<Identifier>_<Category>_<Type>_<Descriptor>_<Siz e>

<Identifier>
#RFO (The "#" to sort on top)

<Classification>
The SfB-code requires different coding for different Wall Types:
28 - Bearing
22 - Interior, non bearing
21 - Exterior, non bearing
20 - Walls, not classified according to the above yet.
etc. Is there something like this in the MasterFormat?

<Type>
If not the above I would do this using a type-format:
Bea = Bearing (should we do the different kinds: Shear, Bearing, Combined?)
Int = Interior
Ext = Exterior
Fin = Finish

For instance:
#RFO_21_Masonry_insulation_concrete (but then using MasterFormat)
OR
#RFO_Ext_Masonry_insulation_concrete

<Descriptor>
Product / Type

<Size>
Total construction width or breakdown into layers? For instance:

#RFO_21_Masonry_insulation_concrete_300
OR
#RFO_21_Masonry_insulation_concrete_100_100_100

Best Practises:
Naming of layers always starting with exterior layer
Naming of layers: also name Membrane or Air layers? I normally don't...

We do it a bit difference
"Exterior Cladding_Framing_Interior Lining"
"Weatherboard_90T_Plasterboard", "Weatherboard_Cv-90T_Plasterboard"
Easy to see what its clad in & what Framing Size the Walls are
Easy to use to select it also - In Wall command just type "W"on keyboard & in the Properties Palette it goes straight to it
Using any numerical sequence generally take a few more clicks to get to the right type

Do you want to differentiate between for example "Basic Wall" and "Stacked Wall"?

I don't really see the need for this, because they are differentiated in the Properties Pallette. But frankly for me this is easy: do NOT use stacked walls...

Correct me if I am wrong too. Stacked Walls can't be Copy Monitored... at least not into RST.

I think we've tried every approach to date.

What I've always hated about literal naming (as in stating physical attributes & performace) is how names can end up not tallying with their parameter/build up information... so we're presently employing a more "robotic" method :

Int. Walls : P01, P02, P03...
Ext. Walls : E01, E02, E03...
Floors : F01, F02, F03...
Roofs : R01, R02, R03...
Ceilings : C01, C02, C03...

and do the same with (most of) our loaded family types... windows get a "W", doors get a "D", etc...

We then define their construction in our specification & with type-based "drawings".

It makes things "feel" a bit counter-intuitive at first, but actually helps in the long run when relating our model to our design - and identifying/managing types.

So far, it works us.

Here´s how I´ve done it so far:

<Type>_<TotalThickess>_<MainLayers>_<MainLayerThic kness>

e.g.

Ext_400_Brick-Insul-Conc_110-190-100

or

Int_120_Gyps-Insul-Gyps_25-70-25

Secondary layers as membranes, airspaces etc. are always left out.


For <Type> I´m using something like this:

Base = Foundations
Ext = Exterior walls
Int = Interior walls
Generic = One layer walls, floors, roofs etc. for the PD
Roof = Roof
Floor = Floor finishes
Slab = Floor Slabs
Site = For floors when used as the missing site tools

And on top of that I have a huge list of abbreviations used the the layers...

Yep, this is also the way I do it, except I don't use an abbreviation for function, I use the SfB-codes (Ext = 21, Int = 22, Generic = 20, Floor = 23, etc)

Doubt that most people would cherish the SfB codings... but I´m game

On a more serious note: Do the MF have similar options ? (Or any other international ISO standard...?)