Thought there might be a need to set up a new thread wherein contributors could post items for future consideration by the next MF Task Team.
Basically, a list of suggestions, comments, or possibly new or missing items not currently in MF '04 that might be worthy of consideration for possible inclusion into the next edition of MasterFormat (all consolidated in one location).
That way, we all won’t have to burden Dennis with keeping track of all tose little scraps of paper.
Okay, I’ll start.
Bullet-Resistant Fiberglass Panels
Could be part of a wall assembly, or incorporated into a millwork assembly.
Can’t seem to find a good location in MF '04. Manufacturer currently has it in 13070, so it must not have been obvious to them where to put it in MF '95. Most logical place seems to be somewhere in 06 80 00. Some additional expansion of the Level 2 numbers would be helpful, maybe even add some Level 3 numbers, to address this product.
Electromagnetic Shielding; Radio Frequency Shielding
In our instance, aluminum plate lining various rooms to isolate from electrical interference caused by welding, transformers, and the like.
13 49 00 - Radiation Protection seems like the only place where this is addressed, but all the level 3 numbers only mention lead (implying that 13 49 XX designates the overall ‘lead’ category, and the _13, _16, and _19 represent the various configurations in which the material is shaped). For hospital work, we use lead only for the Radiology aspect (true “radiation”). For the MRI enclosure, we use copper sheet (have also used galvanized steel on occasion). If the Level 2 number is for lead, and the Level 3 numbers are for the configuration, where do the other materials - Aluminum, copper, galvanized steel - receive equal recognition and flexibility? 13 50 00 is already taken.
13 49 23 does not work, since these are not “partitions” per se, but rather mere components of an overall wall assembly. Again, it would seem some additional expansion of the numbers may be in order.
Good points. Some suggestions:
For #2: Use 13 05 00 “Common Work Results for Special Construction”. Then define your own Level 3 numbering (i.e. 13 05 10 Electromagentic Shielding).
For #1: Even MF95 didn’t address the plastic bullet resistant materials. Again, suggest using 13 05 00 and defining your own number and title. Remember the “work results” aspect: if it’s integrated in millwork, then I’d include it in that section, since it’s part of the “work result.”
So if we are worried about materials being resistant to plastic bullets, what about rubber bullets, or steel bullets, or …?
Ah, ya gotta love our English language!
Anon: Picky, Picky… 
Protection against radio frequency and electromagnetic fields is specifically mentioned in the 13 49 00 explanations as included under Radiation Protection. The Keyword Index also lists 13 49 00 for EMI and RFI shielding. The lead material example titles under 13 49 00 do not imply it is only for lead material. You could use any number from 13 49 01 to 13 49 99 except those that are listed. 13 49 46 might be a good choice for Radio Freqency Shielding since “46” is used as the Level Three number for serveral other RFI shielding products.
Note that MF 2004 now includes recommended terminology by the inclusion of alternate terms in the explanations and by direction from other terms to the the recommended terms in the Keyword Index. “Balistics-Resistant” is given as the preferred terminology for “bullet-resistant.” It would seem logical to specify balistics-resistant fiberglass panels with the assembly of which they are a part or if a separate section is desired to specify them by material at the location you mentioned - 06 82 00 Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic.
A CLA engineer and I have been pondering where to locate ONE section that will specify cable trays for the work of Divs 25, 27 and 28. All “low-voltage” conductors are meant to occupy the trays - away from higher voltage interference as much as possible.
Using xx 05 xx is a logical start. We are inclined to make it 25 05 19, even though most of the conductors and cables that will reside in the trays come from the work of Divs 27 and 28. We figure a user would look in the first CLA Division first.
It’s mildly disturbing that cable trays in the three CLA divisions are numbered:
25 05 19
27 05 46
28 05 33
Other work common to the three Divisons - such as raceways, hangers, and grounding - is likewise jumbled in sequence and numbering. It would be neater to get these titles more uniformly organized in future editions.
To solve the problem of one cable tray section location serving three divisions, we will likely use Related Sections references somewhere in Divs 27 and 28 - but where? In what section of each Division? Every blooming section?
By the way, there is a problem in locating the cable trays where they optimize cabling yet avoid obstructions. Rather than try to predict the best cable tray routing on one of the T-Series drawings, we think it better to leave the contractor and the CLA subcontractors in charge of coming up with the route that serves best: subject to submittal and comment from other design disciplines and trades, or course.
Ideas? Comment?
Tom:
I agree it is best for the contractor and the applicable subcontractors to determine the specific cable tray locations. For review of information such as this, we specify coordination drawings in Division 1, for all but the simplest projects.
Tom
I don’t know what document you are looking at but it is not the published MasterFormat 2004. The following are the listings you are talking about:
25 05 28 Pathways for Integrated Automation
25 05 28.29 Hangers and Supports for Integrated Automation
25 05 28.33 Conduits and Backboxes for Integrated Automation
25 05 28.36 Cable Trays for Integrated Automation
25 05 28.39 Surface Raceways for Integrated Automation
27 05 28 Pathways for Communications Systems
27 05 28.29 Hangers and Supports for Communications Systems
27 05 28.33 Conduits and Backboxes for Communications Systems
27 05 28.36 Cable Trays for Communications Systems
27 05 28.39 Surface Raceways for Communications Systems
28 05 28 Pathways for Electronic Safety and Security
28 05 28.29 Hangers and Supports for Electronic Safety and Security
28 05 28.33 Conduits and Backboxes for Electronic Safety and Security
28 05 28.36 Cable Trays for Electronic Safety and Security
28 05 28.39 Surface Raceways for Electronic Safety and Security
The same subjects have the same numbers across the three divisions. I think you will find the same numbers for most of the subjects that are common across divisions. This is particularly true for the common work results subjects in the divisions of the Facility Services Subgroup.
