| Author |
Message |
Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI
Senior Member
Username: dwhurttgam
Post Number: 101
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 03:14 pm: |    |
I have noticed that some ASTM reference numbers have been changed by adding almost a duplicate of the original number. For example ASTM C 635 revised to ASTM C 635/ASTM C 635 M. In going to ASTM - I see that the second set of numbers usually have what I assume is a "year" associated with it. For example: "03", "07" etc. However, in MasterSpec, they usually only show the "M". Is the second set of numbers an ammendment to the original std. such that ASTM C 635 / C 635 M is ASTM Standard C 635 with an "ammendment"? I have not found a reference explaining this. I am awaiting a "return" call from ASTM - but I am hoping for a "Jimmy Johns" response from the 4Specs users. |
Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: melissaaguiar
Post Number: 157
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 03:25 pm: | |
From my ASTM books:
In the serial designations prefixed to the following titles, the number following the dash indicates the year of adoption as a standard or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. Thus, standards adopted or revised during the year 2000 have their final number, 00. A letter following this number indicates more than one revision during that year, that is the 00a indicates the second revision in 2000, 00b the third revision, etc. Standards that have been reapproved without changed are indicated by the year of last reapproval in parentheses as part of the designation number, for example, (2000). A superscript epsilon indicates an editorial change since last revision or reapproval - e1 for the first change - e2 for the second change, etc. Since the standards in this book are arranged in alphanumeric sequence, no page numbers are included in the contents.
The "M" is the Metric Version of that ASTM Standard.
ASTM E 94/ ASTM E 94M
Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP
|
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 493
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 03:40 pm: | |
ASTM C635 M refers to the metric version. For most projects in the US I suggest that there is no need to reference the metric version.
Normal practice is not to list the version of the standard in the individual technical specificaitons although this issue really should be addressed. Trying to address this problem in the individual technical specification sections could be mesy if one project is based on the 2006 IBC while another is based on the 2012 IBC.
Suggest a general statement in Division 1 that states that when the edition of the standard is unclear that they should use the edition of the standard referenced in in the applicable code or reference standard.
Some people have stated that the contractor should use the latest edition of the standards. This reflects latest thinking and is probalby good practice but may be at odds with what the code requires. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 468
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 04:09 pm: | |
It gets more complicated in that for some industries, compliance with a newly issued revised standard is almost instaneous (the standard will actually mirror current practice) while other will take years to implement especially those that have to do with field installation.
Unless you have a highly customized (and expensive) project, the manufactured product will be compliant with the standard used by the factory. Any attempt to make them conform to a prior standard will probably be ignored (even if it is a requirement of the AHJ) |
Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI
Senior Member
Username: dwhurttgam
Post Number: 103
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 10:06 am: | |
Thank you for the quick responses. I have not received a response from ASTM as of this time. I am reviewing some older "Masters" of one of our clients and was comparing them to MasterSpec. MasterSpec has typically added the "metric" std. Not including the year for the metric std. is consistant with the way the other std. numbers are presented. |
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: robert_w_johnson
Post Number: 202
Registered: 03-2009
| | Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 11:02 am: | |
I would agree with Mark - there is no reason to include the additional "M" listing unless you are using metric dimensions. |
Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: rick_howard
Post Number: 267
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 11:28 am: | |
In many cases, the standard is a combination English and metric document, and the proper way to cite that is with the slash, such as ASTM A36/ASTM A36M. When there are separate documents, for example ASTM A325 and ASTM A325M, only one should be cited. If you have MasterSpec, you will find the text for separate documents is coded as IP and SI so you can choose which you want to keep. |
|
4specs.com Home Page