I am adopting the following format: “xx.xxxx” it will be easy to read, quickly identifies the division and will automatically word wrap. the format “xx xx xx” will not word wrap, and reads almost as a date. If we need to expand beyond the six digits we will use: “xx.xxxx.xx”
To keep numbers together and still use the spaces, use a “hard space.” That will keep all the numbers together on the same line.
For MS Word: CTRL + SHIFT + Space
For WordPerfect: CTRL + Space (at least I think that’s what it is; I’m not a WordPerfect user)
CTRL + Space is correct, to obtain a hard space in Wordperfect
Thanks to all. But I must say, having this degree of flexibility in the appearance will add to confusion. Why could not just one format be designated?
Don’t go there.
For the same reason as the committee that was assigned to develop a better horse, but couldn’t agree whether to give the camel one hump or two.
Sounds like a lot of volunteers for future task teams.
The task team agreed on xx xx xx but the industry wanted other options, so we reluctantly agreed on the three options.
Damn, I hate it when we try to respond to commentary from users!
No comment.
I have been asked by some here in my office -
When will the ARE reflect the new MasterFormat? It seems there may be a concern that if they study the '95 version, they may not be preparted to answer questions if they are quizzed on the '04 version.
Has anyone seen or heard anything from NCARB on this matter?
Thanks in advance . . .
No, but AIA is now selling MasterFormat 2004 in their bookstore and online.
NCARB will be exhibiting at the CSI Convention in Chicago and Stephen Nutt (former CSI staffer, now NCARB staffer) will be at their booth. I am sure he will know the answer or can find out.
As a Civil Engineer attempting to make the conversion to MF '04 I am troubled by the inclusion of all Wastewater Treatment process being included in Division 44 and called in all cases Water Treatment. Division 33 does break out between water and sanitary. Anyone else having this issue?
Division 33 covers the distribution / delivery of utilities (water, sanitary, electrical power, etc.) to “users”. Once the delivery is made, the service enters into either the Facilities Services Subgroup or the Process Equipment Subgroup. Water treatment, whether it be potable, sanitary or industrial, is a “process”. Hence, to avoid a great deal of duplication the MFETT elected to combine all water treatment (potable, sanitary, industrial) under one banner, Division 44.
Does anyone know where one would specify what the industry calls “composite steel deck”?. this is steel deck that is embossed so as to transfer shear to the concrete slab so that the two work compositely together to carry load. MF04 has a section called 05 31 13 - Steel Floor Decking and also a section called 05 36 00 Composite Metal Decking. From the description given of composite metal decking I don’t think this is the same product that traditionally has been called “composite steel decking”. I think MF04 has confused the issue here and I would like some clarification.
I believe that type of decking remains in 05 31 00 Steel Decking as a particular type of steel decking. 05 36 00 is referring to some new decking that has come on the market with a composite of materials. You are right, the terms used here might cause some confusion.
In regard to the question of MasterFormat and the ARE, according to the folks at NCARB, the next update of the exam will be in the spring of 2006. At this time they know that the exam will be changed to reflect MF 04 but are not sure that they will make the spring 06 timetable.
A Mechanical Engineer friend of mine ask me what to do with the common work results for his three new divisions 21, 22, and 23. The application guide discusses common work results only at the division level. For work within a division the solution is easy money reference users to XX 05 XX and off you go.
However, many projects do not need different sections for General Duty Valves 22 05 23 and the corresponding sections in 21 and 23 are essentially identical.
He was tempted to go to an empty Division (20) and place these common works results there. I encouraged him not to do this. He said OK, but asked me what to do. My initial response is to have him place the common materials in one of the three divisions (HVAC came to mind for him as it has most of his work in it) and cross reference to it.
So here is the sticky part. I know he could leave the title alone but we both felt that modifying the title to 23 05 23 General Duty Valves would generify it for the other sections and not violate the numbering system.
I hope this gives us the best of both worlds, the numbering system intact and a mechanical engineer who doesnt have to triplicate 5 or 6 sections.
What do yall think
Marc
PS posted this on the MAI instructor board too
First off, what the %$&@! is “generify”?
Second, I agree with you. Somehow, I think this is what the future Division 20 will end up doing (you’ll notice that the Site and Infrastructure Subgroup also has an unused division - Division 30 - which I think will be utilized for the same purpose).
Something needs to happen to address this problem so that we don’t have the “say it X times and in X places.”
When we were working on our translation from MF95 to MF04, I asked Mike King about this issue (since he was mechanical lead on MFETT) – apparent repetition in Divisions 21, 22, and 23, regarding common piping products (pipe, hangers, valves, meters and gages, etc). He said they seriously considered this and believed that there were variations between these systems in regard to these products. That is, the three sections would not necessarily be identical. If that is true, then maybe people who think they will be identical haven’t yet tried to sort out which requirements are needed for each. Maybe because people are used to including all in the same section, they don’t realize what differences there might be.
In any case, SpecLink includes the common work results sections for piping products in all three divisions, not in a single division. However, we also include instructions for referencing one section if that is preferred – we assumed that the sections referenced would be the plumbing sections, since plumbing is always used in buildings, whereas HVAC doesn’t necessarily involve piping systems.
I guess my question to the engineers would be, “how much of a variation is there?”
If it’s significant, then a separate section may be appropriate. But if it’s minor, something that can be addressed by a paragraph or subparagraph, why replicate everything else just for that?