Robert:
I think you’ve just highlighted Tom’s problem. I think the issue is that he has one tray with 3 different systems utilizing it. Where does he specify it?
I know MasterFormat isn’t suppose to identify trade jurisdictions, but I’m wondering if this is exactly what needs to be done in this case. If it’s all done by the same subcontractor, there’s no problem, but what if 3 subs are used? If he specifies cable trays in Div. 25, does the IA subcontractor provide the trays? The same goes for the other two divisions.
Ronald
There was a long protracted debate in the MasterFormat Task Team about whether to include a division with common work results for the Facility Services Subgroup. The total task team went along with the decision of the task team members who repesented those subject areas in not including such a division. If such a division had been included, it would have made Tom’s problem easier.
The project delivery method used for the project could make the project manual instrumental in the division of the work among trade contractors or not. Assuming that the division of the work remains with the contractor, then the only obligation of the specifier is to make sure everything is covered in one location in a clear and understandable manner. It is then the contractor’s responsibility to determine what work what subcontractors are responsible for. In the situation where the contractor or CM is part of the team when the project manual is prepared and the project manual includes identification of bid packages, it is still the contractor’s or CM’s responsibility to determine how that is to be done. Only when it is a separate prime contract type of project delivery does the owner and the A/E team become responsible for the division of the work among contractors.
It is all to easy for us to become involved in issues that we are not really in a position to solve. Who has the expertise and/or responsibility to determine who should provide the common cable trays? If you can answer that question on the project (sometimes not so easy to answer), then you should be able to assemble the project manual in a rational mammer. I would say that for most project delivery methods, this usually means putting it in a logicial location (there may be serveral logical choices that work as in this case) and making sure the related work sections make proper references to it. And yes I am aware of the recent thread of discussion of the benefits and dangers on referencing other sections. We do however have a responsibility of to specifiy so that location of the work in the project manual is clear without ambiquity. How it is subcontracted is another issue.
If I understand the problem, it’s not who is going to do the work, but if there is a way to specify it in a single place as was done in the old Masterformat. You could go up a level and make 24 05 00 Common Work Results for Stuff That Uses Wire. Or more generically 20 05 00 Common Work Results for Facility Services.
It can be specified in one location just like other things that are used for multiple purposes or within multiple assemblies or systems, but in this case there is more than one choice of where to locate it.
The numbers you suggest are in divisions reserved for future expansion and are not recommended by MasterFormat.
COLORED CONCRETE STAINS
03 35 00 Concrete Finishing doesn’t work because it can be applied after the concrete is “finished” and it can be applied to other types of concrete besides CIP,
09 93 00 Staining and Transparent Finishes doesn’t feel right because the work is so closely tied to concrete and other types of concrete work. (I guess by this argument, wood stains would be in Div 06)
In any case, I think Concrete Stains need to be included in INDEX and cross-referenced in the explanations.
Any feedback?
I’m amused at what I see is an overactive attempt at achieving “work results”.
If tile has become “tiling”, why hasn’t steel become “steeling”, or escalators and moving walks become “escalatoring and moving walking”?
I’m waiting for them to change “Acoustical Panel Ceilings” to “Acoustical Panel Ceilinging”
That’s when we will know that MasterFormat has jumped the shark!
Ive been struggling with this whole issue since it was first introduced. There are a lot of examples of silliness, or potential silliness; earthworking; Drilled Piering; Structural Steeling; etc. Im not an English Teacher so I cant be sure of the proper terminology but this whole deal sounds to me like we are using Verbs (tiling, painting, roofing) in place of Nouns in section titles (titling?). Tiling should be the activities associated with providing tile products; What are you doing? Im Tiling.
The Work Result would then be Tile; wouldnt it (or would it be tiled)? Once the work of the Structural Steeling section is complete, would the Work Result be Structural Stolen?
I apologize. Sometimes I just cant help myself.
I’m reminded of a quip from a Comedian - Gallagher I think it was - who once said:
"Why do we call them “buildings” when we’re already buildin’ them - why don’t we call them “Builts?”
Everyone should take advantage of the seminars offered by CSI. Dennis Hall does an excellent job explaining why things are the way they are.
As he explains, the work result is not tile; it is the tile as installed. A specification for tile only would have no need for Parts 1 or 3, and that specification would not describe what we really want - tile stuck to the floor, along with various submittals, quality assurance/control requirements, etc.
The work result is obviously better described by “tiling” (a gerund) than by “tile”. Fortunately, the MFETT exercised good judgment, and did not force us to use silly expressions similar to those expressed above.
Had we started with a clean slate, we might - repeat, might - have been able to come up with a completely consistent naming convention, but the vagaries of the English language, coupled with tremendous inertia, prevent an elegant solution.
Another “defect” is the lack of a truly hierarchical organization. When TechCom first took on the issue of updating MasterFormat, it was my hope that such an organization could be developed. Unfortunately, building products and processes, or work results, did not evolve in a linear manner, and I quickly realized there was no hope for any more than intermittent hierarchical organization.
Of course, you have to take anything I say with a grain of salt, as I am not an Accredited MasterFormat Instructor.