Thanks haynewp. I've used that before and wrote my own version at one time. Very useful stuff.
StrlEIT, I agree with you about the real cost, but the situation is not quite so simple IMO. First off, in the meetings I'm talking about, there was no fabricator there. It was the GC who was looking at a single number of psf--a number everybody in there can grasp in 2 sec. In simplistic terms, 5% heavier psf *to them* mentally translates into "the stupid EOR just wasted 5% of $[total steel cost]!" The EOR gets to to sit there sounding like Mr. Whiney Pants with all his buts (*but* it's easier to build, *but* there will be less labor, ...).
It's just a bit of a vulnerable situation that's avoid with a least weight design. I dare say that no contractor would ever get into the design deeply enough to beat the EOR over the head with practicality issues during a typical owner/arch/contractor/consultant meeting. Even if they try to, *now* the burden is on them to articulate these issues during the meeting. All the EOR has to do is keep in his back pocket "Yeah, but last time you gave me a hard time when I did this and that to make the design more practical, but heavier!"
To be clear, though, I am a strong believer in some consolidation of beam sizes, design reactions, and especially with items like base plates (to avoid anchor rod placement errors). It's that extra step of not cambering, trying to get rid of stiffeners, etc. that I stopped trying to do because those run up the main steel psf.
Here's another question I have. I've meant to look into this for a long time, but never got around to it.
Say the EOR makes the design more practical than normal, with much less labor required. I assume that a fabricator studies the plans and computes a material price and then estimates some factor for labor, connections, and stiffeners, say 10% more (or whatever--no clue what this is nowadays)--then make his bid. What's to stop the fabricator from keeping his labor factor high, as if the EOR made the design far less practical, as in lots of column stiffeners, camber, etc.? Nobody would ever be able to figure out that he did that. *WHO* got the money savings there? I've wondered for a while if the EOR ends up getting suckered into making more money for the fabricator at the cost of the owner.
The only thing stopping them, that I can think of, is competition. Then again, I could see them all just using a labor factor corresponding to a less practical design and not cutting it closer when the labor/connections/stiffeners/etc will be cheaper than normal.
I'd like to read some commentary from some of you guys on this question because I honestly don't know.