I'm starting to take my education into my own hands as I have been reading a lot more and making my own curriculum so I can plan to take the registration licensing exams as soon as I'm accepted into grad school and graduate, and my required hours are completed. One of my first topics I have been looking into is foundations and have a few questions as to what exactly is required of architects. Is it the architects responsibility to know how to size the footings and all the construction details, or is that typically an engineer? I know some knowledge is always required of the architect, I just don't want to drive myself crazy to the point I am training to be a structural engineer too. Topics I am looking into include calculating safe bearing capacity of the soils and caisson/pile dimensions, getting into the specifications of dewatering, specifications of things like slurry walls and tie backs and so on. Am I going overkill on areas not required? I know too much knowledge is never a bad thing, I'd just rather focus on things that WILL be required of me and not just good-to-know things at this stage of my career.
You need to know enough that you can reasonably spot problems with the foundation design, the geotechnical test, and what to expect. In my opinion, knowing geotechnical tests is more important than knowing structural calculations. I hang architects in litigation here all the time. Of all the normal construction litigation I do, the most expensive repairs by far is having to replace a foundation after the fact.
As captain of the ship, you (the architect) are usually the one recommending the geotechnical test to the owner and coordinating it even if it is their consultant; so you need to know what kind of test, the level of testing, and what tests you'll want. One of the first things I look for in a foundation failure case is 'who the hell recommended this crappy test to use as the basis to hold up this building?'.... 99% of the time, the architect initiated it, directed the proposals, and told the geotech what kind of test they wanted, then presented to a non-licensed client as what they need to provide to you. That report becomes why the building failed. Second question is always; "why the f'ck didn't they follow all the recommendations?"
Starts with design; you need to know the scope of the building. Next is the geotechnical report at the end of schematic when you know enough; that test the underlying soil conditions and makes recommendations based on the use, risk, building design, etc. YOU told them about. Normally, the architect, structural and geotech talk about the foundation types and risks. Then the geotechnical report is written with all the design criteria. The structural uses that for the foundation design; but it has a lot more too like backfill, site slopes, paving, slabs, subsurface drainage, dewatering, etc. the architect coordinates with the entire design team and GC to follow the recommendations of the geotechnical report.
Second have you looked at the course curriculum for your program and are you sure they won't cover this in your structural classes?
In answer to your question in the US it depends on the state regulations and what you're designing. You can be allowed to design the structure of single family homes in some states. Other than that you'll be using a structural engineer to do all of that.
Jan 29, 20 1:54 pm ·
·
TedMosby
Hi, I'm from the USA (the midwest, to be more specific) and that's what I'm wondering. Would it be my job to specific a pad footing vs. a sloped footing? Do I calculate the soil bearing capacity my self for all projects? What attention to detail is required on the construction drawings I provide for the foundation construction, and at what point does it move more into the contractor's realm of just what typically is done?
Jan 29, 20 2:16 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
the contractor follows instructions... they will not do the struc calcs. That's likely the job of the structural and soils consultants, not the architect specifically but it helps alot to understand enough to guide your consultants.
Jan 29, 20 2:27 pm ·
·
joseffischer
No delegated designs for you Non? It's getting to the point on some of our projects that I'm not sure what the Structural Engineer does anymore.
Jan 29, 20 3:21 pm ·
·
mightyaa
Rick. Structural engineers do not determine soil bearing no have that training. Geotechnical engineers do.
In the limited projects where the architect is responsible for the building structure, the architect would design the foundation as well. But these are very small in size and scope.
In most projects, the architect needs to be able to read the structural engineer's plans that show the foundation and make sure that they are coordinated with the architectural and MEP scope. The architect provides waterproofing and drainage details to protect the foundation or basement walls, even if these are designed by the structural engineer.
Jan 29, 20 2:07 pm ·
·
t a z
^ this, plus an awareness of the frost line and water table. Insulation and the thermal line should also tie into the foundation construction.
I'm also trying to figure out the progression an architect normally takes to design the foundations. Does it start with the design of the building, then moves on to a soil analysis, which then leads to what type (shallow vs deep and just how deep based on the frost line and the bed rock depth) foundation would be required, then what water removal would be necessary based on the water table, and so on? I'm a person who likes to think in steps/order and that is what I have come up with so far. Please let me know if I'm dead wrong.
