INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Remember Me

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.
Jobs from Indeed

Just copy and paste the

# 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary5

Share

## 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just got used to 2005!!!

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

I suppose 250 pages of errata are also available.

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

Bobber1 - now now  - be nice.  (psst - I agree with you)

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

It's rarely the codes that have errata.  They are refined again and again over a long approval process.

It's the design guides and manuals that usually tend to have the typos and mistakes and such.  :)

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

so when is the 14th edition cumming?

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

engotengot-
Rather bizarre type-o

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

2
(OP)

"It has been approved by the AISC Committee on Specifications and is ANSI-accredited and forms the basis for the 14th Edition Steel Construction Manual, which is scheduled to be published in the third quarter of 2011."

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

Ok, I will ask the obvious stupid question.

WHY?

What major breakthroughs in steel design have necessitated another update? FWIW, I rather like the new code other than the Bible-like micro thin pages, I am a bit rough on books and everything else for that matter.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am starting become very skeptical of all of the constant changes and revisions to building codes, ASCE 7, etc. These only seem to make these documents more complicated and more un-user friendly, and make us more prone to making mistakes. I am all for advancing the state of the art and continuing education, and fine tuning our knowledge, and making structures safer. But does all this accomplish an increase in safety and economy at the end of the day?

Sorry, not trying to start tirade. I am sure some will make some valid points as the validity of these seemingly constant changes.

This is what they say on AISC.org:
"The 2010 AISC Specification contains few major revisions and continues to address both LRFD and ASD methods of design," commented Cynthia Duncan, AISC director of engineering. "However, it includes new topics and updated design provisions important to the industry today such as structural integrity, new composite member provisions, revisions to slip-critical connection design provisions, as well as a new chapter on quality control and quality assurance."

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

JAE -

I was being playful, but was speaking seriously. Most of those files in your link are errata with the manuals.... not with the specifications themselves.

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

Yikes...Josh - sorry - my mind didn't differentiate the two...sorry.

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

Won't the Manual and the specifications ever be separated? It seems like bulk of the activity really happen on the specifications side and some major changes do happen on the design tables.

Would it be better that AISC adopts a loose leaf printing that will be easy on the end user, similar to AASHTO? You only swap out pages that changed rather than have to buy a brand new manual every few years.

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

AASHTO does a whole new book every few years too.  It does the loose page updates every year between the whole new books.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

Here we go again.
I have become really discouraged at the state of the recent AISC specifications.As "a2fmk" pointed out, they are becoming less useful and more cumbersome to use.
Even the most simple engineering concept, by the time they are
finished with it, has become hopelessly complicated, opaque and
time consuming to apply ,in order to save a few pounds of steel.
It seems they have dumped everything out on the table, both the
trivial and the important, and saying to the practising engineer you sort it out.
All else being equal, it is more efficient for me now to
design using concrete rather than steel as long as I stay away
It would be a great service to the practising engineers if this forum could add a section consisting of a poll and any relative comments so that we could rate the various codes on clarity, usefullnes, continuity, ease-of-use,etc.
This would provide an organized feedback to the various code committees. Right now, all we are left with is to complain amongst ourselves to no effective outcome or action.

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

I have to disagree with a couple of you.

The AISC code is my favorite of all the material specific codes.  It's fairly short, and the majority of the changes they made in the current revision are for simplification or to provide additional design options (the old options are still available).

Also, what other code is totally free?  If you want a hard copy, just print it out.  The only thing you have to pay for is the design manual (which is hugely usefull, but you don't need it to design per the code).

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

"2010 AISC" just happens to appear in the title to WillisV's thread, otherwise the major problem exists with the whole codes process these days.  The entire code process has become a very expensive, profitable for some, job creating for others, industry unto itself.  It is only tangentially related to the original intent of codes; which was to provide some uniformity in design of infrastructure, assure some degree of health, safety and reliability in that design process, and to pass on significant improvements in our design knowledge and understanding of the various building materials.  And, for goodness sakes, I'm not against real improvements in the process, in our understanding of structures, materials and loadings, and necessary changes when a problem area is found.  I generally agree with SAIL3's and a2mfk's rants, the current code cycling is really not improving the process for most end users or the end products.  And, I also tend to agree with Gumpmaster, for the reasons he cites.  Maybe AISC actually heard the clamor over the last couple revisions and new editions.  The design manual shouldn't have to change every three years either, and maybe the latest printing would actually have some of the errors corrected.  There are plenty of smart engineers out there who are often willing to share improved design aids and spread sheets if only the ink would dry on them before the next code made them obsolete.

