INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
• Talk With Other Members
• Be Notified Of Responses
• Keyword Search
Favorite Forums
• Automated Signatures
• Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

#### Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

# AISC Manual Errata

## AISC Manual Errata

(OP)
This isn't a question - just a rant.

I just downloaded three different errata pdf's from AISC's website.  Took one look at them (I have the first edition) and decided to send them an email asking why there were so many errors in all three printings.

Over 20 pages.  To update these neatly in my manual would take me about 1 to 2 hours - at my billing rate that is the cost of the manual itself.  Does it seem like the number of errors showing up in more recent AISC manuals is higher than in past years?  Some of the errors are just plain stupid things.  Some are incredible (entire pages re-done).

I guess with that many errors they'd recall the whole book - they did that to me with the first printing of the AISC Seismic Manual.  Where is their quality review in all this?

### RE: AISC Manual Errata

Yes, it is frustrating.  It also irritates me that it's so hard to find the errata.  With the old website, I could go right to it.  I couldn't follow a logical path to it this time.  I had to resort to using the search.

### RE: AISC Manual Errata

The increase in errors can be partially attributed to the decrease in code-cycle times.  Just like engineers are having trouble keeping up with the code-changes, the pace of code changes is also difficult to keep up with and be properly vetted in a code committee.

Subsequent to the re-issuance of the seismic manual, everything at AISC seems to have undergone a much more substantial review process (hence the delay of the much discussed stability design guides etc.).

Regarding the liability clause - almost every engineering aid you use has the same or similar wording (take a look at any of your software programs - no liability - the onus is on you).  That being said, I definitely would hope that we could trust the AISC manual itself over other commercial products.

### RE: AISC Manual Errata

Well, I tend to be a bit more forgiving with AISC this time.  The 13th edition manual is a major re-write of the manual.

It's not like it was just a simple update of the last LRFD manual. I think the combination of ASD / LRFD together into one manual was pretty ambitious.... After all, they certainly could have produced a LRFD only manual (with the ASD/LRFD specificatioin).  That would have left ASD users out on a limb, but it would have resulted in a much more polished manual.

I am a bit frustrated that I cannot just download one errata document to use to review / update by 1st printing copy.  But, in the grand scheme of things, that's not that big of a deal....

### RE: AISC Manual Errata

Everyone should take a moment to review the AISC 2010 Spec. becuase they do have a comment review time going on right know.

I have all ready noticed some errors in the draft spec. and I am going to fill out the forms and send it to AISC.

Maybe we can help get the spec right, but this will not help with the manual.

### RE: AISC Manual Errata

I do share the same frustration in the amount of error in the AISC manuals as it is similar with other manuals/codes we use in the practice of structural engineering.

The number of errors in future editions will not decrease if they continue their attempts to make an exact science out of what should be conservatively empirical.

### RE: AISC Manual Errata

(OP)
ash060 - that is just the specification, right?  The errata that got me all flustered was for the whole manual.

I agree that the shorter code cycles would be a legitimate explanation for all these errors.

For a working engineer, I ordered the 13th Edition when the first printing came out.  I did this mainly for the interest I had in it and now, with all these errors I feel like "next time" I'll wait for the later editions.  Usually the building codes come in slower so the new AISC edition isn't usually needed right away.

But that puts AISC's cash flow in a slower rate so would that initiate more errors since they would have less cash for checkers early on if we all waited for the third or fourth printing?  Or would waiting delay the subsequent printings?

### RE: AISC Manual Errata

OK, I looked for them and couldn't find them.  Are these available to members only?

### RE: AISC Manual Errata

JAE

Yes it is for the spec only.  The manual does not get a global review becuase I am guessing that people would not buy it if you could get a pdf of it even though it is just a draft.

### RE: AISC Manual Errata

ash060 -

The review period of the draft specifications (and the on-line posting of the drafts) is really about going through the necessary ANSI procedures so that it can be a directly referenced standard in the IBC.

Since this is only desired for the specification itself, there is no need to do this for the the commentary, the design manual, or similar design aids.

At least, that's my take on the subject....

Josh

### RE: AISC Manual Errata

Never mind that the AISC Search Utility v13 (for properties of structural shapes) has errors that they have not issued errata or updates for...

Specifically, I have noticed that the labels for various properties of MC shapes are mixed up - the data (once you sort out what is wrong) match up with the published values from the printed tables in Section 1 of the Manual.

There may be other errors that I have not noticed...

Jeff

### RE: AISC Manual Errata

Note that the values in the database for single angles Sz and rz are not the values in the book or the errata but something entirely different again....
Richard

#### Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

#### Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Close Box

# Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

• Talk To Other Members
• Notification Of Responses To Questions
• Favorite Forums One Click Access
• Keyword Search Of All Posts, And More...

Register now while it's still free!