Jan 29, 20 2:17 pm ·
·
Archlandia
You'll figure all of this out when you have your first job
Jan 29, 20 2:19 pm ·
·
TedMosby
I've actually had a job for almost 2 years now on breaks, the problem is we do all existing buildings or interior build outs so I get almost no experience with substructure areas
Jan 29, 20 2:26 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
ask your engineer
Jan 29, 20 2:28 pm ·
·
TedMosby
In my state, the architect is allowed to sign off on all MEP drawings so we almost never use engineers. Only on a few projects have we used a structural engineer, but that's to ensure roof weight limits for RTUs and MUAs. My head principal is such an inspiration and for the few substructure projects we've had he has designed it all, and I think that's why I too am trying to learn it all - plus it helps make a lot of money when not having to pay consultants
Jan 29, 20 2:31 pm ·
·
Archlandia
Is the principal also a PE? Do they do all of the calcs for the building department?
Jan 29, 20 2:34 pm ·
·
Archlandia
btw, I wasn't trying to be condescending, I could tell by the questions that you asked that you've never done it before. You'll learn what you should be doing and not doing over time at a job that does new construction
Jan 29, 20 2:36 pm ·
·
TedMosby
No he is not, and yes we do (I am a part of this now haha) all the MEP calculations in additional to all architectural requirements, except we do not do structural calculations. As I mentioned in another comment, since we do all existing buildings/interior build-outs that is usually only limited to roof strength for mechanical equipment, but that means we almost never do substructure except for the few houses, which he designed but I assume that is basic enough for any regular architect.
Jan 29, 20 2:38 pm ·
·
Featured Comment
mightyaa
Starts with design; you need to know the scope of the building. Next is the geotechnical report at the end of schematic when you know enough; that test the underlying soil conditions and makes recommendations based on the use, risk, building design, etc. YOU told them about. Normally, the architect, structural and geotech talk about the foundation types and risks. Then the geotechnical report is written with all the design criteria. The structural uses that for the foundation design; but it has a lot more too like backfill, site slopes, paving, slabs, subsurface drainage, dewatering, etc. the architect coordinates with the entire design team and GC to follow the recommendations of the geotechnical report.
General understanding of types and applications. I've never sized anything in my career, that's what engineers do. In your structural class you'll go over the numbers some and the ARE materials (at least for 4.0) cover some of the concepts.
Jan 29, 20 2:24 pm ·
·
TedMosby
Thank you very much, I have taken a steel course and currently in a concrete course, but I'm just worried about what the ARE will throw at me
Jan 29, 20 2:28 pm ·
·
thatsthat
I've never had to size anything. I don't recall having to size anything for the ARE either. If you're concerned, look at an ARE prep guide or the NCARB guides for the exams. From my understanding, NCARB has dumbed down a lot of the structures questions so that it now requires little to no math. As long as you understand the concepts you're generally fine.
Jan 29, 20 3:25 pm ·
·
TedMosby
Do you have to specify what type of rebar (like #5 or 5/8"), how many are required
and the dimensions within the footings (1-1/2" - 2" away from edges) and things along those lines as well, or is that still more in the engineering realm?
Jan 29, 20 3:27 pm ·
·
Bloopox
If you work in a firm that does their own foundation design or that does the prelims and just runs it by a structural engineer for his blessing, then yes you need to do that. In my experience these are usually smallish firms that work on mostly residential and small, fairly uncomplicated commercial and institutional projects, and if you work in one you'll pick up the general "office standard" approach, and they'll usually have some spreadsheet calculator type thing that governs most of it, and not a lot of redesigning the wheel on each project. Most architecture firms that do this themselves tend to lean toward almost comical way-on-the-safe-side structural overdesign.
But if you're asking if you'll need to do that on the ARE: only in the most general sense, in a few multiple-choice questions that are testing your basic-concept mastery. You'll get pretty much everything you need to know from your semesters of statics in grad school. The trick is that many people don't retain it much beyond graduation, so find themselves re-studying for the ARE.
