Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: AISC Code of Standard Practice 2000

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I recommend that everybody read the new version of the AISC Code of
Standard Practice.

It is my observation that most engineers reference it without exception yet
there are many provisions that come back to haunt you if you are not
careful.

>>>That's an interesting take on the totally benevolent intent of Code
Section
1.8.2. I'll put your comments in front of the Code Committee. Personally, I
think they'll be shocked that you delete the very protection they intended
for you as the EOR. Especially since the provision is under a section that
is limited to the scope of it's title: means, methods and safety of
erection.

Again, thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming.

Charlie<<<

Jason is not the only one to read this paragraph this way.

I believe that much potential harm is done by the authors of the Code of
Standard Practice attempting to address legal issues that are typically
addressed in the General Conditions.  There is a strong likelyhood that by
addressing these issues in the Code of Standard Practice there will be
inconsistencies in approach which  could result in a situation where the
courts would interpret it differently than intended by the Owner and
Architect.  It is for reasons like this that the Constrection
Specifications Institute has recommended in their Manual of Standard
Practice that the AISC Code of Standard Practice not be referenced in
project specifications.

Much of the Code of Standard Practice deals with the scope of work of the
Fabricator and Errector.  This typically creates a conflict since it is the
intent of most General Conditions that the Contract Documents do not 
"..control the Contractor in dividing the Work among Subcontractors or in
extablishing the extent of Work to be performed by any trade" (AIA
A201-1997).  I would suggest that issues related to scope of work of the
Fabricator and Errector should be negotiated between the Subcontractors and
the General Contractor and should not be included in a document intended to
be referenced in the Project Specifications.

I strongly recommend that all members of the AISC Code Committee read the
model general conditions. 

Mark Gilligan




++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Some more feedback on new publications...

Section 1.8.2 of the 2000 AISC Code of Standard Practice states that "The
Structural Engineer of Record shall be responsible for the structural
adequacy of the structure in the completed project".

While I understand that the intent of this statement is to differentiate
the responsibilities of the erector in building the project from the EOR in
designing the structure, it is poorly worded and creates unacceptable
liability exposure for the EOR. Many factors that affect the structural
adequacy of the completed project are beyond the engineer's control. These
factors include material properties, construction quality, inspection and
testing, and field changes to the design.

The EOR cannot accept responsibility for all aspects of the structural
adequacy of the completed structure, only the design as shown in the
contract documents.  Although most EORs will delete this clause in the
contract documents and include appropriate CYA statements, I am surprised
that the structural engineers (and their insurance companies) on the
committee let this one slip by.