What is anyone's experience with cost comparisons between a conventional steel framed structure versus metal building framing. Not pre-engineered metal building, but a custom building using metal building components. Conventional steel framed building is hot-rolled wide-flanged beams and columns, bar joist and metal deck roof, cold-formed stud walls. Custom metal building is one that does not utilize the metal wall and roof panels, but a different veneer system such as brick and a standing-seam roof with rigid insulation. I work with several architects who believe that as long as the structural framing is metal building components, the building costs must be significanly less. I contend that as long as the owner uses an off-the-shelf pre-engineered metal building with no modifications, that is the most economical. When either system is custom designed, there really is not a signifant difference in cost between a custom metal building and a conventional steel framed structure. Assuming the foundation is essentially the same regardless of framing system. I know there are alot of variables involved, but wondering if in general terms, am I off base here? Looking at the RS Means data, I believe I am correct.
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
metal building versus conventional steel framing
- Thread starter archeng59
- Start date
audeuce02,
I think it's hilarious that you are just now using the "black" book. It's been adopted for at least 3 years. If you're in Cali, then I won't knock you.
RE is correct, I worked in the Texas/Oklahoma/Missouri/Louisiana markets where it's much more competitive than the west coast markets in regards to conventional vs. pemb marketing. The one thing that is lacking in the pemb markets was just touched on and that is this: the "salesmen" that sell these products do not know a lick about engineering and they pretend to know. In my first 8 years of engineering, I saw it at 3 different pemb companies ranging from 20 employees to 400 employees. It's not right, and gives the industry a bad name. Most of their engineers are decent if they've not become too dependent on their proprietary (or MBS) software. The software allows the pemb to "turn the brain off" and trust the output - a very bad climate to be in as a marketable engineer.
I think it's hilarious that you are just now using the "black" book. It's been adopted for at least 3 years. If you're in Cali, then I won't knock you.
RE is correct, I worked in the Texas/Oklahoma/Missouri/Louisiana markets where it's much more competitive than the west coast markets in regards to conventional vs. pemb marketing. The one thing that is lacking in the pemb markets was just touched on and that is this: the "salesmen" that sell these products do not know a lick about engineering and they pretend to know. In my first 8 years of engineering, I saw it at 3 different pemb companies ranging from 20 employees to 400 employees. It's not right, and gives the industry a bad name. Most of their engineers are decent if they've not become too dependent on their proprietary (or MBS) software. The software allows the pemb to "turn the brain off" and trust the output - a very bad climate to be in as a marketable engineer.
We have been using 13th Edition on everything IBC 06 since adoption. It's just that I still find myself wanting to look for my 9th Edition when I need to reference something.
Software dependence is a bad deal. There are many PEMB Engineers out there that don't really understand what the software is doing or what they are truly trying to accomplish with their design. I have trained multiple engineers and also quite a few estimators. If they cannot draw the free body diagram and show the load path, I know that I have my work cut out for me. Basic load path and load application is something that many people have a hard time with.
Software dependence is a bad deal. There are many PEMB Engineers out there that don't really understand what the software is doing or what they are truly trying to accomplish with their design. I have trained multiple engineers and also quite a few estimators. If they cannot draw the free body diagram and show the load path, I know that I have my work cut out for me. Basic load path and load application is something that many people have a hard time with.
Getting back to the metal building deflection discussion... several posts indicate that the engineer of record should specify deflection criteria to be used in the design of the mental building structure. I've done it myself on numerous occasions, but I'm now questioning whether or not that is a good idea. By specifying deflection criteria, you are basically letting the metal building guy off the hook. If there's ever any kind of a problem, say with the operation of a crane, they can simply claim that they designed in accordance with the engineer's criteria, and it's the criteria that is at fault. Any thoughts?
JedClampett
Structural
If you don't specify anything, knowing that the PEMB requirements are beyond the crane allowables, you're going to be in even more trouble.
In other words, if you know something about the design and don't pass it on to the component (PEMB) designer, that borders on negligence and the lawyers are going to have a good time with you.
In other words, if you know something about the design and don't pass it on to the component (PEMB) designer, that borders on negligence and the lawyers are going to have a good time with you.
Undoubtedly some of your experiences with PEMB has been with piss poor comapnies to say the least. The issue of deflection/servicability is being completely misunderstood for the PEMB companies that are MBMA/AISC MB/IAS AC 472. We meet or exceed the published servicalbility criteria in the Metal Building Systems Manual Section III. In reality, the information in this section comes directly from AISC Design Guide 3.
If you have had a compnay provide a building with a crane and H/60 eave drift, they are not following any of the industry guidelines. And in reality, I would consider this criminally negligent due to the bridge having potential to actually jump track due to the frame displacement.
If you have had a compnay provide a building with a crane and H/60 eave drift, they are not following any of the industry guidelines. And in reality, I would consider this criminally negligent due to the bridge having potential to actually jump track due to the frame displacement.
Everybody should try it for a little while. You have to be creative to bring some of the commitments that the completely uneducated sales staff to reality. I am to the point that if I here one more "I didn't think that note was important", or "that does really apply, does it, my head is going to explode.
Which Butler office did you work at. I spent a little time with Liberty, the Butler offshoot.
Which Butler office did you work at. I spent a little time with Liberty, the Butler offshoot.
I worked for Bulter in their corporate office in Kansas City, MO (we're talking the '70s here).
I always felt we were a pretty creative group. Back then, Butler had a three-dimensional roof and floor truss system called Space Grid, a geodesic dome system, and a truss main frame sytem that used neoprene pads in the truss bottom chord-to-column connection to reduce gravity load bending effects on the columns... some pretty innovative stuff!
I always felt we were a pretty creative group. Back then, Butler had a three-dimensional roof and floor truss system called Space Grid, a geodesic dome system, and a truss main frame sytem that used neoprene pads in the truss bottom chord-to-column connection to reduce gravity load bending effects on the columns... some pretty innovative stuff!
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