TedMosby, get your hands on a geotech report or three. That'll enlighten you. Usually, but not always, before the report is complete, the arch and structural engineer has told the geotechnical engineering consultant firm generally what they're going for (structural system proposed and amount of floors and type of occupancy). Geotech then goes and gets borings (requested locations usually identified on an old survey with a red pencil by the str. eng.) as well as a bunch of other stuff. Their report gives soil bearing pressures, water tables, recommendations on foundation types, etc. The structural engineer then provides foundations to meet those requirements. I wouldn't call it analysis any more than I would call looking up load tables analysis.
Jan 29, 20 3:26 pm ·
·
TedMosby
Thank you very much! That is an excellent idea and have not even thought of that. Would a geotech report and the structural engineer directly give recommendations (i.e. piles due to the xyz of the soil not allowing caissons) or does it simply provide the data and
the architect decides?
Jan 29, 20 3:36 pm ·
·
joseffischer
At the higher levels, it's more of a conversation of options. "oh, if we push that wing of the building too far north we get into those bad soils, ie money... well, what can we do with this footprint, etc.
once the PM and structural lead decide on a plan of attack, structural provides all data and arch often just links their file. Though also often we reproduce their data in our files, because it seems like it takes forever to get engineers to update their models.
You need to know enough that you can reasonably spot problems with the foundation design, the geotechnical test, and what to expect. In my opinion, knowing geotechnical tests is more important than knowing structural calculations. I hang architects in litigation here all the time. Of all the normal construction litigation I do, the most expensive repairs by far is having to replace a foundation after the fact.
As captain of the ship, you (the architect) are usually the one recommending the geotechnical test to the owner and coordinating it even if it is their consultant; so you need to know what kind of test, the level of testing, and what tests you'll want. One of the first things I look for in a foundation failure case is 'who the hell recommended this crappy test to use as the basis to hold up this building?'.... 99% of the time, the architect initiated it, directed the proposals, and told the geotech what kind of test they wanted, then presented to a non-licensed client as what they need to provide to you. That report becomes why the building failed. Second question is always; "why the f'ck didn't they follow all the recommendations?"
Jan 31, 20 1:17 am ·
·
mightyaa
The other biggy I hang architects for: Those reports often say something like "If some slab movement is acceptable, then..." The architect, without consulting the owner, chooses the cheaper option which they were told would move. It cracks... owner sues. Don't make those choices without getting owner direction; you want them to tell you in writing they'll use the cheaper slab on grade and accept the movement risk. To many architects just think "they'd never spend the money for a structural floor" and never ask the question... So the architect owns the choice and those ramifications. Both the structural and geo will point to the report and say "told you so".
Jan 31, 20 1:31 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
How extensive knowledge into foundations are architects required to have?
Hi all,
I'm starting to take my education into my own hands as I have been reading a lot more and making my own curriculum so I can plan to take the registration licensing exams as soon as I'm accepted into grad school and graduate, and my required hours are completed. One of my first topics I have been looking into is foundations and have a few questions as to what exactly is required of architects. Is it the architects responsibility to know how to size the footings and all the construction details, or is that typically an engineer? I know some knowledge is always required of the architect, I just don't want to drive myself crazy to the point I am training to be a structural engineer too. Topics I am looking into include calculating safe bearing capacity of the soils and caisson/pile dimensions, getting into the specifications of dewatering, specifications of things like slurry walls and tie backs and so on. Am I going overkill on areas not required? I know too much knowledge is never a bad thing, I'd just rather focus on things that WILL be required of me and not just good-to-know things at this stage of my career.
Thank you all very much and have a great day.
2 Featured Comments
You need to know enough that you can reasonably spot problems with the foundation design, the geotechnical test, and what to expect. In my opinion, knowing geotechnical tests is more important than knowing structural calculations. I hang architects in litigation here all the time. Of all the normal construction litigation I do, the most expensive repairs by far is having to replace a foundation after the fact.
As captain of the ship, you (the architect) are usually the one recommending the geotechnical test to the owner and coordinating it even if it is their consultant; so you need to know what kind of test, the level of testing, and what tests you'll want. One of the first things I look for in a foundation failure case is 'who the hell recommended this crappy test to use as the basis to hold up this building?'.... 99% of the time, the architect initiated it, directed the proposals, and told the geotech what kind of test they wanted, then presented to a non-licensed client as what they need to provide to you. That report becomes why the building failed. Second question is always; "why the f'ck didn't they follow all the recommendations?"