Who's driving this train?  Certainly not the users of the codes, their life is made much more complicated, for very little measurable improvement in the end product.  We don't even get real serious finger prints on the code pages before that edition is outdated, the design process is certainly more complex and time consuming, and we've been put in a position where there probably aren't many designs out there, such that if push-comes-to-shove, another party can't find some errors in our work, to make a big deal out of.  After all, 'he didn't follow the code' trumps all.  The code producing organizations, the researchers, the printers, the software producers, all make money off of this, while we go broke buying new editions of codes which make our work much more complex but don't produce a significantly better final design.

A survey on codes might be of some interest here, maybe by country, but I think the real place to attack this issue, is at our city, county, and state building departments and legislatures, and through more local or national professional organizations.  We must do this as a united group of design professionals, by explaining to the powers-that-be that if they don't adopt the next edition of the IBC, for example, building will not start falling down around them.  If they do adopt the new version their structures will likely get more expensive, take longer to produce, and offer no significant improvements over the existing version of the codes.  In discussions with some building officials, they are as disgusted and frustrated with the process and changes as we are.  For the most part, I think they would join our party.

Let the people pushing the new codes and software sit with a million copies of the newest edition, destined for the landfill, because we just don't buy them.  And, maybe because we have convinced our state building officials and legislators that they don't have to adopt the next edition of the IBC, some semblance of engineering judgement and experience will return to our profession.  And, we might even become more efficient at our part of the work, because we will actually have time to learn to use the code we have in hand, and become more productive with it, rather than spending our time learning the new 400 character formula for some new quantity that we can't even find defined in the code.  I believe this is the general level at which to start this fight, because if the newest IBC doesn't sell, even though it refers to the newest AISC, ACI, etc. etc., they will all get the message.

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

Some of the standards and codes I deal with are loose-leaf and updated year-by-year, some are re-issued in bound volumes every few years.  One of the drawbacks to the looseleaf approach is that once you incorporate all the 2011 pages into your code, you no longer have a copy of the 2010 code.  So for codes and standards where you are expected to use the latest edition, it's great.  If somebody expects you to use a specific edition from 10 years ago, it won't work.  And of course, the bound-volume and the loose-leaf groups can't agree with each other on how this should work, either.

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

Seems to me that AISC is a minor offender when it comes to this kind of thing.

At least they're sticking with a five year cycle, not three.

The Spec., design guides, engineering journal, modern steel construction, and a mega-boatload of other technical information is available cheap (or free with membership) and readily downloadable.

They also provide the Solutions Center which generally provides good and free technical support.  Not sure if that sort of service is available from ACI, ICC, or ASCE 7.  The times I've asked questions of those, I've received zilch.  Not even a reply.

Seems to me that the 13th Ed. Spec. and Manual were pretty substantial overhauls of previous ones.  I can't think of what I'd call a major revision in ACI or NDS.  ASCE 7 changed a lot from 93 to 95 IIRC.  Some of those other guys are going every three years also.

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

dhengr is right on along with some others.  Universal acceptance of new codes is not mandatory.  The fact that whether you are on a 3 year or 5 year cycle, you have already decided that there will be a new specification in 30 and 60 years.  In my opinion, there just isn't enough material or design advancements to justify a new specification every few years.   I would suggest it is more likely that we are at the point where we should be tweaking the specs. Every 10 years or so would be more in line, but then again even that would guarantee a new spec in 30 and 60 years.

It a good thing that steel has a longer cycle.  It takes more time to digest the changes.  Like 271828 says, AISC offers easy access to information.  It is clearly necessary.  Ever see the questions being asked in Modern Steel Construction after all this time?  If only the steel spec was as clear as ACI spec.

Like dhengr says, like minded engineers should convince our local officials that older codes need not be abandoned just because the code writing machines cannot be turned off.  I agree that it's time to stop the madness.

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

I'm not sure convincing local code officials to only adopt codes ever third edition or so would help.

This is because in different cities/states/countries, whatever, the local folks will prescribe their choice of a particular issue of a code.  That will most likely be different than other locations who prescribe different editions of the code.

So if I do business in more than one jurisdiction, which I'm sure most engineers do, then I still will have to buy copies of, and learn all about, all the different code editions.

My city adopts the 2006 IBC.  The next city over adopts the 2009.  I have a project in the adjacent state and they are sticking with the 2003 IBC.  Some places take the IBC and re-write it to suit their needs.

So even if my own city only adopts the code every third edition, I still have to know all the others.

