new aisc manual
new aisc manual
(OP)
I just saw an ad in Structural Engineer Magazine for the new combined steel manual. The cost is $175 for AISC members, and $350 for non-members. YIKES, that's pricey. Way back in '94 I picked up my green book for about $60 at my college book store. Do I wait for a revised edition that addresses typos or risk the first printing? My state is still with the 2000 IBC, and next year will be going to the 2003IBC, so legally, I guess I can still use the '89 ASD. I would rather get up to speed with the new spec however, but it is expensive! The steel manual is one of the books that I like to personally own because I customize it, and if I change jobs I need my steel book with me.





RE: new aisc manual
http://www
RE: new aisc manual
I recommend you to ask your employer to get a copy of the new AISC manual. Make copies as needed to put your own notes/highlights. Once the model code adopts the AISC, you can purchase your own copy and gradually transfer the old notes on your own manual.
If you own your own company, I don't think $350 should be a big burden... Just my few cents...
RE: new aisc manual
I have downloaded the new spec, and it is basically the LRFD spec, except that instead of multiplying the nominal strength by the resistance factor you are allowed to divide by the FOS. I just have a case of sticker shock for the cost of the manual.
RE: new aisc manual
(see this link for the inflation calculator: Inflation Calculator)
So $175 is definitely an increase - but it contains both ASD and LRFD, so if you multiply it by 2 - you get 2 x $76 = $152 which is comparable.
RE: new aisc manual
RE: new aisc manual
how many of you will use the ASD equations in the new manual instead of using the ninth edition equations? will you change to LRFD since the new manual equations are pretty much the same between LRFD and ASD for determining nominal strengths?
RE: new aisc manual
RE: new aisc manual
RE: new aisc manual
I am going to go off on a tangent now.
I wonder, what have we really achieved with the ever increasing complexity of our codes? Does having overly complicated codes that are difficult to interpret really increase the reliability and safety of structures? Instead of all of the cutting edge computations, would it be better if we could spend more time on our drawings so that they are adequately and correctly detailed? I regularly burn the midnight oil to make this happen, but I see lots of drawings by others that are very poor. Maybe if structural engineers had more time to spend on the drawings the reliability and safety of structures could also be increased. I know that my schedules and budgets have not been increasing to match the ever increasing complexity of the various codes and design standards. I'm not against progress or advancing the state of knowledge, but I think we need a reality check.
RE: new aisc manual
RE: new aisc manual
AMEN brothers!!!
regards,
chichuck
RE: new aisc manual
I'd like to chime in with a few points/questions.
With increasing utilization of cutting edge design methodolgy, thereby pushing the envelope further, QA/QC for the structure under construction has to be taken into account in order to safeguard structural integrity.
You touched on the importance of focusing on preparation of drawingss; does AISC have a recommended standard practice for structural steel drawings?
RE: new aisc manual
RE: new aisc manual
Agreed means and methods is not the responsibility of the PE but QA is another matter. On many projects QA input from the RDP is now required by the IBC. It is even required on some bldgs which are occupancy classification R-3.
Essentially QA in the IBC is three-tier: building inspections Sec 109, special inspections Sec 1704, and structural observations (RAs and PEs)sec 1709.
For the RDP QA means having input in special inspections (preparation of SI program, responding to field discrepanices based on SI report etc) and performing structural observations.
Check IBC Sections 106.3.4, paragraph 3, 1704.1.1, and 1709 for responsibilities of the RDP. Another document which delves into this is ICC's Model program for Special Inspection Section II.D Duties and Responsibilities of the Design Professional in Responsible Charge.
Increasing sophistication in structural analysis and design allows for reduction in redundancies but does that not increase failure(serviceability etc) risk when consideration of the poor quality of construction you allude to is taken into account? And if that is the case does it not follow that observation of construction by the RDP will help mitigate the risk?
The assumption that a contractor will be able to fabricate a complex connection without an expert periodically verifying it is done in accordance with drawings can be risky...don't you think so?
It will not be too long when QA will be viewed as part of normal standard of care for the structural engineer and attorneys are aware of this.
RE: new aisc manual
RE: new aisc manual
DRC1 has a point that sometimes drawings are incomplete. that gets back to the comment about not being allowed enough time to do a proper job. this has happened to me too often, the drawings sent out to bid are the 2nd, 3rd or even 4th design produced by the design team because of changes by the owner. typically, the owner changes their mind dramatically without giving additional design time to accommodate the changes. Their time is money, but apparently our time is not. then the design team gets hung for change orders, too many rfi's and sometimes gets claims filed against them for a poor design job. a good architect will demand adequate time for accommodating changes, but those kinds of architects are too few.
RE: new aisc manual
I think that sometimes we are our own worst enemies, because many times we don't stand up to this. Unfortunatley, if you do, the architect or owner will get mad, and there is probably another structural firm out there who will go along to get along, and who won't sweat the details, thereby keeping the design cost low.