| Author |
Message |
Bruce Konschuh
New member
Username: brucek
Post Number: 1
Registered: 08-2014
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 12:12 pm: |    |
The contractor has submitted load-bearing studs in lieu of the designed non-load bearing studs. (scope is all typical interior non-load bearing framing). Contractor even changed the ASTM #s to match load bearing.
Have you ever seen stronger studs submitted than those required?
I assume there's no problem accepting the "better and stronger" product, even though it's more expensive, and likely harder to work with.
And for all spec'd products, have you ever seen contractor submit a better product than the specified one? I have not. |
Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 1888
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 12:17 pm: | |
I'm not sure the submittal is "better". Stronger, heavier, more costly, and completely ignoring the specification, yes!
My immediate response would be to reject and reply "please submit what was specified". OR, if the relationship is a good one, ask why the contractor submitted that. Maybe he has a stockpile of them in a warehouse and has to get rid of them; using them on your project means he'll get paid more for them (he's probably already been paid for them once).
But then, I'm a cynical optimist. |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wayne_yancey
Post Number: 683
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 12:46 pm: | |
This is a substitution. Treat it as such. Enforce your administrative and procedural requirements for substitions. If you have these requirements. Aside from blowing off your own requirements, what is wrong with heavier gauge at same spacing?
20 gauge Drywall studs versus 25 gauge? |
Edward J Dueppen, RA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: edueppen
Post Number: 10
Registered: 08-2013
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 12:50 pm: | |
Be cautious if any of the partitions were to have acoustical performance. The stiffer studs will perform quite differently. |
spiper (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 02:09 pm: | |
The acoustical performance consideration is a good point that I might not have considered. However I know of more than a couple of carpenters that prefer to avoid light gauge studs for interior non-load bearing partitions.
Their reason for "upgrading" the studs beyond the spec:
to avoid call-backs for telegraphing fasteners, drywall cracks, outside corner issues, etc.
light gauge studs (depending on your definition of light) can actually be harder to work with because taller partitions will have studs with to much flex or bow in them so installing drywall can be problematic.
The lighter studs may also require additional bracing above the ceiling line if the drywall does not go the full height of the partition while the heavier gauge may be able to be non-composite for a greater height.
I would ask for an explanation from the sub but I would not be surprised if they have good reason for the proposed change.
[Mr. or Ms. Piper - will you please register so I do not have to approve each of your postings - Colin] |
Bruce Konschuh
Junior Member
Username: brucek
Post Number: 2
Registered: 08-2014
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 11:10 am: | |
Thanks all for your thoughts on this.
I think we may all agree on one thing: the contractor is planning on a installing a struct stud system for less money than non-struct studs.
?? I'm not sure how it's less money (he may have a warehouse filled with struct matl) but I am curious as to how much he plans on saving: 5%, 15% or more...? |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 453
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 12:20 pm: | |
We had a Contractor who often submitted a substitution request to change all interior metal studs to 16 gauge.
Their reason: they could save the labor cost of a foreman who they now wouldn't need to make sure all the stud gauges we had specified were put in the right places.
We would approve the substitution.
I recall he would also try to get us to approve a single stud width, but that we couldn't do. |
Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: louis_medcalf
Post Number: 29
Registered: 11-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2014 - 04:22 pm: | |
BTW, manufacturers of both cementitious and gypsum tile backer panels all want minimum 30-mil studs for their products. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 1590
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2014 - 10:33 am: | |
They are more appropriate for mounting of cabinetry and equipment, too. |
4specs.com Home Page