Estimators defaulting to a single core type across all projects often lack a systematic framework to match core selection to building classification and local fire code requirements.
Why a One-Size-Fits-All Core Choice Costs Money in Two Directions
Defaulting to a single core material type across every project — regardless of that specific building’s height and occupancy classification — creates cost inefficiency in two opposite directions: over-specifying a more expensive core where a lighter option would satisfy code, or under-specifying where the building’s actual classification requires a more robust core than what was chosen.
Where This Default Approach Falls Short
Without a systematic framework connecting building classification to required core type, estimators may rely on habit or general assumption when specifying core material, rather than a deliberate evaluation of what the project’s specific height and occupancy classification actually requires under applicable fire code.
Why Getting This Wrong in Either Direction Carries Real Cost
Over-specifying wastes money on a core more expensive than necessary; under-specifying creates compliance and liability risk. Neither outcome is desirable, and both stem from the same underlying gap: the absence of a systematic decision framework connecting project classification to correct core selection.
Recommending the Correct Core Type Based on Project Parameters
After mapping core material selection to building height, occupancy classification, and fire code requirements, the fix is a systematic framework that connects these project parameters directly to the correct core recommendation. Clad Cut V2’s core compliance module recommends the correct core type based on project parameters, removing the guesswork that leads to over- or under-specification in either direction.
Validate your core selection — Audit Clad Cut V2’s core recommendation logic.