Lousy AISC manual - errata errata errata 4

[JAE]

Last year I posted a rant on AISC for all the errata that they published for the new 13th edition of the steel manual. (here: thread172-246274
)

I just found on their site that they have continued to update the errata - even changing the different errata-based printings so that now I don't have the original 1st printing errata available because they've mixed the different pdf files up - (i.e. the 2nd printing errata has some of the 1st printing errata in it).

This is confusing and I'm still very concerned that someone out there is going to use wrong data in designing their structure without realizing the manual has to be corrected (the entire Sx values of angles were incorrect in the tables). Some of the errata are corrections of previous errata that were wrong again!!

Has anyone heard anything from AISC about why there were so many errors? I'm still fuming that I had to spend so much time "fixing" my manual.

 

[ToadJones]

This thread has me worried. I have plenty of errata pages print out in a folder right next to the manual, but can someone point me towards a complete errata set or willing to post a complete set?

 

[WillisV]

http://www.aisc.org/content.aspx?id=2896

 

[BadgerPE]

I have started to update my 13th Edition Fourth printing based upon the provided errata on the AISC Website. They state that for Tables 1-16 & 1-17 that "the values for plastic section modulus and radius of gyration have been corrected. The corrected table is provided in the attached pages." The plastic section moduli in the tables in my book are wrong, however, the radii of gyration all appear to be correct. Anyone else see this issue?

 

[JAE]

It is a giant cluster.

Different printings have different corrections included and the errata doesn't appear to always track with any one particular printing.

 

[msquared48]

"It is a giant cluster."

I think you omitted a word JAE...

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[271828]

I agree that there were too many errors, but...

I think you guys are probably underestimating the number of errors that you make. I'm thinking back to about 2002 when I had completed a big concrete building, and had the as-built drawings printed for my record. The CB schedule had lots of clouds. Rebar detailer calls and says a hook won't fit, suspects a typo and was right, did I really mean to have a straight bar where a hook should be, etc. My percentage of correct entries was really high, but out of 25 sheets of CBs, I bet there were at least 50 mistakes. Nothing huge or dangerous IIRC, but they were mistakes.

I bet if you guys had someone tally up the number of errors you make in a large job, or sifted through your calculations, it might be eye-opening.

The % of correct stuff in the 13th Ed. Manual is extremely high, but nobody computes that! Also, from the tone of this thread, I suspect that if the errors were divided by ten, there would still be complaints, but that's my speculation only. I realize some of this is probably fed by frustration over frequent code and spec editions, but AISC is a minor offender in this regard IMO, compared to others.

And no, I'm not an AISC employee.