Classifying Pervious Concrete

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

Author Message Karen L. Zaterman, CDT Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 23 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 11:24 pm:    What number to use, is the question... The reference section on the Pacific Southwest Concrete Alliance website uses 03_37_29 which places it under Level-2: 03_37_00-Specialty Placed Concrete which includes "various methods of specially placing concrete". That it is. However, because of the work results concept, I would have thought that it would fall into 32_10_00-Bases, Ballasts, and Paving. There are assigned numbers for: 32_12_43-Porous Flexible Paving, but that is grouped with the asphalts, and 32_14_43-Porous Unit Paving, which clearly doesn't fit. -Does anyone think it should be covered in Div.3? -Could Pervious Concrete be considered as Flexible Paving even though it is not asphaltic? -Would it be more reasonable to place it under 32_13_00-Rigid Paving as it is cementitious? (perhaps 32_13_43, unassigned) It's funny, in a previous thread on pervious Ralph L. posed the question but nobody took the bait... Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 420 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 02:24 am:    I agree with you, it should be in Division 32. If you want to keep it in a Level 3 number, use 32 13 13 "Concrete Paving"; or, create your own Level 4 number, such as 32 13 13.26 "Pervious Concrete Paving." David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 205 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 08:48 am:    Another option would be to use / create section number 32 13 43 - Pourous (or Pervious) Concrete Paving - the "43" Level 3 number being a carry-over from 32 12 43 (Similar to what was done with the "73" for the paving joint sealants). Sharon Lund Senior Member Username: sharon_l Post Number: 9 Registered: 11-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 09:13 am:    I just completed putting together masters for porous asphalt pavement and porous concrete pavement. I used 32 13 15 for the porous concrete pavement because even though it's pervious, it still remains a rigid application. Karen L. Zaterman, CDT Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 24 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 01:40 pm:    Thanks for the consensus! Ron, I just can't quite bring myself to using the Level 4 numbers. Sharon, I was thinking that it is still rigid, too but wasn't sure. David, you've just given me another idea for my Master. I will use the title [Pervious] [Porous] Concrete Paving so the user can coordinate the correct term with the drawings. I'm going to use 32 13 43. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 421 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 01:57 pm:    I don't understand why some have difficulty using Level 4 numbers. But anyway, I like David's suggestion of creating a new Level 3 number that is in line with the other porous systems listed for asphalt and pavers. Karen L. Zaterman, CDT Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 25 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 02:37 pm:    I think the Level 4 numbers are overkill when there are plenty of Level 3 numbers unassigned. When I was in architecture school one of the profs for a lecture on housing told us that in row housing where the same style is repeated it can create boredom to the viewer. Apparantly, the magic number is 7. The human mind has difficulty comprehending more -- or something along those lines. I think there was even a study on it but I don't remember. Anyway, the 8 digits do seem harder to read and retain. Yes, I've also been using David's thought process for some other newly assigned numbers, too. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 133 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 03:24 pm:    32 13 43 is appropriate number for Porous Rigid Paving and is in keeping with what was done with similar subjects at other locations. There was an effort to try to use some related numbers consistently. David has noted an example in terms of 32 12 73 and 32 13 73 for _____ Paving Joint Sealants. A few other similar examples: * 00 43 25 and 00 63 25 Substitution Request Forms; 00 25 00 Substitution Procedures. * 00 43 21 Allowance Form; 00 21 00 Allowances. * 00 62 16 and 00 73 16 for Insurance _____. * 08 39 00, 08 42 39, and 08 88 39 Pressure-Resistant ___________. * 08 34 63, 08 71 63, 10 28 13.63, 13 42 63, 27 51 23.63 for Detention related subjects. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 266 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 04:46 pm:    Ron Geran: The difficulty with using Level 4 numbers is that they are not used for specs in the Project Manual, Masterspec's list of spec secton numbers and titles to the contrary. Only the Level 3 number is used for the Project Manual and it is up to the reader to figure out from reading the Section what the actual content is. An example would be Toilet Compartments (or Toilet Partitions, to be more accurate). There are insufficient Level 3 numbers so Level 4 numbers must be used for filing of word processing files for the various types of compartments. All specifications for toilet compartments use the same Level 3 number and title: 102113 - TOILET COMPARTMENTS. The five or six types of comparments (metal, plastic laminate, phenolic core, solid polymer, etc.) are assigned Level 4 numbers for filing purposes only. I find this "improvement" in Masterformat 2004 to be anything but an improvement. A digit was added for Section numbers and now there are less to use. What wasn't broke got fixed (broken). Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 86 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 04:56 pm:    This is a perfect example of why I believe that there will be a major renumbering of the sections at this level. It was a mistake to assign only 13, 16, 19 and sections when it could just as easily have been 10, 30, 50 and 70, permitting the use of subnumbers, even if not assigned by CSI for this type of categorization. Lets call it MF 2009! Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 134 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 04:57 pm:    John Where did you get the idea that only Level 3 numbers are used in the project manual? MasterFormat Introduction and Application Guide - page 4: "As detailed in the paragraphs above, Level 5 numbers and titles are only for internal use; titles and numbers included in the project manuals and other applications are limited to Level 4 and above." John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 267 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 05:05 pm:    Karen: Regarding pervious concrete paving, I think the arbritrary 13-16-19 steps of Level 3 numbering have again caused a cramp in the selection of appropriate Section numbers and titles. It's another example of the classifiers not knowing the construction technology and practices being classified. Note under 32 13 16 that there is 32 13 16.16 Roller Compacted Concrete Paving. I don't understand why this is considered "decorative" (nor do I understand the distinguishing factor between "imprinted" and "stamped" concrete) but it is how I understand pervious portland cement concrete paving is placed and leveled. The screed is a roller and it moderately compacts and consolidates the concrete. It is operated by hand, as I understand it, but it could be mechanized I assume. So, maybe 32 13 13.16 Power-Compacted Concrete Paving is the Level 4 number and title? I also note that there is a fundamental terminology change in that what was formerly "asphaltic concrete paving" is now "asphalt paving" and "portland cement concrete paving" is now simply "concrete paving". Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 422 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 05:05 pm:    Rats, Bob beat me to it. John: What Bob said. :-) John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 268 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 05:16 pm:    Bob Johnson: If Level 4 is going to be identified in the Project Manual, then I suggest adding ".00" to the Level 3 numbers so there are consistent numbers of digits. From my daily experience with architects and engineers who keep wanting to drop the leading "0" from Division 1 through 9 (MF95) numbers, intermixing Level 3 and Level 4 numbers will be chaotic. Little consideration seems to have been given in Masterformat 2004 to the unsophistication of users of the Project Manual. A couple of days ago I again got a reference to a Section 7 spec for waterproofing. And I know one major university system with gobs of new construction who adamantly refuses to change their Division 1 specs from Masterformat 1988 numbers and titles. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 135 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 05:40 pm:    John My previous MasterFormat 2004 projects have not included Level 4 titles. I have currently limited specification sections I have written personally to Level 3 - personal decision. I have not had to violate that so far. A current project includes a few MEP Level 4 sections. They are the only sections in the project manual table of contents with 8-digits. Doesn't appear to be causing anyone any problems. In contrast to your dire predictions about the choatic results of including both Level 3 and Level 4 numbers in the same project manual, I would be interested in hearing the experience of others who have been using Level 4 numbers in their project manuals - good, bad, or mixed experiences? Causing any problems? Any special implimentation procedures? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 423 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 05:56 pm:    John: Regarding your reference to 32 13 16 "Decorative Concrete"; these are different, albeit slightly in some cases. Roller-compacted concrete is a specific concrete type that utilizes zero-slump concrete, which has been in existence for some time. It even appears as a Chapter in Army Technical Manual 5-822-2, which was published in 1987. Imprinted concrete isn't necessarily stamped, although stamped concrete could be considered imprinted (imprinting can be done through rubber mats to create the imprint). Also, patterned concrete isn't always imprinted or stamped; it could be handcrafted using a variety of tools and techniques. I guess the bottom line is what the work result is, and the process to create it--that will determine which section number to use...assuming you even use Level 4 numbers. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 269 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 06:39 pm:    Ronald Geren: My objection is to the assignment of Level 3 numbers to materials with esoteric differences, such as "imprinted" or "stamped" which could be handled as separate Articles in a "patterned" Concrete Paving section. At the same time, Level 3 numbers are assigned to products which I question even exist such as "particleboard toilet compartments" and "conductive glass tile." Perhaps this will all work out when the OCCS group resolves all the terminology issues. Gary L. Beimers, FCSI, CDT, CSC Senior Member Username: gbeimers Post Number: 9 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 08:48 pm:    Karen, Bob Johnson's comments about 32 13 43 as the appropriate number and the rational on related numbers are right on. There have been two proposals made via MasterFormat.com regarding Pervious Concrete, and 32 13 43 is the number I've recommended to the MasterFormat Maintenance Task Team (a.k.a. MasterFormat Police) for their consideration and/or approval. Karen L. Zaterman, CDT Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 27 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 01:36 am:    Guess I stirred up this old can of worms! Personal preference for me is to avoid using Level 4 all together. However, I agree with John on the 13-16-19 issue and on the idea of adding ".00" I just don't like the way it appears OTW. For example: 31 62 13.19 Precast Concrete Piles 31 62 16.13 Sheet Steel Piles 31 62 19 Timber Piles 31 62 23.13 Concrete-Filled Steel Piles OR 31 62 13.19 Precast Concrete Piles 31 62 16.13 Sheet Steel Piles 31 62 19.00 Timber Piles 31 62 23.13 Concrete-Filled Steel Piles Now, Bob -- doesn't that look better? And before the comments start rolling in... YES -- it is entirely feasible we would use all of these sections in one of our projects. Now, IMHO this series should really look something like this: 31 62 33 Precast Concrete Piles 31 62 53 Sheet Steel Piles 31 62 63 Timber Piles 31 62 73 Concrete-Filled Steel Piles ... and leave Level 4 entirely an option for the user. Note I've used 3x for concrete, 5x for Steel, 6x for Timber. (Sorry, couldn't do much with the last one) BTW, I appreciate the interesting comments on terminology and Bob's examples of relational number assignment. