×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*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.

Students Click Here

Jobs

can i still use ASD 9th edition
7

can i still use ASD 9th edition

can i still use ASD 9th edition

(OP)
this is what i've been using ever since. i wonder if it's mandatory to use 13th edition.

thanks,

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

Only if the code you are working under requires or allows it.  Outdated codes/guides frequently do not comply with current requirements and do not represent the required standard of care.  The codes are not changed arbitrarily (well sometimes), so there should be improvements from one revision to the next.

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

The 13th Ed has applied 20 years of research and development to the antiquated 9th Ed.  Although codes are slow to adopt the AISC edition changes, professional engineers should be using the most current information available.  

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

3
You should in a technical sense, but in a legal sense you should use the ADOPTED building code in the applicable jurisdiction, and use the version of AISC that is referenced in that code.

You could certainly make a case that the 13th edition is "better" in terms of accuracy, conservatism, etc., but the local building official may just say to you - tough, we haven't adopted that version yet and you are legally obligated to use the older version.

 

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

(OP)
so what does the latest IBC say that i should use?

based on IBC 2006.

1604.3.3 Steel. The deflection of steel structural members
shall not exceed that permitted by AISC 360, AISI-NAS,
AISI-General, AISI-Truss, ASCE 3, ASCE 8, SJI JG-1.1,
SJI K-1.1 or SJI LH/DLH-1.1, as applicable.

i dont see anything about manual of steel construction

thanks,

 

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

You need to go to Chapter 22 to find the code of record for steel design.
Chapter 16 defines loads, load combinations and deflections.

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

(OP)


i checked IBC 2003.. was it wrong to use ASD 9th edition at the time because IBC said use AISC-LRFD?

thanks,


SECTION 2205
STRUCTURAL STEEL
2205.1 General. The design, fabrication and erection of structural
steel for buildings and structures shall be in accordance
with either the AISC-LRFD, AISC 335 or AISC-HSS. Where
required, the seismic design of steel structures shall be in accordance
with the additional provisions of Section 2205.2.

 

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

(OP)
i did some research AISC 335 is ASD 9th edition..
so IBC 2003 allowed ASD 9th edition, but IBC 2006 doesnt..

dayuuummmm all the excels i have are based on ASD 9th edition..

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

If an engineer is truly familiar with the changes and updates included in the latest publication, how can they ethically choose to apply antiquated information which may be less conservative or incorrect.   In some countries the antiquated codes become illegal for use.   Simply the IBC cannot keep up with the trade codes which are updated between publications.  It is the specific design professional's responsibility to stay current.   

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

To answer your question, using 9th Edition AISC was legal until the 2006 IBC is adopted by the governing building authority. If 2003 IBC (or earlier IBC, or UBC, etc.) is still in force, 9th Edition is fine.
As far as if it's ethical, I'll leave that argument to others.

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

Does anyone have any specific examples of things that could be designed per the 9th edition and simultaneously be underdesigned per the 13th edition?

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

JAE is right. Check Chapter 35 of the building code for the edition of the AISC document you want to use. If you want to use something else, contact the building official/AHJ for permission and get the response in writing.

 

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

(OP)
Texas is still using IBC 2003

does this mean i can still use ASD 9th edition?

or should i start being familiar with 13th edition regardless of IBC?

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

Cities or counties in Texas frequently adopt codes if they have jurisdiction.  

You can use the 9th if you don't mind designing something which does not meet the current state of the art.  Can you defend your design without saying, "well, back in the day, this was the way we did it", or "yes, I knew there was a newer code, but I used the old one because it was more convenient"?

I have never had a jurisdiction say "no" to using the latest standard.  Also, structures designed to the latest will typically provide the same or increased strength as those designed using prior editions.

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

TXStructural
I agreed completely.  There are advantages and disadvantages with using the 13th Ed, and you can't pick and choose.  The most current specificaton should be used.  

