Which structural framing systems and materials are most commonly used in the United States for residences? For office buildings?
◦ What factors explain why those dominate?
◦ Why did you choose your system, and what did it cost you?
You sized members by judgment rather than analysis.
◦ What did you base your first guess on?
◦ Why is it safer to guess large and shrink than to guess small and grow?
◦ At what point in a real project does the engineer take over from the guess?
I based my first guess on what the video recording suggested we use. It also seemed like we were using sizing that is standard for these types of projects or are at least used as a first assumption. I would assume it is safter to size up and have to shrink down than vice versa because it would be easier to have to use less material later on. It would also be a material cost reduction to have to size down which is a positive. It is also safer to design for heavier loads than what the building may experience so it does not collapse. The engineer would take over once they have all the information they need to complete the structural calculations like the dead and live loads, the soil conditions, etc. These will also be based on the design of the building and the materials used, so those steps will need to be done as well.
Design teams link and share models rather than working in one file.
◦ What are the advantages of linking?
◦ What errors does linking make possible that a single model would not?
◦ Why is getting shared coordinates right at the start so much cheaper than fixing it later?
Linking is very helpful because multiple people can work on their own parts of the project and they can be layered or linked to each other after. This means multiple steps can be happening at once without having to wait for one person to finish their design before someone else can start their work. Linking causes issues like overlap of building components. Shared coordinates make sure the models are aligned. If they are not perfectly aligned, the drawings and the rest of the design could be incorrect, so there would either have to be a redesign or change orders that went into fixing the mistake.
Not every clash is a problem.
◦ On what basis did you classify a clash as an issue versus not an issue?
◦ Who should have authority to close a clash on a real project?
For now, I had to classify every clash as an issue because my system was glitching, but if this was not the case, I would have classified things like overlapping design or small things I could fix on my own as not an issue. For example, if there is a duplicate wall, that is not an issue because one of the walls can be deleted. If there in interior wall coming through an exterior wall, or if things are not aligning the way they should be, I would consider those to be issues. I think the designer or engineer should be the one to have authority to close a clash on a real project - it depends on what the clash is. Sometimes the two of them may need to work together to figure out how to go about solving a clash, especially if it is between an architectural and structural or other engineering system.
Your beam depths just constrained next week's ductwork.
◦ Where in your building is the ceiling plenum now tightest?
◦ What would you give up to get it back?
◦ Should the structural engineer have consulted the mechanical engineer before setting spans?