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 208 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 11:04 am:    Bob, We also have had M-E-P consultants use the Level 4 number for a small handful of spec sections in the project manual, even though all the others (including our own) were limited to Level 3 six digits. I have heard no complaints, nor know of any problems from the users or others who have had to coordinate. I believe the primary reason for them retaining the Level 4 number is not so much a conscious one, but more that they are using MasterSpec "out of the box," and - like many engineers with a tendency to be tunnel-visioned - it never occurs to them to drop the Level 4 number and assign a 14, 15, 17, 18, etc. instead. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 136 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 12:01 pm:    Karen Which do I think looks better? 31 62 13.19 Precast Concrete Piles 31 62 16.13 Sheet Steel Piles 31 62 19.00 Timber Piles 31 62 23.13 Concrete-Filled Steel Piles 31 62 13.19 Precast Concrete Piles 31 62 16.13 Sheet Steel Piles 31 62 19 Timber Piles (doesn't properly indent in forum) 31 62 23.13 Concrete-Filled Steel Piles The later looks fine to me when properly indented (don't know how to do it in forum), but I am only a dumb architect and we all know that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Each to his own. I would however suggest that you might want to consider some other criteria in making such a specification section numbering decision. The individual section numbers are used by themselves in isolation in a lot of subsequent communication - both verbal and written. When you are verbally citing a specification location, which is easier to say 31 62 19.00 or 31 62 19? Which will be more easily understood and cause less confustion? When you cite a specification location in a addenda, response to a RFI, clarification, change order, or other written communication, which is easier to use 31 62 19.00 or 31 62 19? Which will be more easily understood and cause less confustion? I think that they are some other important considersations in determining the numbering system in addition to the appearance of the list in the table of contents. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 137 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 12:40 pm:    Karen In terms of the overall numbering scheme. I would first suggest that you reread pages 3-5 of the MasterFormat Introduction and Application Guide that explains the rationale of the expansion of the numbering system. The system was devised only after considerable thought, discussion, and debate including consideration for the use of "pairs of numbers" for increased expansion capabilities. A major driving force in all of the task team's efforts was to devise a system that hopefully would meet the needs of the future for a considerable time by revisions and expansion within the basic organizational structure without a major overhaul to the overall structure. This also included consideration for all the various applications of MasterFormat in addition to organizing project manuals. The expanded numbering system was devised to accomplish the above. Yes you could probably devise a numbering scheme that would include all the current listings at a Level 3. But if you examine some of the individal Level 4 listings at specific locations, you will find many of them already number close to 10 and that such a scheme would probably have to be distorted to work now and would be very questionable for the future. There would also be some crowded areas which would probably result in the future placement of subjects in inappropriate locations just as we used to use Divisions 11 and 13 as "dumbing grounds" for subjects we couldn't properly locate elsewhere. Thus an additional pair of numbers was added to ensure future flexibility. Pairs of numbers were used in the scheme to provide for expansion of 99 verus 9 for a single digit. The expansion might appear to be "overkill" if you only look at the current situation from a limited point of view, but on further reflection I hope you can see why the decision was reached. Was it a good decision and will it achieve the goal? Only time will tell. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 138 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 12:44 pm:    David My experience is the same as yours and I agree I think the MEP consultants are using MASTERSPEC out of the box on my project. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 424 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 12:59 pm:    Bob and David: MEP consultants that use MasterSpec!? I wish that I could be so lucky--even if they don't edit them properly. I had one mechanical section with 7 Parts, and other one that had a single paragraph that covered 2/3 of a page, and included general, product, and execution requirements. I'm also tired of seeing "General Provisions" that attempt to rewrite the General Conditions and assign work to specific trades. I could go on, but this is getting way off topic for this thread. Karen L. Zaterman, CDT Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 29 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 12:47 am:    Ron, yes, off topic... but those sound like sections I've seen, too. I think they were once non-CSI specs and they had CSI numbers & titles slapped onto them. I've seen some in "Greenbook" format with a few revisions and others I've come across from the oil & gas industry with their own format -- which is why there are so many parts. Better that they DO use MasterSpec so at least part of it is right. Bob, I'm sorry... you took me too seriously. I know the Task Team worked hard & think, overall they did a good job for an enormous task... I just think 8 numbers is a bit too much to comprehend. That said, a great deal was accomplished and that we can be thankful for. Karen L. Zaterman, CDT Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 30 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 12:47 am:    Thank you all for the help on the Pervious Concrete.