Starts with design; you need to know the scope of the building. Next is the geotechnical report at the end of schematic when you know enough; that test the underlying soil conditions and makes recommendations based on the use, risk, building design, etc. YOU told them about. Normally, the architect, structural and geotech talk about the foundation types and risks. Then the geotechnical report is written with all the design criteria. The structural uses that for the foundation design; but it has a lot more too like backfill, site slopes, paving, slabs, subsurface drainage, dewatering, etc. the architect coordinates with the entire design team and GC to follow the recommendations of the geotechnical report.
All 8 Comments
First off what country are you in?
Second have you looked at the course curriculum for your program and are you sure they won't cover this in your structural classes?
In answer to your question in the US it depends on the state regulations and what you're designing. You can be allowed to design the structure of single family homes in some states. Other than that you'll be using a structural engineer to do all of that.
Hi, I'm from the USA (the midwest, to be more specific) and that's what I'm wondering. Would it be my job to specific a pad footing vs. a sloped footing? Do I calculate the soil bearing capacity my self for all projects? What attention to detail is required on the construction drawings I provide for the foundation construction, and at what point does it move more into the contractor's realm of just what typically is done?
the contractor follows instructions... they will not do the struc calcs. That's likely the job of the structural and soils consultants, not the architect specifically but it helps alot to understand enough to guide your consultants.
No delegated designs for you Non? It's getting to the point on some of our projects that I'm not sure what the Structural Engineer does anymore.
Rick. Structural engineers do not determine soil bearing no have that training. Geotechnical engineers do.
In the limited projects where the architect is responsible for the building structure, the architect would design the foundation as well. But these are very small in size and scope.
In most projects, the architect needs to be able to read the structural engineer's plans that show the foundation and make sure that they are coordinated with the architectural and MEP scope. The architect provides waterproofing and drainage details to protect the foundation or basement walls, even if these are designed by the structural engineer.
^ this, plus an awareness of the frost line and water table. Insulation and the thermal line should also tie into the foundation construction.
Interesting !
I'm also trying to figure out the progression an architect normally takes to design the foundations. Does it start with the design of the building, then moves on to a soil analysis, which then leads to what type (shallow vs deep and just how deep based on the frost line and the bed rock depth) foundation would be required, then what water removal would be necessary based on the water table, and so on? I'm a person who likes to think in steps/order and that is what I have come up with so far. Please let me know if I'm dead wrong.
You'll figure all of this out when you have your first job
I've actually had a job for almost 2 years now on breaks, the problem is we do all existing buildings or interior build outs so I get almost no experience with substructure areas
ask your engineer
In my state, the architect is allowed to sign off on all MEP drawings so we almost never use engineers. Only on a few projects have we used a structural engineer, but that's to ensure roof weight limits for RTUs and MUAs. My head principal is such an inspiration and for the few substructure projects we've had he has designed it all, and I think that's why I too am trying to learn it all - plus it helps make a lot of money when not having to pay consultants
Is the principal also a PE? Do they do all of the calcs for the building department?
btw, I wasn't trying to be condescending, I could tell by the questions that you asked that you've never done it before. You'll learn what you should be doing and not doing over time at a job that does new construction
No he is not, and yes we do (I am a part of this now haha) all the MEP calculations in additional to all architectural requirements, except we do not do structural calculations. As I mentioned in another comment, since we do all existing buildings/interior build-outs that is usually only limited to roof strength for mechanical equipment, but that means we almost never do substructure except for the few houses, which he designed but I assume that is basic enough for any regular architect.
Starts with design; you need to know the scope of the building. Next is the geotechnical report at the end of schematic when you know enough; that test the underlying soil conditions and makes recommendations based on the use, risk, building design, etc. YOU told them about. Normally, the architect, structural and geotech talk about the foundation types and risks. Then the geotechnical report is written with all the design criteria. The structural uses that for the foundation design; but it has a lot more too like backfill, site slopes, paving, slabs, subsurface drainage, dewatering, etc. the architect coordinates with the entire design team and GC to follow the recommendations of the geotechnical report.