If a failure occurs, it won't matter if it is related to a specification change.  How will the jury understand that you based your design on a outdated manual.  

The 14th Edition is complete and coming in a few months.  Many building codes have not the 13th Ed.  But the 14th edition changes are relevant and significant in many cases.   

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

What ever happened to the 10th, 11th and 12th editions? Is this like versions of windows where the intermediate ones are crap and then a good one finally comes along so everyone starts using it?

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

10th-12th were LRFD only.  A lot of engineers that had been practicing for a while with ASD were very reluctant to the change.  13th has LRFD and ASD combined, so the ASD approach can be used with a current code.  No reason to stick with the Green 9th Ed manual at this point.

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

connectegr - I guess we just have to disagree on this one.

Using the most current specification isn't always more conservative.  Some of the provisions in the newer codes are LESS conservative.  Code writers for years have been trying to get more "exact" with the limit states and this results in more complicated codes as well.

Some jurisdictions, California for example, didn't like some new seismic provisions that the ICBO adopted into their model code UBC 97.  That was because they didn't agree with the provisions and some of the "updated" features used in the code.  So in that case, using the newer code was definitely not aggreeable to the officials.

Again, you can use the more updated code if you like, but legally you must use the adopted code in your particular jusidiction.

henri2 - thanks for the reference - I should have pointed out Chapter 35 of the IBC.

 

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

9th - ASD Only
10th - 1st Ed LRFD Only
11th - 2nd Ed LRFD Only
12th - 3rd Ed LRFD Only

13th - Combined ASD and LRFD

The primary issue, is significant changes in the Specification for Structural Steel Buildings.  1989, 1993, 1999, 2005  And errata published for each specification.  From 1993-2005 no errata was published for the 1989 ASD Manual unless the change was considered a safety issue.  

Some examples...
In 1993, introduction of Block Shear
In 1999, the loading requirements where referred to ASCE 7.  
In 2005, Chapter K provides information for HSS walls.
etc....
    

JAE,
I agree that in some cases the current spec is less conservative.  But, I believe that the current specification should apply regardless of economy.  Luckily there are some good changes that result.  If a building code, chooses to disagree with specific changes in a product specification, the exclusions should be specific and provide clear explanations.    

Good or bad, our company's position is that the most current specification should apply exclusively.  We are actively involved in the development of the Specification and Manual for Steel Construction.  Involvement in this process, review of the research, and the committee discussions that result in improvements or changes, excludes our company from an "ignorance is bliss" defense.  We have already began updating our programs to meet the changes in the 2010 Spec and 14th Edition Manual.  

Perhaps the building codes should adopt wording that acknowledges that specifications change and provide a grace period for implementation of the changes.        

 

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

(OP)
AISC is issuing again 14th edition in a few months?? dayummmm

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

connectegr,

Using the current code/spec is certainly a choice each of us should consider.  Just keep in mind that the IBC, AISC spec, etc. are in-and-of-themselves just documents that have ZERO legal bearing on anything.  They must be adopted into law to be in effect.

If I design to the current spec, and something goes wrong (be it my fault or otherwise) I need to be able to withstand an attorney's challenge:  "Did your design meet all aspects of the adopted, legally standing code?".

If I use the newer code, I can say that my design was based on more current research, knowledge, etc., but I'd still have to say NO to the question.  That can hurt in a jury's eyes.

I would suggest that if you decide to design to the lastest versions, you make damn sure you know where it is conservative and where it is unconservative (relative to the adopted code) and adjust your designs such that they at least meet both codes.

 

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

The new code is a good code.  AISC FINALLY GOT IT RIGHT.  Time to make the switch.  

Designing with the 9th shouldn't cause any problems--I agree with Jae's comment's, (remember the supplement got rid of the stress increase):
1)  Look at the new lateral buckling equations, the new code is far less conservative here.
2)  The LRFD "factors" are calibrated so they match the old ASD.  

