Advocates Writing Code
Advocates Writing Code
(OP)
I've been thinking about something in the last couple days. Is there a ethical issue with advocates for certain materials writing the codes for that material?
I'm a structural engineer. Every day I use ACI 318, AISC 360 among many, many others to do my designs. These are the codes required to be used by law through references to the International Building Code. Yet, who authors and sponsors these codes? ACI, the American Concrete Institute, an organization of manufacturers and suppliers and AISC, the American Institute of Steel Construction, which is an advocate for use of steel.
As part of writing building codes these organizations have an interest in making sure their structures are safe. After all, it's very bad publicity to have a concrete or steel building fall down. But are there ever decisions made more to use more of that material rather than for the public's best interest? I absolutely have no evidence of that, just wondering.
And the other question is, is there anyone better to write codes? After all, who else has resources to form a committee, corral all the participants in a common direction, print and distribute (at a cost of a couple hundred dollars :) ) said codes?
I don't where I'm going on this, but I thought it would be an interesting discussion.
I'm a structural engineer. Every day I use ACI 318, AISC 360 among many, many others to do my designs. These are the codes required to be used by law through references to the International Building Code. Yet, who authors and sponsors these codes? ACI, the American Concrete Institute, an organization of manufacturers and suppliers and AISC, the American Institute of Steel Construction, which is an advocate for use of steel.
As part of writing building codes these organizations have an interest in making sure their structures are safe. After all, it's very bad publicity to have a concrete or steel building fall down. But are there ever decisions made more to use more of that material rather than for the public's best interest? I absolutely have no evidence of that, just wondering.
And the other question is, is there anyone better to write codes? After all, who else has resources to form a committee, corral all the participants in a common direction, print and distribute (at a cost of a couple hundred dollars :) ) said codes?
I don't where I'm going on this, but I thought it would be an interesting discussion.





RE: Advocates Writing Code
In other countries (outside the USA) their building codes (sorry, USA, the International Building Code is not used in every country
Whilst some of the individuals code committee members may be employed by trade/materials organizations/associations, there is less perceived bias as the committee membership-makeup is usually broad (academia, industry, etc), and the organization is government-based.
This system has worked well for Commonwealth countries, but I doubt it would ever work in the USA. Damn, you cannot even adopt the metric system
RE: Advocates Writing Code
Suppliers lobby to sell their products. Contractors lobby for fewer requirements. Engineers lobby for perfection. None of them get their way completely, which is probably a good thing. The difficulty comes when the membership of any of the respective groups is skewed in number that circumvents the checks and balances of the committee.
RE: Advocates Writing Code
In 1932, AISC had an allowable basic working stress of 18 ksi for structural steel.
In 1936, AISC raised the allowable value to 20 ksi.
In 1942 (World War II), AISC's value went to 24 ksi.
In 1946 (peacetime), back to 20 ksi.
The entire time, 1932 through 1946, minimum yield point was constant at 33 ksi.
One way to arrive at a reasonable compromise is to intelligently employ the "Wisdom of the Crowd". See This Link
In fact, there is a fairly recent book on the this subject (See This Different Link) where the author states his criteria for a successful decision:
The process that Ron described sounds similar to this criteria.
www.SlideRuleEra.net
www.VacuumTubeEra.net
RE: Advocates Writing Code
RE: Advocates Writing Code
RE: Advocates Writing Code
RE: Advocates Writing Code
RE: Advocates Writing Code
RE: Advocates Writing Code
That process/procedure is very explicit in ensuring that advocacy is tempered; broad pan-industry representation is required; and public input is sought, among other things. ACI and AISC are ANSI-Accredited Standards Developers (among >150 organizations). So, provided that the ANSI-accredited procedures are being followed, then I believe that your concern about advocacy is relatively unfounded.
(I am a member of the ASME Board on Pressure Technology Codes and Standards. The primary responsibility of this Board is to ensure that the ANSI-accredited procedures are being followed and that the standards committees have appropriate balance-of-interest to ensure that no advocacy occurs. Although the standards committees operate on consensus, as opposed to unanimity, part of the ANSI-accredited procedures calls for ALL technical concerns to be addressed. If you're really concerned about something, specifically, then I would highly recommend getting involved in whichever standards-setting group fits your fancy. I expect that either your advocacy concerns would be eliminated, or if you do observe advocacy, then you would be compelled to get involved to stop it.)
RE: Advocates Writing Code
Bold emphasis added by me.
RE: Advocates Writing Code
Robert Hale, PE
RE: Advocates Writing Code
What if the effect was opposite, the push was to make steel more cost effective by reducing the weight of the structures making steel projects more advantageous and selling more steel. It wouldn't take long for developers to pickup on this and push construction to the less expensive material. Would you be worried then?
RE: Advocates Writing Code
RE: Advocates Writing Code
I do know that is some predominantly steel dominated areas concrete is now making a big push and actually becoming more cost advantageous and the steel guys are aware of this.... and 4-5 story wood buildings are going like gang busters.
RE: Advocates Writing Code
This works both ways. You can design completely to codes and standards and if the building is NOT fit for purpose due to an error in the codes or a badly written code then the engineer is still liable since they signed off on the design and cannot blame the codes for a poor design. This occasionally comes up with framed buildings being braced in accordance with codes but still being too flexible so that the occupants cannot sleep during winds and this would not be fit for purpose even though it complies with all the codes and the designer would still be liable.
The problem is that the majority of engineers and builders don't realise this and think that the codes and standards are written with the finger of god. The difficulty then comes down to defending your decision to ignore particular aspects of a code and not backing down. A good engineer knows all codes and designs perfectly by them but a GREAT engineer knows when to ignore codes and design from first principles!!
RE: Advocates Writing Code
That said, the majority of committee members are either self-employed consultants or are sponsored by the company they represent, so commercial interests will always be at play. Ultimately, it relies on the ethics of the individuals to maintain their integrity and vote with the interest of public safety in their decisions. In my experiences, it works most of the time, but not all of the time.
Even then, there is a fine line to walk. When a Code transitions from a point of being a defense tool against mistakes, and instead becomes overly conservative in trying to mitigate them completely, the inability to implement such Codes drives them into obsolescence.
RE: Advocates Writing Code
You raise an interesting point. It think this process is actually in effect with the increasing complexity of the steel code to ever refine (read: lighten) steel structure design. I will also concede that academia is a significant contributor to this as well but lots of the funding comes from industry. Though you do eventually bump into the serviceability requirements. I have to hope in the back of my mind that even the most unscrupulous of vendors/suppliers/manufacturers/etc realize that if they economize to the point of collapse it will be the death knell for their material. I realize I am probably a little polyannaish.
Robert Hale, PE