ASTM Confusion - even on a Friday!

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 91 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 09:42 am:    ASTM comes out with updated standards all the time - so how does a specwriter address this - should ASTM's be specified with dates? and if not what happens when a question arises during construction as to which ASTM edition should be followed? For example, we have found that many structural engineers still call for Type I or II CMU in their specifications when they reference ASTM C 90 or C 129 - but in the newer editions of this standard, Types are not recognized. Do we assume that the CMU manufacturer is following current standards or do we have to ask each one what standards they are following - seems confusing? Any of my fellow specwriters care to comment, even on a Friday? Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 186 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 10:09 am:    At one time, I specified ASTM's with dates, but was told by my boss that it wasn't necessary. The Division 1 documents we used stated that the current edition of any reference was required. If, however, you want to reference something other than the current one, you should add the date. For instance, we have not revised our master to the current AWI standards, so we cite the date. The same would hold for the CMU type, providing the old ASTM is available. But ASTM has a habit of making old standards unavailable. It that case, I'd tell the structural engineers that they need to update their specs. Referencing an old standard that is not recognized (or available) could be a problem; the standard may have been updated for any number of reasons - components may no longer be available, structural integrity may be compromised, there's a better way to make it - and you might get an unscrupulous supplier who unloads inferior product on your project. Just a few Friday thoughts. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 81 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 01:30 pm:    I use speclink so... My ASTMs (for ALL sections) are updated quarterly. Neener! Neener! Now to the other topic. I do try to track these changes because items like CMU types do ocassionally change. Several years ago one of the long time steel ASTMs for (I believe) sheet material dissapeared completely! How I track them is with the newsletter from speclink and constant conversations with my reps. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 92 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 02:00 pm:    Marc - one of my questions is if the building code for the area recognizes an ASTM dated in 1999 is it correct to specify the most current dated version- when you refer to the ASTM on the web site, you get the most recent version - so should we spec that one? is that correct? Still confused. Must be Friday!!! Jo Drummond, FCSI Member Username: jo_drummond Post Number: 3 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 02:22 pm:    I work around it by not mentioning dates, and in Division 1 by saying the the latest edition is applicable unless codes require an earlier date. Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: lawrey Post Number: 15 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 02:24 pm:    Here's a few Friday thoughts: The process of producing construction documents (or SD or DD documents, for that matter) "freezes" the project in time. That is, they represent a snapshot taken on the day of issuance. This concept also applies to specifying the date/edition of reference standards. This applies whether one specifies the actual edition date, or the date of issuance current on the date of the documents, date for receiving bids/GMP, date of execution of the agreement. The only exception to this rule is specifying the current edition. In this case the edition date, and quite possibly salient design features, are subject to change, especially during phased projects, extended bidding periods, or when the project is "shelved" for a period of time. This method may lead to unintended results. It is for this reason that I specify the edition date referenced by the applicable code, or when not referenced, the edition current on the date of the documents. Afterall, I don't want our design team to be responsible for administering requirements that did not exist during the design and documentation phases. To build on the facility life cycle concept presented in the PRM, the project snapshot keeps changing, perhaps more frequently, during the bidding/negotiation, construction and post construction phases. Several years ago I began listing in my specifier's notes, the reference standard edition dates referenced by the various codes we design under. It's surprising how many standards are not referenced by the model codes or how many are referenced in IBC and not in early 90s BOCA codes. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 83 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 02:56 pm:    I have just spoken to our in-house ICC member and certified plans examiner. The answer to the ASTM question (as far as dates are concerned) is the date listed with the standard IN the code book is the Official Standard. These are listed in the back of the code book and use the date suffix (e.g. ASTM E 84-01) If a change in a standard helps you go to the code official and argue for its use. There are ASTMs that I use that are NOT referenced in the CODE book. The selection of date (or current version etc) is up to me. So I guess that I'd better double check SpecLink when it updates my standards to see that I have not messed myself up. Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 148 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 04:16 pm:    Your ICC member and CPE are wise folks! From an old CBO!! Not a bad item to include in your Div. 1 info-- my sample follows: 1.01 INDUSTRY STANDARDS A. Throughout the Building Code, and these specifications, various publications, standards, regulations, etc. have been cited, and are applicable to the work. B. Such documents cited in the Building Code are mandatory in nature, and the dated edition of the document cited therein, must be met. 1. Referenced standards listed directly in the governing regulations have precedence over non-referenced standards, referenced in the Contract Documents, which are recognized in industry for applicability to work. C. Except as modified by the requirements specified herein or the details on the drawings, work included in this Specification shall conform to the applicable provisions of these publications. Applicable standards of construction industry are made a part of contract documents by reference, and have same force and effect as if copied, or published copies directly bound into contract documents. D. Publication Dates: Standards listed in these specifications [other than those listed in governing regulations] shall mean the edition of the standard in effect as of date of the project's bid opening. E. Copies of Standards: Provide where needed for proper performance of the work; obtain directly from publication sources. F. Abbreviations and Names Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: lawrey Post Number: 16 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 04:23 pm:    Marc, I too use SpecLink and I do not publish the edition dates. Rather in section 01400 (01 4000) - Quality Requirements I specify as described in my earlier post. Prior to the adoption of the ICC I-Codes virtually all our projects were governed by BOCA 1996. My office master reflected dates of reference standards listed in Chapter 35. However, with the phasing in of the I-Codes, it became immediatly apparent that it would be impossible to keep up with the changes (some state-specific IBCs differ from the "plain vanillla" IBC of the same year). I therefore deleted the dates inserted over SpecLink's defaults, edited section 01400 (01 4000) appropriately, and selected the non-printing option. Thus far we have never received RFIs dealing with the date of a standard. Your firm should also retain older editions of the 4-volume ASTM Standards for future reference when the applicable code references an older standard. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 84 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 05:06 pm:    Good Catch. I just need to remember to NOT check "use edition dates." David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: dave_wyatt_csi_cca_ccca Post Number: 9 Registered: 09-2004 Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 05:12 pm:    You can keep up with active ASTM standards by doing a standards search at www.astm.org. The site provides information about active, withdrawn and replaced standards. The site also allows you read a brief abstract of each standard without paying for them. Of course it is not a good idea to specify a standard without understanding its effect, so having the complete standard text, or knowing someone who does, is important. The number of ASTM standards in my specifications recently struck me. I list over 85 ASTM standards in my Section 08050 - Basic Materials and Methods for Doors and Frames! And these are just the ASTMs. There are dozens of other standards applicable to Division 8 (08). Is it possible to know and understand them all? No. Are some in conflict? Possibly. These are the types of things that specifiers get obsessed about. A standards review and update is a valuable service you can perform for your clients. I was recently surprised to learn that ASTM C36 has been replaced by another standard, but at this moment my memory fails me as to what it is. Product representatives often provide architects and engineers with copies of active standards - one of many valuable services to the design community provided by product representatives. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 86 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 06:19 pm:    I do love ASTM's search and use it often. I dropped in C36 and it dumped out the replacement. "C1396/C1396M-04 Standard Specification for Gypsum Board" Isn't the Web wonderful! John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 328 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 09:05 am:    ASTM has an e-mail service as well, which will automatically sends regular notices on updated standards, and outstanding work items. Work items are ASTM's designation for subcommittee tasks to update or create new standards. This is useful if you want to comment on the development of a standard. There are numerous categories that you can select so that you don't have to get updates on standards outside of your interest. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 03:17 pm:    Jerry Judging from the comments.....They can read, but they can't hear. Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 190 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 03:44 pm:    The standards referenced in the building codes, or those current at the time the project manual was written are the standards that should apply. Robin E. Treston Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 15 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 04:50 pm:    Sometimes these contradict - the standards that are in the building code are older than the standards that are current when the Project Manual is issued. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 54 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 06:21 pm:    <at the time the project manual was written are the standards that should apply> The day that the Agreement is executed is the day the bidding documents become contract documents, hence, that is the date that, as Steven has already stated "'freezes' the project in time." If the new contract documents state a certain date, then that is the contracted date. Hopefully, it is not in conflict with any code reference. OTOH, if your Division 1 states that in a conflict between the "contracted" date and the local code referenced date the more stringent standard applies, then the issue is resolved. Of course, this only works if the local code authorities accept the more stringent standard - which they normally will. I hadn't thought about it until now but maybe the wording could state something like: "In the event of conflict between the date of any referenced standard specified in the Contract Documents and the date applicable under the local code having jurisdiction, the more stringent standard applies as determined by the local code authority." Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 106 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 06:51 pm:    There should be no need to list the applicable date of the standard. If you identify in Division 1 which codes are applicable (along with any local amendments), then those editions of standards listed in those codes are applicable. Regarding your reference to masonry types, the engineer needs to be more up to speed on which standards are applicable. They shouldn't use terminology for an edition of a standard that isn't adopted if it differs from the adopted edition. The same applies to seismic zones. How many projects under the IBC have elevator sections that specify the seismic zone? (FYI, they're now called "site classes," and even some manufacturers haven't caught on). It just shows that you have to be aware of what you're specifying. Susan McClendon Junior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 2 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 03:08 pm:    This is just a clarification as to SpecLink's practice regarding the updating of ASTMs: With 600+ ASTMs referenced in SpecLink and PerSpective, and with ASTM issuing updated editions at frequent and irregular intervals, we standardized from the start on the 4-volume set "ASTMs in Building Codes..." which is issued annually. After 10 years of studying the changes made to these ASTMs and ASTM's frequent practice of issuing more than one update in a single year, I am more convinced than ever that our choice was the correct one. 99% of the changes to the referenced ASTMs in a single year consist of non-critical changes. [I used to complain to ASTM that this practice seemed to be more money-motivated than anything else but it was a waste of time.] Although a substantial percentage of the referenced standards are updated between one edition of "ASTMs in Building Codes" and the next, typically less than 10 (ten!) have any changes that even affect the spec. On the other hand, those that do affect the spec are sometimes very substantial, like those that change Types or Grades or similar things. We also look for changes that would truly affect the approval of a product tested under an earlier edition, but there seldom are changes of that type. ASTM committees mostly continue to refine their standards once the quality level they are aiming for has been established. Since the committees include manufacturers, changes that substantially change the intent of the standard are very infrequent. What usually happens if radical changes are necessary is that the old standard is withdrawn and replaced by a new standard with a new number. All this is why we feel very comfortable referencing the edition dates that were published in the latest edition of "ASTMs in Building Codes." Not only do we check that edition for significant changes, but it is unlikely that the next edition (that might/probably will come out within 12 months) will have substantial changes. So, once a year (June/July), we get our copy of "ASTMs in Building Codes", read (READ!) all the ASTMs that are referenced in SpecLink and PerSpective, compare them to the previous edition, and make whatever changes are necessary in all the affected sections for our next quarterly update (Fall). We don't bother checking ASTM's website once a month (how do you decide how frequently to check?) looking for new editions that really don't matter much! By updating SpecLink even if the changes are not substantial, we show that we have checked for changes. If SpecLink or PerSpective references ASTMs that are not in the books, we let ASTM know so they can include them in the next edition -- and they do. In addition, The books (or CD) are a convenient and cost-effective way for our subscribers to obtain the standards, and ASTM grants their member discount to our subscribers. Our practice regarding updating of standards published by other organizations is very similar, except that very few have annual compilations like "ASTMs in Building Codes". Instead, we check each organization's publications list -- nowadays that is usually on their web site -- at least twice a year. Few other organizations have the money and/or manpower for the aggressive updating that ASTM does, so twice a year catches most updates within a few months of publication. Again, we get a copy, read it, compare it to the previous edition, and make all changes necessary to all affected sections for our next quarterly update. Susan McClendon Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 3 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 03:23 pm:    Another issue discussed in this thread is about whether to publish the actual edition dates of referenced standards or not. The traditional objection has been that it's too hard to review all the standards and keep the edition dates up to date. I admit that when I was writing specs for projects I never had a dispute as to which date was the one "current at the time the project manual was written." But I can imagine that it would be difficult, especially with ASTMs. Each ASTM has two date indicators, the year and letter suffix, and the approval date, which is month-day-year. Besides that, the approval date is not the same as the availability date, which is undocumented. If the "current" date hinges on the date the project manual was published, it would be easy to hit at least one of several hundred ASTMs referenced in the spec between the approval date and the date it was actually available. Cross your fingers that you never have to find out. Simply referring to the dates listed in the building code doesn't do it either because there are many more ASTMs in the specs that are not referenced in the code. I would ask, if you don't list the date do you nevertheless know which edition it was? Did you read it? If not, you would be better off listing the edition that you did read, even if it is out-of-date. But then you look lazy and maybe you did miss something useful (especially if the document has passed through several subsequent updates). As to what the building official thinks about extrapolating to later editions, you'd better ask him. Subsequent editions of ASTMs almost never require less than earlier editions. Several of the earlier posts had good suggestions about how to reconcile conflicting requirements.