Facade rationalization proceeding on geometric and cost criteria alone, without structural engineering input on attachment point feasibility, can require significant revision once structural review later identifies conflicts.
Why Rationalization Decisions Carry Structural Implications
Decisions made during facade rationalization — panel size, attachment point locations, panel type variety — are not purely geometric or cost optimization choices. Each attachment point decision has structural implications: whether the structural system can actually accommodate the proposed connection at that specific location and load.
Where Rationalization Without Structural Input Creates Risk
A rationalization process optimizing primarily for geometric efficiency and fabrication cost, without structural engineering review of attachment feasibility, can produce a scheme that appears optimal on those criteria while creating attachment point conditions the structural system cannot actually support cleanly.
Why Late-Stage Structural Rejection Is Costly
A panelization scheme rationalized without structural input, later rejected or requiring revision once structural review occurs, forces rework at a point in the process later than if structural feasibility had been considered from the outset alongside geometric and cost optimization.
Coordinating With Structural Review at the Appropriate Stage
After identifying why attachment point decisions need structural input during rationalization rather than after, DASH’s facade rationalization process is built to coordinate with structural review at the appropriate stage, integrating attachment feasibility into the rationalization decision rather than treating it as a separate later check.
Consult with DASH’s team about structurally-informed facade rationalization.