My only gripe about the new code is that I wish they wouldn't list both allowable and phi-nominal values.  It's cluttered and is like reading documents with two languages on the same page.  I wish they'd just list only the nominal values in the tables and figures, and without the phi reduction, it would be so much easier to read, would work for both ASD and LRFD, and adaptable to specific instances where different safety factors are applicable, like in construction engineering.  Otherwise, I really like the new unified spec's.  Great job AISC.  Now if AISC could just help the AASHTO bridge people get a clue!

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

Quote (JAE):

I would suggest that if you decide to design to the lastest versions, you make damn sure you know where it is conservative and where it is unconservative (relative to the adopted code) and adjust your designs such that they at least meet both codes.

This is what I would say. You can't ignore the legal code simply because there is one that is more state of the art.  If you insist on using the latest one, you still need to make sure the legal one is also satisfied.

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

2
I agree with JAE and Nutte that you should satisfy the current governing code, but you shouldn't need three different editions of all other standards/specs. to comply.  For years, we've used new research and thinking when it would benefit out designs.  We did this by following the current technical literature and research activities.  This fell under the phrases 'by other rational engineering methods and, not intended to preclude other ration methods founded on sound engineering principles and judgement,' which are included in most of the basic codes.  Of course, we had to be able to justify and defend our designs, that hasn't changed, that's our job.  How much better that?, than the situation we are in now, where the codes have gotten so complex that the formulas bear little resemblance to common knowledge of the way structures actually act and work, and practicing engineers spend most of their time struggling to understand if that formula or this one applies in this particular cook book recipe, without knowing if they are baking cookies or a pot roast.

I think we are debating the wrong point here.  We, as the primary users of these codes, should say 'enough is enough,' take this edition and shove-it; you haven't really improved the process, you've just made it more complex, made the code fatter and changed the color of the cover and some of the terminology, and cost me a bunch of time and money, without improving my life, or the public's safety.  And, I've talked to a number of building officials who feel this way too, they can't keep up with the pace of the changes either.  We're tasked with interpreting the codes correctly and then using them to design and build safe structures; they're only tasked with interpreting the code and arguing with us when the two interpretations don't agree, and they can no longer keep up either.  We should both be talking with the powers-that-be to slow the process down so that we can catch up.  This will take a concerted effort because there is big money in publishing.  But, let the publishers sit with the next edition or two, until they come up with real improvements to the codes, rather than just more complexity.  Hell, we spend more time now manipulating load combinations and different load factors than it used to take to do a simple design, and there isn't much indication that we are producing better structures, just much more complicated ones.

As I see it, the problem with all of the building codes these days that their production and the republication of new versions has become a very costly new cottage industry unto itself, which has diverged from its original purpose.  The original/primary intent of the codes/specs. whatever the particular building material, should be to add some knowledge based uniformity and assistance in designing and building a safe, practical, reasonably economical structure which is safe to use for its intended purpose.  The code's primary purpose should not just be make-work and profit for the researchers and printers.  The release of codes should be better synchronized and the time between releases extended sufficiently so there is some hope that practitioners might learn to use them and understand them before discarding them.  Real safety issues, when discovered, should be handled by addendums and publications in the technical journals, etc.  Errata should be issued periodically as they are found.  But, otherwise let us use the same code book long enough to get to know it.
 

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

dhengr, you're preaching to the choir.  If you look through this forum, you'll see the same arguments applied to Appendix D in ACI 318.  And the response is always the same: "We have better information and research, why shouldn't the code reflect this better knowledge?" And it's tough to argue, "Use older(inferior) information, it always worked before." It's the eternal struggle between the practicing engineers and the research types. And until there's a failure, who's to say whose more right? But that's pretty drastic.
I've got caught in this chinese puzzle before and I don't want to again.

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

My thoughts exactly, Jed.  I'm part of the choir.  The thing is, I have never heard of a failure of a structural steel member, connection, or structure as a whole which had been designed and constructed in strict accordance with ANY recognized code.  Failures are always due to poor detailing or misunderstanding, and unnecessarily complicated code provisions only increase opportunities for that to happen.