General understanding of types and applications. I've never sized anything in my career, that's what engineers do. In your structural class you'll go over the numbers some and the ARE materials (at least for 4.0) cover some of the concepts.
Thank you very much, I have taken a steel course and currently in a concrete course, but I'm just worried about what the ARE will throw at me
I've never had to size anything. I don't recall having to size anything for the ARE either. If you're concerned, look at an ARE prep guide or the NCARB guides for the exams. From my understanding, NCARB has dumbed down a lot of the structures questions so that it now requires little to no math. As long as you understand the concepts you're generally fine.
Do you have to specify what type of rebar (like #5 or 5/8"), how many are required and the dimensions within the footings (1-1/2" - 2" away from edges) and things along those lines as well, or is that still more in the engineering realm?
If you work in a firm that does their own foundation design or that does the prelims and just runs it by a structural engineer for his blessing, then yes you need to do that. In my experience these are usually smallish firms that work on mostly residential and small, fairly uncomplicated commercial and institutional projects, and if you work in one you'll pick up the general "office standard" approach, and they'll usually have some spreadsheet calculator type thing that governs most of it, and not a lot of redesigning the wheel on each project. Most architecture firms that do this themselves tend to lean toward almost comical way-on-the-safe-side structural overdesign.
But if you're asking if you'll need to do that on the ARE: only in the most general sense, in a few multiple-choice questions that are testing your basic-concept mastery. You'll get pretty much everything you need to know from your semesters of statics in grad school. The trick is that many people don't retain it much beyond graduation, so find themselves re-studying for the ARE.
TedMosby, get your hands on a geotech report or three. That'll enlighten you. Usually, but not always, before the report is complete, the arch and structural engineer has told the geotechnical engineering consultant firm generally what they're going for (structural system proposed and amount of floors and type of occupancy). Geotech then goes and gets borings (requested locations usually identified on an old survey with a red pencil by the str. eng.) as well as a bunch of other stuff. Their report gives soil bearing pressures, water tables, recommendations on foundation types, etc. The structural engineer then provides foundations to meet those requirements. I wouldn't call it analysis any more than I would call looking up load tables analysis.
Thank you very much! That is an excellent idea and have not even thought of that. Would a geotech report and the structural engineer directly give recommendations (i.e. piles due to the xyz of the soil not allowing caissons) or does it simply provide the data and the architect decides?
At the higher levels, it's more of a conversation of options. "oh, if we push that wing of the building too far north we get into those bad soils, ie money... well, what can we do with this footprint, etc.
once the PM and structural lead decide on a plan of attack, structural provides all data and arch often just links their file. Though also often we reproduce their data in our files, because it seems like it takes forever to get engineers to update their models.
Every architect should know all the things.
working on it.
You need to know enough that you can reasonably spot problems with the foundation design, the geotechnical test, and what to expect. In my opinion, knowing geotechnical tests is more important than knowing structural calculations. I hang architects in litigation here all the time. Of all the normal construction litigation I do, the most expensive repairs by far is having to replace a foundation after the fact.
As captain of the ship, you (the architect) are usually the one recommending the geotechnical test to the owner and coordinating it even if it is their consultant; so you need to know what kind of test, the level of testing, and what tests you'll want. One of the first things I look for in a foundation failure case is 'who the hell recommended this crappy test to use as the basis to hold up this building?'.... 99% of the time, the architect initiated it, directed the proposals, and told the geotech what kind of test they wanted, then presented to a non-licensed client as what they need to provide to you. That report becomes why the building failed. Second question is always; "why the f'ck didn't they follow all the recommendations?"
The other biggy I hang architects for: Those reports often say something like "If some slab movement is acceptable, then..." The architect, without consulting the owner, chooses the cheaper option which they were told would move. It cracks... owner sues. Don't make those choices without getting owner direction; you want them to tell you in writing they'll use the cheaper slab on grade and accept the movement risk. To many architects just think "they'd never spend the money for a structural floor" and never ask the question... So the architect owns the choice and those ramifications. Both the structural and geo will point to the report and say "told you so".
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.