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

Adopting every third edition of the new codes would be a significant improvement as far as most practicing engineers and local building officials are concerned.  And, I suspect we wouldn't have a lot more infrastructure falling down around us because of this.  Certainly, we will always be dealing with different codes or variations on them in different locations, we've always been doing that.  But wouldn't it be wonderful if the rate of change slowed down in as many locations as possible, to a rate where we could learn to use the new version proficiently before it became outdated, or before we got bit in the a by some obscure change that we hadn't really noticed.

Isn't it true that your state essentially dictates the adoption of the new code, with some local modifications just to show their independence, and then the cities and counties are more or less obliged to live with this adoption, however well they enforce it?  If a few of the states you are registered and practicing in decided not to adopt the newest edition of the ICB and thus the latest refed. versions of AISC, ACI, etc., that wouldn't be a real big burden on you would it?  There aren't many people who use or have to deal with the codes these days who are happy wit h the rate of change, cost, lost production in relearning, and confusion, for so little improvement in the final product produced; and that includes everyone from engineers and local building inspectors to city, county and state building officials.

The people who make their living producing this junk aren't going to slow down unless we say and do something, they've got a good thing going, at our expense and to our detriment.  Our state legislators and state building commissioner will likely adopt the newest editions, because it must be gooder, it's newer, what do they know, unless we educated them about the true facts of the matter.  And, then this slow down might catch on, and we could get back to doing real productive engineering, instead of spending so much time and money just trying to keep up with code changes and software changes.

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

No one want a new code, unless you're someone who's annoyed with a particular provision of the code, and you know it's going to change, but it can't be changed for another five years, and then you're pissed off that the rate of change is so slow.

I don't know about AISC, but I serve on some of the welding code committees, and everything that's changed in there is because someone found a problem--a case the code writers didn't think of 20 years ago, some unclear language that people keep misinterpreting, a new material that's introduced, whatever.  On a 5-year code cycle, with the door to new changes closed two years before the publication date to allow for multiple levels of balloting and then the whole proofing and publishing process, that means anywhere between 2 and 7 years to see something fixed.  And people bitch about that too.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

### RE: 2010 AISC Specification & Commentary

How did we get into this mess, anyway?
I believe that the root cause lies in the mentality of the engineering community themselves as a whole(me included).
We are who we are and every organization that makes a good living
piggybacking on the work of an engineer knows this.
So how did we end up this way?
The following is a plausible explanation.
Wheather you believe in creation(which I do) or the evolutionary theory, both hold a clue to our curious behavior.

Creation: God blessed the engineer with this awesome gift of being able to bring to bear on a technical problem such logic, talent,insight, perseverance and quest for the truth. In His wisdom, He knows that if this gift was ever let loose in other areas of the profession or society as a whole, total chaos and mayhem would shortly follow.The glue that holds society together, this grey area, this social lubricant that enables man to live with fellow man rests on tolerance, halftruths, nuances, a wink and a nod and taken to it's extreme may be called diplomacy.
Not so with the engineer with his relentess quest for truth and
distain for ambiguity.So God has limited the awesome talent to a very narrow area in society in order to achieve the greatest good for the most people(Pareto principle).
So instead of whinning about the limits of our profession,let us be grateful that God has chosen us to render this great good to
our fellow man.
Result.....acceptance, peace, serenity.

Evolution Theory: Ever since man discovered the first tool, there was an immediate advantage and payback to the inventor/engineer.
This encouraged more of the same behavior. Through many cycles of this discovery/reward down through millenium, nature honed a very powerful and effective tool until you find in the 21st century a class of the human race that is devoted soley to the solving of
technical problems.So far so good, until recently, when machines began to replace man and his function in society. Make no mistake about it, this model holds some dark and cruel truths as many species became extinct when they were of no more use to nature or lacked the ability to change and adjust.So will the computers eventually replace engineers?.As we sense the computer relentlessly closing the gap, those of us who have any experience or expertise in engineering wave these attributes wildly about in the air , looking for some recognition and sense of value and a seat at the table when the dust settles and all of this plays out.Next time you excitedly bring home a brand new computer from
ComputersR'Us with more ram, faster , bigger hd etc.,you may well be,unwittingly, bringing home the seeds of your own demise as an engineer.
Result.....looming change, uncertianty, vulnerability, anxiety, worry, doom and gloom.

The first thing I am going to do when I get off this forum is unplug the computer and ponder long and hard on what I have just stumbled upon.
Now, where the heck did I put that sliderule!!

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!