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

The only problem with the 13th Edition is the incredibly thin paper they used.

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

Bobber1,

They use the thin paper because they want the AISC manual to be looked upon as biblical.

 

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

I like the 2005 code for the following reasons:


-It is easy to use. It is basically "six of one, half dozen of the other" as far as member design when compared to the Green book.
-It is black and looks cool
-I like the green and blue tables.
-the design examples on the CD cover almost every basic practical situation you might run into. Printed and bound it makes a great reference.

I don't like it because they took the stability chapter C from a few nice pages to many many pages when several different approaches and then threw in an appendix for the DAM.

I hope like hell they cleaned up this mess in the 14th.
Anyone know how they did Chapter C in the new one?  

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

Quote:

They use the thin paper because they want the AISC manual to be looked upon as biblical.

They should go back to gold-leaf like in some of the old Carnegie Steel Pocket Companions (I'm not sure if this was typical for any other similar publications, but I know the 1934 version I found in a used bookstore has it).  

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

dhengr,

Here, here! Amen! In my industry, simple beats complicated any day.  I get angry when others accuse some of us of being behind the times.  Contrary to what some have said in this string, the latest code does not need to be used.  The differences are minimal.  For IBC2003 where applicable, 9th edition is acceptable.  Can you immagine that? A 14 year code (at the time) was still acceptable?

And why is this???  There is a reason that we have this discussion every so often.  Not everyone has a need to save "up to 5%" of steel cost that the latest code promises.  Designing buildings to the lowest possible weight is not always necessary.  A simpler code can co-exist with 13th.  And let's make this perfectly clear.  It was never an LRFD issue?  We use this in concrete.  It was always complexity.  

This discussion would end if the code would add lines such as "in lieu of the last 2 paragraphs and 3 formulas , the following one formula may be used".  I'll buy that code.

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

Heck!  I still use the 8th for what I do.  What's all the fuss about?

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto:  KISS
Motivation:  Don't ask

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

The point of newer codes is not to use less material, it is to recognize and restrain the use of new methods and technologies.  Codes do not lead the industry, they are written by the industry to keep up with the engineers.

I preach against design using less material, slimmer sections, and stronger materials in the name of "savings", when doing so does not make engineering sense.

Engineering is not entirely about math, which seems to have gotten lost in the rush to exact solutions and precise computation or theoretical values.

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

To the issue of relative conservatism of new codes vs. older codes:  I believe ACI 350-06 is significantly less conservative (at least for rectangular tank wall design) than the old 350-01.  And 350-01 was easier to understand.  For what that's worth...

Codes get thicker (but not necessarily safer), engineers get the same or smaller design budgets, lawyers flourish.  What's with that?

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

"Engineering is not entirely about math, which seems to have gotten lost in the rush to exact solutions and precise computation or theoretical values."  This is so true.

About 10 years ago when AASHTO LRFD was coming into general use I attened a seminar and one of the speakers stated under the new code bridge design will be very tedious, if not impossible, to do by hand because of all the new checks that were introduced. He added that since computers are common place it doesn't matter anymore.

RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition

I personally like the new dual code, though a bit clumsy at first it is nice to have both methods in one source. But my feeling with many new codes and specs is often why? What is the bottom line? I understand more economical design. And I understand if we were doing something wrong and research or a failure showed us the light, but why the constant tinkering?

I don't remember all the steel frame building problems we were having here in the US. Not sure what codes all of NYC were built according to, but they seemed to have had it right almost a century ago. Not like after every new code we are tearing down old steel buildings. Yep, I know, they were all overdesigned, but they are still around too.

I digress, and will just use the new code. So far I like it, its slimmed down, seems similar enough to both previous versions, and life is too short to argue about change sometimes.... Its inevitable, even when it seems unnecessacry :)

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.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources