What a Recommendation Looks Like
An appropriate connection recommendation in an RFI reads: 'Based on the reactions shown in the column schedule and consistent with AISC Design Guide 9 Table 9-1, we propose a 3/8" shear tab with 4 — 7/8" A325 bolts at 3" spacing. Capacity: shear = 82 kips (tabulated). Design loads: 68 kips. Proposed connection appears adequate for the tabulated loads shown. Please confirm.' This is a recommendation, not an engineering calculation, and should be stated as such.
What the Detailer Cannot Do
A detailer cannot sign and seal a connection recommendation as an engineering document; cannot confirm that a proposed connection complies with seismic prequalification requirements without PE involvement; and cannot determine whether the tabulated loads shown are the actual factored loads without engineering input. These steps require a licensed PE. The detailer's recommendation is an input to the engineer's decision — not a replacement for it.
The Value of Recommendations in RFIs
Even though recommendations require engineering confirmation, they are valuable because they move the EOR toward a decision rather than forcing them to start from scratch. Engineers who receive detailed proposed solutions with cited code references and capacity summaries can respond in minutes. Engineers who receive open-ended questions about connection design may take days. Detailers who invest in quality proposed solutions get faster responses, better project relationships, and more repeat work.
Standard Reference Sources for Connection Recommendations
An experienced detailer recommending a standard connection will draw on well-established AISC resources that engineers recognize and accept. Using these references in an RFI signals professional competence and provides the EOR with a specific basis to confirm or modify rather than a vague suggestion to evaluate.
- AISC Design Guide 9 (Second Edition) — shear connections: single-plate shear connections, seated connections, extended single-plate
- AISC Design Guide 10 — restrained beam connections including bolted and welded options
- AISC Design Guide 26 — floor vibration design (for beam connection stiffness considerations)
- AISC Seismic Design Manual — connection types and capacity tables for AISC 341-compliant SFRS elements
- AISC 360-22 Tables J3.2 and J3.4 — bolt capacity and minimum edge distance reference values
When the Recommendation Involves a Non-Standard Connection
Non-standard connections — those not covered by AISC tabulated values or prequalified seismic types — require engineering calculation, not just a recommendation. A detailer who proposes a non-standard gusset plate configuration should state explicitly: 'This configuration is non-standard and requires connection engineering. We have identified a geometric approach that may satisfy the required loads — connection design and PE stamping are required before we can proceed.' This language communicates that the detailer has done the constructability work while keeping the engineering responsibility properly allocated.
Building Recommendation Quality Over Time
The quality of connection recommendations in RFIs improves with experience — specifically, with repeated exposure to how different EORs respond to different recommendation styles. Detailers who track EOR responses to their proposed solutions — noting which were accepted, which were modified, and which were rejected with what reasoning — accumulate a feedback loop that improves future recommendations. Tectonix project managers conduct a post-project review of RFI response patterns on every engagement, building institutional knowledge about which connection types and reference approaches produce fastest EOR acceptance on each project type.
The Liability Firewall: Language That Protects Both Parties
The most important professional practice when recommending connections is maintaining explicit, documented separation between the recommendation and engineering acceptance. Every RFI that includes a connection recommendation should contain language equivalent to: 'This proposed connection is offered for engineering review and is not intended as a final design. The detailer does not accept engineering responsibility for the adequacy of this connection. EOR confirmation or modification is required before this connection is incorporated into the shop drawings.' This language is not defensive hedging — it is the correct description of what a recommendation is and what it is not. EORs and fabricators who understand this distinction will not ask detailers to "just confirm" a connection — because confirmation is an engineering act that requires a PE.