4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

Anyone else using "Reserved for Futur... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum » MasterFormat 2004 Discussions » Anyone else using "Reserved for Future Expansion" Divisions? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Bob Woodburn
Senior Member
Username: bwoodburn

Post Number: 163
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 05:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Speaking of multiple versions of "Division 17" (as someone was, in another thread), a major institutional Owner has recently revised its master guide specifications, converted them to MF 2004, and placed them on its website. Interestingly, they have appropriated the "reserved" Division 20 for "COMMON FIRE SUPPRESSION, PLUMBING AND HVAC REQUIREMENTS." Makes sense, I suppose.

Is anyone else using the new "reserved for future expansion" divisions yet? Is there an official process by which those divisions will be designated and activated by the MasterFormat Police, or are they "up for grabs" to be adopted gradually by "squatters," perhaps with an unofficial consensus forming as to what goes best in each new division? Do we now have 16 new potential "Division 17" wildcards?
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, MAI, RLA
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy

Post Number: 65
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 05:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

The MasterFormat police would definitely not approve, if they existed.

I do know from the application guide and seminars on MF04 that the reserved divisions are not to be tinkered with and CSI would officially give the word for any new ones that are deemed to be necessary.

For the time being, there is the "propose a revision" link at www.masterformat.com

But what is one to do when they want to "say it once" and the current divisions require you to say it 3 times...?
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding

Post Number: 271
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 05:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

We are planning to use Division 20 the same way, to hold sections common to multiple divisions in the 20's group. That seems like a logical solution.

We won't use any of the other reserved sections.
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt

Post Number: 834
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 05:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post


A lady in my CDT class told me that her Civil Engineering firm uses Division 20 for common requirements exactly as you mentioned.

This makes me wonder if CSI really did ask engineers what they wanted from the new MasterFormat.
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 132
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 06:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Since I was a participant with the task team at the time this decision was made, I can tell you that the decision was made by the engineering representatives that were participating with the task team - it was not forced on them by anyone.

Was it a point of contention and debate? - Yes.
Is everyone going to be in total agreement with the decision? - No.

This same issue was discussed earlier in another thread in this forum titled "MasterFormat 2004 Numbers and Titles." Mike King, who also particpated with the task team in the engineering area, reponded to this issue at that location: http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/1097/1098.html?1128612532.
Tracy Van Niel
Senior Member
Username: tracy_van_niel

Post Number: 206
Registered: 04-2002
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 07:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

We also have a large engineering firm here in Columbus who uses Division 20 for the "general" MEP sections. So far, they are the only consultant we've worked with who uses Division 20 for that purpose.
Karen L. Zaterman, CDT
Senior Member
Username: kittiz

Post Number: 26
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 06:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

At first it seems like a reasonable assumption to use Div.20 but I have decided against it after re-reading Mike King's analysis. Thanks, Bob.

I am at a mid-size engineering firm that does a lot of work for Ports and Harbors and I have a somewhat similar issue with the Site & Infrastructure Subgroup. I WAS tempted to use one of the Reserved divisions, but I didn't.

The Port didn't want to see foundations for the wharves in Division 31 and there are also special techniques for soil stabilization. They wanted them close to the other Marine sections, otherwise we ended up with paving, utilities and transportation sections in between. So I decided to use an "unassigned" Level 2 and create 35 60 00 Special Foundations for Marine Construction. The sequence of Level 2 titles is not ideal, but at least I've followed the MF04 Police guidelines ;-) Assigning 35 80 00 for Marine Earthwork Methods was even less ideal (for things like wick drains, jet grouting, and stone columns) -- especially when 35 20 23 Dredging is already assigned (inappropriately IMHO). Dredging in my mind is neither Construction nor Equipment -- it merely uses those things to achieve a work result of Earthwork. So I've decided to assign 35 20 50 Marine Earthwork Methods, where at least these sections are close to Dredging. It has taken about a year to figure all of this out and I know I am not done yet!

However, I don't see how you could achieve this in the 20s. BTW, in reference to the other thread, hangers and supports are also common to Div.25-28.

Add Your Message Here
Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration