|LeeOrosco (Unregistered Guest)
|Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 06:49 pm: |
Any suggestions for the MF04 number for electric motors?
|Gary L. Beimers, FCSI, CDT, CSC|
Post Number: 6
|Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 09:25 pm: |
The MF04 cross-reference sends you to. . .
26 05 00 Common Work Results for Electrical.
Although I don't see motors specifically listed in the explainations column.
If they are motors for mechanical applications there are three sections available . . .
21 05 13 Common Motor Requirements for Fire Supression
22 05 13 Common Motor Requirements for Plumbing
23 05 13 Common Motor Requirements for HVAC
|Bob Johnson (Unregistered Guest)
|Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 07:35 pm: |
Read thread on MasterFormat 2004 Numbers and Titles just below this one.
See Mike King's 6/27/05 posting in that thread.
|David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA|
Post Number: 132
|Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 06:02 am: |
Sorry this is so long (but may be interesting to some).
With regards to . . .
26 29 13 Enclosed Controllers
26 29 23 Variable-Frequency Motor Controllers
. . . we have a mechanical engineer that insists on re-assigning these specifications to Division 23 because "that's the way the subcontractor buys out the job."
Our repeated urgings to have the put them back in Division 26 have included the following:
1) The following organizations participated in the Master Format expansion process:
- Mechanical Contractors Association of America
- Mechanical Contractors Association of Canada
- Canadian Contractors Association
- National Systems Contractors Associations
- National Fire Sprinkler Association
- Independent Electrical Contractors
- Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing Bureau
- Johnson Controls
If there had been a desire or consensus by the industry or trade association leadership to have these elements reassigned to a different Division, it would have been done during the MasterFormat expansion process three years ago.
2) Specifications are not subcontractor scopes of work or division of responsibility between the various trades and subcontractors. The Contract Documents are to be addressed to the Contractor only. In addition, it is entirely inappropriate for the design team to specify subcontractor-specific or consultant-specific provisions or items of work, or to relocate items from one Division to another in order to mirror the way they anticipate the Contractor will buy out the project and award subcontracts. Since the Contract Documents are addressed to the Contractor, designating or mandating which portion or item of work is to be performed by which trade is not appropriate (and may be in direct conflict with the terms of the General Conditions) and shall be avoided.
Their response was conveyed to me as follows:
A change [to Division 23] in the location/number for the two (2) sections in question does not have an affect nor does it dictate as to whom is responsible for the work described in that section. Nowhere within the specifications does it state or infer that all sections in division 23 are the responsibility of one specific sub-contractor over another. Therefore, the responsibility for the section/division falls to the "contractor" regardless of the number.
We are aware of the different groups that participated in the expansion of the Master Specification Process. We are aware that, in general, the participants agreed at some level that the numbering of the divisions and sections makes sense. Does that make it a perfect document for all projects? For all conditions? I am fairly confident that in the coming years there will be modifications and changes made to this format as they continue to become more complete and "in tune" with the evolution of the construction industry.
Our decision to make the changes is primarily to aid in the coordination process. Although the specifications do not dictate who is responsible for each section, it is traditional that certain sub-contractors take on the responsibility of certain divisions. In this case, the sections that were changed contain information for motor controllers that will only be associated with equipment specified in division 23. In most cases the equipment will be purchased with the motor controllers mounted to the equipment they are controlling. Placing these sections within the same division reduces the risk of problems in the field with regard to coordination not to mention the associated time requirements for the design team.
Ideally, we agree that as a standard it makes sense for these sections to be in division 26.
Reality suggests that the construction industry will take some time to get accustomed to the new format at the expense of the design professionals. On this project we made the decision to make the change to reduce the risk of mis-coordination.
What strikes me is what they seem to be implying at the end of their second paragraph: That MasterFormat will ". . . continue to become more complete and "in tune" with the evolution of the construction industry."
In tune with the construction industry????
Surely the MFETT didn't spend three plus years working on the expansion, just so it WOULD NOT be in tune with the industry!!
And if the equipment is normally purchased with these items already [factory-] attached, then should they not be specified in the same section as the equipment? Am I missing something here?
Anyway, if anyone has any suggestions or comments about how I might muster a reply to the engineer, it would be very much appreciated.
