ASTM Standards

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

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message Ron Beard CCS New member Username: Rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 14 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 04:13 pm:    Since we are professionals, we are expected to know the score - but sometimes even we need a score card. Here is a helpful site from ASTM. It is a quick way to check if an ASTM standard is up to date. http://www.astm.org/CDSTAGE/BuildingCodes/TOC.htm Bill Buchholz Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 11:38 pm:    Ron, I tried your recommended URL for ASTMs, and got a dead end. After looking around on their website, though, I did find the information. Go to www.astm.org home page, click on Standards, click on Individual Standards, and use the search engine they provide. I recently got dinged by a public agency that found every discontinued ASTM number in my specs, and now I know how they found them. Thanks for the lead. Bill Ralph Liebing New member Username: Rliebing Post Number: 4 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 07:37 am:    You might be interested in a weekly update service from ASTM. They provide an e-mail service, each week, which lists all of the ASTM Standards that were changed/updated during the previous week. Go to www.astm.org; then to "Standards" bar on left menu; then on next screen to "Services" on the left, and to the drop down menu marked "Standards Tracker Service". AND THE BEST PART--- ITS FREE! Joe Back Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:50 pm:    Obviously, it is proper to reference the appropriate ASTM standards, as well as other applicable standards, in your specifications. However, there seems to be a lot of discussion about always referencing the most current version of a particular standard and immediately updating a reference the minute a new or updated standard is released. Please consider that once a new or updated standard is released, or an older standard is discontinued, it will take a period of time for manufacturers to re-test their products for compliance with the new requirements. It will also take some time (often years) for code authorities to rewrite codes to reference the "most current" standard. In the meantime, are you specifying adherence to a standard that literally no manufacturer has tested to? Are you specifying adherence to a standard (or version of a standard) that is not consistent with a reference to an earlier version of the same standard that may appear in the approved building code? How will you review a product submittal that is exactly what you specified, but for which test results based on the "updated" standard you specified do not exist? A little caution is is order. New/updated standards are usually wonderful and often represent real advancement in the subject they address, but until the industry catches up with them, they are only theory. I would be interested to hear other opinions on this issue. Ralph Liebing New member Username: Rliebing Post Number: 5 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 01:56 pm:    Mr. Back has it correct. As a former code official, getting the correct edition is mandatory, and often the code official has no authority to allow "new technology" in a new standard to be used [when an earlier edition is referenced in the code proper]. Of course,one can appeal for use of the newer standard. Also, there is a quandry for the design professional-- do you specify standards, 1] current with last edition, whatever/whenever that occurs?, 2] in effect on day documents are finished, or filed?, 3] in effect on day bids are due, or when? It may be advisable to include provision for updated standards, and how they are handled when they appear during the progression of the project. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI New member Username: John_regener Post Number: 54 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:51 pm:    A Division 1 section should identify the effective date of codes, standards and other references ... sort of a default setting. I use Section 01420 - Reference Standards and Abbreviations. This section is used to establish whether the date of applicable codes and standards is the "most current version" or "latest effective version" or the one referenced in the building code or even the one identified by a specific date in the contract specifications. Actually, I use Section 01410 - Regulatory Requirements to identify applicable codes required by authorities having jurisdiction, and their date. Sometimes standards are revised to be less restrictive or revised to suit the interests of the industry and not necessarily the interests of the design professional or facility owner. The latest version may not be the best version for the design professional or owner. Then there is the effective date, which should be specified in the applicable Division 1 section. The date could be the date on the drawings or specifications, or the bid date, the permit date, the contract execution date or the date the work is performed. It's conceivable that it could be a specific calendar date selected by the design professional. It could be different dates for portions of the work that are provided under a design/build arrangement or under phased or fast track construction. By using a Division 1 section to establish the effective date, in my opinion, there is no need to identify the date of the code or standard in each Division 2 through 16 specification section, unless there is a specific deviation from the date established in Division 1. This would help greatly in Division 15 and 16 sections that often reference ASTM standards with obsolete dates from the 1980's. Richard Hird Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 08:50 am:    Although I agree with John Regener that ASTM std's reflect the interest of the industry, not necessarily the Owner, I believe the correct response to a standard you do not believe in is to switch to a descriptive, or proprietarty specification, rather than referencing an out dated standard. Industry standards are meant to be the least common denominator (taking into consideration the various classes, types etc.) I use to rely heavily on ACI concrete standards and often wanted to make exceptions. By the time I "except for"'d them I found it was better to ignore them. The specification became much clearer and the possibility of getting, what I wanted became higher. If you ended up in court I suppose you would have a poorer case, but by then, you have already lost the battle.