Equivalent studs

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1622 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - 07:25 pm:    Has anybody specified or had experience with "EQ" studs? David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 108 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - 07:40 pm:    I can’t think of a project that I have done that hasn’t used EQ studs. It’s basically industry standard at this point. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1122 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - 08:12 pm:    Most of my project are institutional so not usually. Pretty much only at tenant office fit-out work. Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 109 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - 08:17 pm:    Ken, maybe I have my terminology mixed up, but Clark Dietrichs ProStud and Marinowares ViperStud, or similar are extremely popular in this area and are used on every kind of job. I never see traditional C studs anymore. Too expensive bc of all the extra metal involved w/o a gain in performance. Screws do hold better though. Some of our local installers just bump up the thickness even if specd lower to limit stripping out the screws and having to do a second. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 235 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - 08:27 pm:    David, are you referring to "equivalent gauge" or "equivalent coating"? Brian's responses refer to the former, and I agree the thinner dimpled studs have become the standard for most projects I specify. Equivalent coating remains controversial and the stud industry titans are battling it out. I generally do not allow equivalent coating because it's performance remains unsettled. I seem to recall another thread on that subject. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 110 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - 08:28 pm:    Found a quote in Construction Specifier: “EQ studs have been in the framing industry for almost a decade, and represent approximately 90 percent of the current market. Manufacturers now produce EQ studs with higher yield strength than traditional studs using less steel, which helps support the mission of sustainable construction.May 1, 2013” ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1123 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - 08:30 pm:    Brian, you have the right terminology. There are still a lot of folks who have concerns for certain applications and uses. A lot of our clients insist on nothing lighter than 0.0359 for non-structural framing, no exceptions. Worked on one project that required all studs to be 54 mils. Apparently someone had recently hung a 60 inch monitor on a wall without checking to see if there was appropriate blocking so this facility manager decided not to take chances. People are funny. All we can do is try to keep our clients happy (and hope they keep coming back). Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 236 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - 09:02 am:    Maybe you have seen the announcement from Marino\WARE about their latest generation stud made w/ even higher-strength steel than previous generations of embossed (dimpled) framing. They claim it has been tested w/ "high-impact" wallboard, which I assume is in response to recommendations from some GWB manufacturers against use of "EQ" studs w/ abuse-resistant panels. They probably haven't tested w/ 60" monitors, but it would be interesting to know how these studs accommodate wall-mounted items. I notice there is no reference to "EQ" in the announcement -- perhaps due to the confusion w/ the "EQ coatings" issue. MasterSpec stopped using "equivalent gauge" in favor of "embossed" a while ago. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - 11:58 am:    Re: EQ coatings ... I found this article from the Construction Specifier informative: https://www.constructionspecifier.com/eq-coatings-dispelling-misconceptions-through-facts/ Additionally in 2015, an Ohio jury found, "that the Certified Steel Stud Association (CSSA), an industry trade group comprised of four of ClarkDietrich’s competitors, had conspired with others, including Marino\WARE, to publish false and misleading statements about ClarkDietrich’s ProSTUD® steel framing products. The lawsuit was filed after the CSSA widely circulated a publication falsely stating that equivalent or EQ coatings are not recognized by the International Building Code (IBC)." http://www.clarkdietrich.com/news/2015-05-01/clarkdietrich-wins-product-disparagement-lawsuit Re: EQ gauge ... I commonly allow this in our specs, the only exception being if a client specifically requests otherwise. As others have pointed out, this is pretty widely used and accepted in the industry. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 987 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - 01:29 pm:    Remember when plywood sheathing was dissed because we had always used boards? And when OSB was dissed because we had always used plywood? David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1623 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - 03:15 pm:    I was referring to equivalent gauge studs. There seems to be very little information on the internet about equivalent studs vs. conventional studs. I even checked the three associations (SSMA, SFIA and CSSA) for information on equivalent studs. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - 04:57 pm:    I disagree David. There is plenty of information out there on EQ studs. Every manufacturer I've looked at that offers EQ studs has information on their websites that their EQ studs perform just as well as, if not better than, their standard gauge counterpart. Additionally, SFIA's Code Compliance Certification Program has information about "equivalent nonstructural members" including definition, properties, requirements, etc. https://sfia.memberclicks.net/stud-code-compliance-certification-program If that wasn't enough. The CSSA website links to ESR-2620 for Marino/Ware's studs, including their EQ studs. http://www.certifiedsteelstud.com/evaluation-reports.htm Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 828 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - 07:09 pm:    Dimpled studs will be more sensitive to corrosion. Also the screw values should be less. The moment of inertia should be less but this may be offset to some degree by the dimples ability to inhibit local buckling. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, October 26, 2017 - 01:22 pm:    Mark, what screw values should be less? As you can see in the link in my earlier post, SFIA's Code Compliance Certification Program requires EQ studs to meet requirements in ASTM C 645, paragraph 9.1 and Section 10 for screw performance. It also requires manufacturers to test and publish data for screw shear, pullout, and pullover values that are equal or greater than similar conventional studs as tested according to AISI S100. The same for moment of inertia. You can see that the SFIA compliance program requires the moment of inertia to be equal or greater than similar conventional studs. You can verify all of this in manufacturers' published data and test reports. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 829 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, October 26, 2017 - 07:35 pm:    You are telling me that there are no tradeoffs as a result of using thinner material and that there is a free lunch. While currently I do not have the time to go down that rabbit hole I find that hard to believe. As always be skeptical of manufacturers information. Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 114 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Friday, October 27, 2017 - 08:32 am:    I think the point was that they both meet the same standard. Meeting the same minimum requirement is not the same as equal performance. Greta Eckhardt Senior Member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 68 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Friday, October 27, 2017 - 09:59 am:    I think the idea of using less steel by improving the stud profile is excellent, but as others have mentioned there can be drawbacks with the thinner steel. Because we cannot always anticipate what our clients may hang on the walls in the future, my firm considers the sectional properties for 20-gauges studs to be the minimum performance requirements for studs throughout all our projects. The height limit tables do not tell it all - one has to look at the SMMA tables to find the moment of inertia for deflection, section modulus, allowable bending moment and allowable shear force in web to properly compare proposed EQ studs with the standard for 20-gauge studs. I made this comparison to respond to a submittal for a recent project, and concluded that the only EQ studs from that manufacturer that were truly equivalent in all the sectional properties were made from 33 mil steel - same as regular 20-gauge studs. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 988 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, October 27, 2017 - 01:00 pm:    It's fun to do the numbers, but are there load tests, or is there empirical evidence, that proves a difference in real=world performance? Following the "don't know what they'll hang on the wall" logic, perhaps 16 gauge, or 11 gauge, or 1/4 inch would be better. What about those who hang stuff anywhere they want, regardless of framing? Should we specify two layers of gypboard? We have clients who want continuous plywood behind the gypboard. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1124 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, October 27, 2017 - 01:09 pm:    Sheldon, I get those clients too but their concerns are more focused on people or items impacting the walls rather than attaching 'stuff' to the walls. In fact they don't want anything attached to the walls. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 990 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, October 27, 2017 - 03:59 pm:    In this case, it was a maintenance room, and they wanted to hang stuff everywhere. For impact, the impact-resistant gypboard seems to be working. And where you don't want anyone going through the wall, there's security mesh. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1125 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, October 27, 2017 - 04:17 pm:    Agreed. You know that. I know that. The folks I was dealing with? They don't understand any of that.