×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Overdesign Primary Structure to save labor cost?

Overdesign Primary Structure to save labor cost?

Overdesign Primary Structure to save labor cost?

(OP)
This pertains to low, multi-story building design (4 stories, steel frame with exterior masonry walls). Through a colleague, I heard that structural engineers in a large northeastern metropolitan area are designing very rigid primary structures in order to avoid as much "secondary" framing as possible because of labor costs. My understanding is that heavy rigid frames are used with very low deflection ratios to avoid the use of bracing. With these low deflection ratios come the recommendation that masonry be built tight to the structure. I guess the thinking is that clips angle braces at the tops of non-bearing walls are labor intensive. Also, no relief angles are used to support exterior brick walls at floor lines. This thinking seems very odd to me, to say the least.  One of the issues, differential temperature movement, is not addressed by this approach. Have any of you heard of this or a variation of this approach?  

-JCali.  

RE: Overdesign Primary Structure to save labor cost?

that seems very odd not to have brace angles at the top of non load bearing CMU.  Even with the low deflection ratios, when the CMU is tight to the structure, it is load bearing.  I would NOT do that.

as far as using much heavier steel in place of braces every so often for lateral bracing, where I work, we use the braces.  I've never heard of people using heavy framing instead of braces.

So I agree, it all seems odd to me.

RE: Overdesign Primary Structure to save labor cost?

The idea that you'd optimize the steel design for lowest overall cost doesn't seem odd.  In fact, it would seem odd if you didn't do that.

RE: Overdesign Primary Structure to save labor cost?

JStephen.  Obviously lower cost is good.  what I'M calling odd is that it costs less to have heavy framing with no braces as compared to light framing with braces.  It's my understanding that saving on steel cost is better than saving on the labor involved with installing braces.

RE: Overdesign Primary Structure to save labor cost?

(OP)
Lower cost isn't good if you're compromising the structure.  The idea of building masonry tight to structural steel doesn't sound right, whether it costs less or not.

-JCali

RE: Overdesign Primary Structure to save labor cost?

It may in fact cost much less to have heavier framing members than to have light members with braces and more details and fabrication and erection costs.  As an example, the AISC published an article a while back about the economical benefits of increasing columns sizes and saving the labor of using smaller columns that required stiffeners.  The cost of heavier members in that case may offset the additional cost of stiffeners by a great deal.  Along those same lines, using heavier framing members could conceivably save over the extra cost of more complex connections and additional labor.  It just depends on the building.  Typically in the US labor is very expensive compared to other countries where labor is cheap and materials are very expensive, so the rules of thumb for economical design are different as well.  Now whether all this is a good design decision is up to the EOR.  

RE: Overdesign Primary Structure to save labor cost?

"With these low deflection ratios come the recommendation that masonry be built tight to the structure."

Why is this recommended?

RE: Overdesign Primary Structure to save labor cost?

(OP)
That's the part that puzzles me the most. I was hoping that others in the Eng-tips universe had heard of this and could tell me why.  

-JCali

RE: Overdesign Primary Structure to save labor cost?

Obviously, the design process has to create a suitable end product, or there isn't a point to it in the first place.  But if economic analysis of some kind isn't present in the design, you have problems.  I have dealt with engineers who just seemed to have no clue of the economic consequences of their decisions, and the owners paid through the nose as a result.

Ever wonder why in the old days, they made all those bridges and water towers out of latticed channels?  Or why they stopped doing it?

RE: Overdesign Primary Structure to save labor cost?

(OP)
Constructive input to the question is appreciated. Preaching the obvious is not necessary.

-JCali

RE: Overdesign Primary Structure to save labor cost?

Yes jcali, but what is obvious to one person may not be to another. I believe this should be a discussion forum for engineers with a range of level of experience.

RE: Overdesign Primary Structure to save labor cost?

(OP)
apsix,

You're right. All constructive input is welcome.  I'm sorry.

-JCali

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources