This question has come up quite a bit at our firm lately. Who should provide the metal stud connection details. Headers, spans, etc.? There are projects that we don't have a structural engineer to provide them. Sometimes, engineers of previous projects have given us written approval to use their details for other projects, but I'm not so certain it's always a good idea. A good example of a detail we need, is the top of a metal stud wall to a slip track up to the concrete floor/metal deck above (due to fire rating). Without an engineer, is it a good idea for architects to just throw in a detail? Concerned about liability, but maybe it's overblown?
senjohnblutarsky
Oct 19, 17 12:43 pm
Connection details can be done as delegated design in your specs.
Any spans and loading type information should be done as part of the documents.
senjohnblutarsky
Oct 19, 17 12:48 pm
No... it's pretty common. Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings are the classic example. The A/E gives performance requirements and systems input, but the design is left to the supplier/contractor. A/E should review the design as a shop drawing/submission.
mychaelp
Oct 19, 17 12:56 pm
Interesting idea, I hadn't considered it before. This is an option that could work for larger projects that still don't have a structural engineer on board. Thank you
thatsthat
Oct 19, 17 4:48 pm
We require delegated design often for very small scope projects or some things in CA. For instance, if the contractor wants to use a lift in lieu of scaffolding on an existing roof, then the contractor has to have an engineer sign off that the roof will hold the weight of the lift. We may also hire a structural engineer on an hourly basis/as needed. So if something comes up or a client has a concern, we have someone who can review within a few days. If necessary, he provides us a couple of hand sketches and we do the drafting so he doesn't have to devote staff to the project, which saves everyone time and money.
Non Sequitur
Oct 19, 17 12:47 pm
get the steel stud contractor to provide engineered shop drawings complete with stamp.
mychaelp
Oct 19, 17 12:57 pm
Similar as the delegated design idea above. Thank you for the idea. By noon I'll present a few options to the leaders here. As an architect I simply want to provide what is best to suit the project and to be honest, stop using others' details simply pasted into our plans.
x-jla
Oct 19, 17 1:01 pm
I've found that the word SHALL is the most important word in a designers vocabulary.
mychaelp
Oct 19, 17 1:06 pm
Good point. I remember reading recently the legal term of Should versus Shall due to the current political NFL issues. Thanks
mychaelp
Oct 19, 17 2:38 pm
Thanks everyone for the feedback. Pretty much confirmed what I wanted to do here. I think I'm stuck complying with previous work for the current project, but may have convinced them to delegate the design for future projects. I may simply add the spec section paragraph related to delegated design from 092216 Section 1.4 of Performance Requirements on the cover sheet of plans, or Floor Plan.
I need to pay it forward, so will be commenting here when I can contribute.
senjohnblutarsky
Oct 19, 17 3:20 pm
If you're talking structural framing
, you shouldn't be using 092216 to cover the framing. You should be using 054000 which (in masterspec) contains a delegated-design submittal requirement.
mychaelp
Oct 19, 17 3:24 pm
This section is for non-structural framing. But due to loading, etc we need engineering for headers, etc. I do see in 054000 that it has spots for non-bearing which could work, but 092216 works better with no structural items. Unless I'm missing something
AdrianFGA
Oct 19, 17 5:00 pm
The very basic and general guideline I am used to, is to determine if studs will end up being structural or not.
Structural studs should be designed by engineers, and are generally used for exterior applications (load bearing or not) as well as interior, load-bearing applications.
Non-structural studs are mostly used with interior, non-load bearing applications; most of the time, details can be prepared by architects.
That's good material in the link, however with some of the extended headers, and walls sometimes up to 16', even with non-bearing that we're doing on this project, I'm not sure if using tables from non-stamped/signed items would help us if a liability situation arose. I guess I was trying to get away from using something that isn't actually engineered with the loads based on the current IBC, or in our case, the CBC.
AdrianFGA
Oct 19, 17 6:42 pm
You should determine if a wall that high needs to be reinforced, e
ven if it's not load-bearing. Without knowing more, I would say most likely it will have to be engineered
Medusa
Oct 20, 17 3:23 pm
Contact the steel stud manufacturer. All of these companies have engineers on staff who will help you with connection and bracing details as well as any calculations that may be required. Otherwise, if you are looking for fire-rated assemblies, consult the UL catalog for the required construction.
Based on your description, it seems like a pretty typical detail that you can work out using one of these methods for free.
This question has come up quite a bit at our firm lately. Who should provide the metal stud connection details. Headers, spans, etc.? There are projects that we don't have a structural engineer to provide them. Sometimes, engineers of previous projects have given us written approval to use their details for other projects, but I'm not so certain it's always a good idea. A good example of a detail we need, is the top of a metal stud wall to a slip track up to the concrete floor/metal deck above (due to fire rating). Without an engineer, is it a good idea for architects to just throw in a detail? Concerned about liability, but maybe it's overblown?
Connection details can be done as delegated design in your specs.
Any spans and loading type information should be done as part of the documents.
No... it's pretty common. Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings are the classic example. The A/E gives performance requirements and systems input, but the design is left to the supplier/contractor. A/E should review the design as a shop drawing/submission.
Interesting idea, I hadn't considered it before. This is an option that could work for larger projects that still don't have a structural engineer on board. Thank you
We require delegated design often for very small scope projects or some things in CA. For instance, if the contractor wants to use a lift in lieu of scaffolding on an existing roof, then the contractor has to have an engineer sign off that the roof will hold the weight of the lift. We may also hire a structural engineer on an hourly basis/as needed. So if something comes up or a client has a concern, we have someone who can review within a few days. If necessary, he provides us a couple of hand sketches and we do the drafting so he doesn't have to devote staff to the project, which saves everyone time and money.
get the steel stud contractor to provide engineered shop drawings complete with stamp.
Similar as the delegated design idea above. Thank you for the idea. By noon I'll present a few options to the leaders here. As an architect I simply want to provide what is best to suit the project and to be honest, stop using others' details simply pasted into our plans.
I've found that the word SHALL is the most important word in a designers vocabulary.
Good point. I remember reading recently the legal term of Should versus Shall due to the current political NFL issues. Thanks
Thanks everyone for the feedback. Pretty much confirmed what I wanted to do here. I think I'm stuck complying with previous work for the current project, but may have convinced them to delegate the design for future projects. I may simply add the spec section paragraph related to delegated design from 092216 Section 1.4 of Performance Requirements on the cover sheet of plans, or Floor Plan.
I need to pay it forward, so will be commenting here when I can contribute.
If you're talking structural framing , you shouldn't be using 092216 to cover the framing. You should be using 054000 which (in masterspec) contains a delegated-design submittal requirement.
This section is for non-structural framing. But due to loading, etc we need engineering for headers, etc. I do see in 054000 that it has spots for non-bearing which could work, but 092216 works better with no structural items. Unless I'm missing something
The very basic and general guideline I am used to, is to determine if studs will end up being structural or not.
Structural studs should be designed by engineers, and are generally used for exterior applications (load bearing or not) as well as interior, load-bearing applications.
Non-structural studs are mostly used with interior, non-load bearing applications; most of the time, details can be prepared by architects.
This is a good reference material with some coverage of responsibilities of various parties involved in this kind of design.
That's good material in the link, however with some of the extended headers, and walls sometimes up to 16', even with non-bearing that we're doing on this project, I'm not sure if using tables from non-stamped/signed items would help us if a liability situation arose. I guess I was trying to get away from using something that isn't actually engineered with the loads based on the current IBC, or in our case, the CBC.
You should determine if a wall that high needs to be reinforced, e
ven if it's not load-bearing. Without knowing more, I would say most likely it will have to be engineered
Contact the steel stud manufacturer. All of these companies have engineers on staff who will help you with connection and bracing details as well as any calculations that may be required. Otherwise, if you are looking for fire-rated assemblies, consult the UL catalog for the required construction.
Based on your description, it seems like a pretty typical detail that you can work out using one of these methods for free.