Robert Johnson? Michael King? Anyone?
|Robert W. Johnson|
Post Number: 77
|Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
Motor Controllers are certainly not an area of my expertise. I think Mike King will probably provide a response from someone with the technical background on the subject.
I will comment however that I think we all move certain of what I would call secondary subjects about within our project specifications dependent upon the situation. We do this when we think it will be of benefit to the project. A simple example might be joint sealants. Because MasterFormat has joint sealants located at 07 92 00, does that mean that joint sealants should not ever be specified at some other locations such as within the 08 40 00 Entrances, Storefronts, and Curtain Walls area or 08 63 00 Metal-Framed Skylights? I don't think so. There are many other examples of this in terms of accessories and options to manufactured elements where it might be better to include the accessory with the main element or it might be better to specify the accessory item separately for other reasons.
Again I don't have a deep enough knowledge of the particular Enclosed Controller subject to be definitive, but might this not be another subject where in some cases it is more appropriate to specifiy them separately at their designated location in MasterFormat and in other situations with the equipment that are closely associated with?
|Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI|
Post Number: 242
|Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 12:16 pm: |
In following with Robert's comments and with Gary's August response, I would do the following:
1. If there is only one type of mechanical equipment that requires motor controllers, then specify the motor controllers within that section.
2. If there are multiple types of mechanical equipment that require motor controllers, then use 23 05 13 Common Motor Requirements for HVAC Equipment, and reference that section in each of the specific HVAC sections.
3. If motor controllers are required for equipment in addition to HVAC equipment, but have different requirements, then specify the HVAC controller requirements as stated in No. 2, above.
4. If motor controllers are required for equipment in addition to HVAC equipment, and have similar requirements, then maybe 26 29 00, or one of the two Level-3 numbers, should be used and each section requiring controllers references that section.
|Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS|
Post Number: 7
|Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 11:22 am: |
The question about where to specify motors has a similar answer to the question about where to specify controllers. In MASTERSPEC, we chose to have a "common work results" section in each of Divisions 21, 22, and 23, as well as including a section in Division 11 for "other equipment." Motors are rarely provided separate from the motorized equipment. The same is true to a certain extent for controllers, particularly the complicated ones. These products are normally components of packaged equipment and as such are specifically selected for the particular equipment by the equipment manufacturer to perform unique duty. The equipment manufacturers bulk purchase motors and controllers and assemble them with other components to fabricate the equipment and often test it according to product standards under laboratory conditions before shipment. Although there are very few, sometime there are options to chose among for the OEM motors and controllers. (like other optional features of the equipment).
For this reason, motors and controllers and other components are appropriately specified in the same section with the packaged equipment. This creates a considerable amount of repetitive text among the numerous motorized equipment specifications in Divisions 21, 22, and 23 as well as in Division 11. To the extent practical, a section on "Common Motor Requirements for <Insert division title> Equipment" reduces the repetitive requirements, but not completely. There are many equipment items (like centrifugal chillers and elevators) that do not lend themselves to this approach and therefore, all the motor and controller requirements must be specified in each these sections, because they are unique. There are situations, also, when the choices for motor or controller requirements for packaged equipment are limited or are different from those specified in the common work results sections. However, for many equipment specifications, it is efficient to specify the unique requirements, if any, and cross reference the common motor requirements section within that division.
A better argument for not specifying motor requirements in Division 26 is that that these subjects are not "common work results for that division." The same is not necessarily true for "common requirements for controllers (which MASTERSPEC does not have).
Currently in MASTERSPEC motor controllers, including variable-frequency controllers, are specified in Division 26. However, these are not for the controllers that are components of packaged equipment. These sections are for those separate controllers that are not part of packaged equipment and so are separate work results sections. There are many situations when motor controllers (sometimes a simple toggle switch) are installed separate from the motorized equipment. Such is almost never the case for motors. So, in MASTERSPEC you will find that motorized equipment for which motors and controllers are components of that equipment, are included in the motorized equipment section. In those equipment sections there are often options among which to choose for the OEM motors and controllers. MASTERSPEC has a common work results section for motors. However, MASTERSPEC has separate sections (in Division 26) for various types of controllers for the situation when controllers are furnished separate from the equipment.