OK. It's OK for Facility Services and Site & Infrastructure too, even though the last title in Div.28 is a bit of a mouthful: Discreet-Distributed Intelligence Detention Monitoring and Control Systems (Work) - much needed at Abu Ghraib. It even works for Tiling (Work) or Tile (Work) - take your pick. Entilation (Work) will work too. I think this discussion about reviving CSI's original wide use of gerunds has been a good and necessary exercise. Yes, we are talking about execution as well as product. We no longer suspect that a noun title means we are specifying product only. Yes, we are talking about work result as well as work in progress. And we have had a lot of fun making up wild gerundive concoctions, haven't we? Back to work. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 24 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 03:51 pm:    Dave, C.R., Sheldon, and Tom are right on. Now what can we do to achieve better coordinated terminology between drawings and specs on an industry-wide basis? Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 120 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:50 pm:    Just can't quit, 'ey? Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 25 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 12:21 pm:    I didn't know that there was a time at which you were supposed to quit! Must be a Minnesota thing! Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 121 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 12:45 pm:    That's why I'm reading this now... Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 11 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 05:01 pm:    I too would like to quit, and intend to do so after the following, lest anyone misunderstand. I really hope these last few comments clarify things, including my own intent, which may have been misinterpreted. If they don’t, well, I guess you can consider them parting shots . . .(apologies for the caps; they're not shouting, but used in lieu of italics for emphasis.) 1. I quote RWJ (2/25 4:54): "The best full definition for 'work results' is in a ISO standard...'Construction result...identified by one or more of the following: the particular skill or trade involved; the construction resources used; the part of the construction entity which results; the temporary work or other preparatory or completion work which results.' "Because this term has European origins, has not been used in North America, and because the offical definition is so long, we have come to use the short phrase 'construction practice' to help to explain it. In constrast to your equating it to execution or installation, what we have meant by the phrase is how we group products and installation techniques together during the construction process of a project - basically how we get a project constructed. "The use of the phrase seems to have helped some people understand the concept. That obviously has not been the case for you. That is always the danger of using such short phrases." Comment 1: I'm not sure which of these "short phrases" you're referring to in the above paragraph, "work results," or "construction practice." Your wording appears to mean using the phrase 'construction practice' to help people understand the concept "work results.' Whatever...I believe I DO understand, and always have, the concept of "work results." But (regardless of which is meant) why use the phrase "construction practice" in an arguably COUNTERINTUITIVE sense "to help to explain" the shorter (and, one would think, SELF-EVIDENT) phrase "work results"? Does that make any sense? 2. Quoting again (RWJ, 2/25 9:01): "A 'construction resource' is 'a construction object [an 'object of importance to the construction industry'] used in a construction process to achieve a construction result.'" Comment 2: As such, it certainly includes, but is not necessarily limited to, products. As you pointed out, under the ISO definition, "work results" can be identified by "construction resources," so work results CAN be identified by products, which are construction resources. According to this, using products to identify work results is just fine. So what’s the problem? 3. There seems to be a perception that MF is seen only as a way of organizing products, and that countering such a misconception requires, among other things--which aren’t discussed--re-titling a few sections (those few where it isn’t ludicrous) with gerunds. A related misconception is that organizing specs based on work results instead of products is a new concept--or at least a return to the original one. Comment 3: It’s a false dichotomy. Since, from the beginning, most sections have included both Products and Execution parts, it should be obvious that products were always one component (but not the only one) of the organizational system. And the inclusion of Part 3 (in virtually all sections that have a Part 2) should have always made it obvious that it was not just products alone that were specified, but INSTALLED products–-i.e., "work results." And finally, Comment 4: I think that this emphasis on "work results," while well-intentioned, not only belabors the obvious and introduces silly (or at least uncustomary) terminology, but also largely misses the mark in the process. At a time when so many other changes (changes that, in contrast, ARE sweeping) have been made to MF, why introduce a few trivial terminological changes, let alone a whole new set of admittedly foreign definitions that painstakingly define the self-evident? Have the terminological changes themselves brought about any changes in peoples' understanding that would not have resulted from a simple reiteration of the principle in the introduction to MF 2004, and--if necessary (and more effectively, perhaps)--adding a similar explanation in an appropriate place in the Project Manual, that "work results" is Masterformat's conceptual basis? Instead, let’s turn our focus to coordinating terms between specs and drawings, trying for as much consistency as possible there, where it counts. Let's stop introducing more little-used terms which take us further away from drawing/spec consistency. And above all, let's stop belaboring the obvious! And now, having belabored the obvious myself, I’ll quit. Roy Crawford New member Username: roy Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2005 Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 06:49 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? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 112 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:17 am:    Roy, maybe I'm not understanding your question completely, but I'll attempt to answer based on the information you've provided. Division 33 applies to site utilities...getting "stuff" (i.e. water, natural gas, sewerage, storm water, etc.) from, or to, the facility. However, the Process Equipment Subgroup, of which Division 44 is a part, applies to the equipment and facilities that handle, convert, modify, and create "stuff." Division 44 handles the "stuff" that Division 33 delivers. Rather than grouping sections based on "stuff" (i.e. sewerage, gas, water, etc.), they're grouped according to the systems that handle the "stuff" (i.e. building plumbing, site utilities, treatment plants, etc.) I hope that answers your question. Roy Crawford Member Username: roy Post Number: 3 Registered: 03-2005 Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 10:26 am:    Ron, thanks for the post. The basis question is why all references in Div 44 refers to water treatment (44 40 xx), when I really need to also specify sewerage treatment. Yes - Div 44 is correctly labeled pollution contraol equipment, but there is a major difference between water and sewerage. Maybe I should use 44 60 xx for wastewater treatment equipment. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 113 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 10:48 am:    It's not recommended to use the reserved numbers. However, the MF cops aren't going to cite you for any violations. My suggestion would be to utilize 44 XX YY.ZZ, where XX and YY are the specific systems based on MF 2004, and ZZ would be your user-defined numbers with one number for water and another for sewerage. Chris Grimm, RLA, CDT, MAI, CSI Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 11 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 04:19 pm:    Any recommendations on more specific types of stone in 04 43 00 Stone Masonry? e.g.: 04 43 13 - Granite 04 43 16 - Field Stone 04 43 19 - Limestone 04 43 23 - Marble 04 43 26 - Sandstone 04 43 29 - Slate