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

Re: AISC Code of Standard Practice 2000

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

	I have been following the discussion on the above topic with some
interest.  It seems to me that all engineers affected by this problem
may not be able to wait for a negotiated settlement with AISC,
therefore, some interim solution is required.  Furthermore, some other
organizations may also have similar undesirable clauses in their
publications.  Let me suggest a clause in the contract documents which
may help.

	Most contracts have sections such as "General Conditions", "Special
Conditions", "Technical Conditions", "Drawings", Specifications, etc. 
They also have clauses dealing with discrepancies such as "In the event
of a discrepancy between the drawings and the specifications, --------
shall govern".  What may help in the present situation is a clause such

"Published specifications, Standards and  Other Documents sited as
references in the Technical Conditions Section, the Specifications, the
Drawings or elsewhere if applicable, are intended to establish a
standard of performance for the Work and are not intended to define the
scope of work nor to establish responsibilities of any Persons who are
party to or affected by the contract."

				Respectfully submitted

				H. Daryl Richardson, P.Eng
				Calgary, Alberta, Canada.


Mark Gilligan wrote:
> I think a little caution on the part of the engineer is warrented given
> that:
> 1)  The steel industry in the original draft of the OSHA Steel Errection
> Standard made the EOR responsible for many aspects of steel errection.
> This changed as a  result of input from the engineering community.
> 2)  In previous versions of the AISC Code of Standard Practice there was
> fairly specific responsiblity placed on the EOR for certain aspects of
> steel errection.  There are still some aspects of this reflected in
> sections 3.1.4 and 7.10 which deserve some careful consideration.
> So it was the steel industry that likely provided the "expert" witness with
> support for his opinion.
> If the steel industry has reformed we should all be open to this
> possibility.  On the other hand when one tries to change ones behavior one
> often has to be especially vigilant that one does not inadvertently fall
> back on old and inappropriate ways of saying things.
> One error that code writers often make is that they often keep adding
> wordage to clarify something and in the process create a confusing
> document.  I would suggest that often the best thing is to say less.  This
> attempt to define the responsibility of the EOR could easily be resolved by
> making "no" statement as to the responsibilities of the EOR.
> The model General Conditions such as AIA A201 already address the issue by
> stating that the Contractor is responsible for the means and methods of
> construction.  In addition it is generally recognized in case law that the
> EOR does not warrent the outcome of the  completed structure in the absense
> of some specific contractual obligation.  The EOR is not responsible for
> the completed structure.  Rather he has an obligation to perform his
> servicesin accordance with the standard of care of other engineers.   This
> seems to work for concrete buildings. (Pardon my use of the "C" word.)  Why
> can it not work for steel buildings?
> Mark Gilligan
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>Can you elaborate as to how this statement [in Code Section 1.8] can be
> considered benevolent,
> >or protection, as far as the structural engineer is concerned?
> The Cliff's notes on the Committee discussions surrounding Section 1.8 in
> the 2000 AISC Code are as follows.
> The issue was raised that it is all too common for a prostitute, er, I mean
> "expert" witness, to blame the engineer for a collapse during erection that
> had nothing to do with the structural adequacy of the complete design.
> Accordingly, the engineers on the AISC Code Committee expressed the need
> for
> some protection in the AISC Code of Standard Practice. It was stated that
> the engineer normally performs the design of the completed structure, not
> the partially erected structure. It was further stated that the erector is
> responsible for the partially erected structure and that the engineer could
> only be expected to have responsibility for the structural adequacy of the
> completed design, especially since the engineer would have no idea in most
> cases how the erector would plan to go about putting the building up. These
> ideas came together into the language you are now reading in Sections 1.8.1
> and 1.8.2 of the 2000 AISC Code.
> >Every interpretation I can think of is bad. Here are a few:
> >Wrong strength steel is used by the fabricator: engineer is responsible.
> >Details changed by someone without the engineer's knowledge after the
> >shop drawings are approved:  engineer is responsible
> >Wrong size anchor bolts installed:  engineer is responsible.
> >Contractor cuts out part of the bottom flange of a beam to let a pipe
> >pass through:  engineer is responsible.
> I can assure you that in no way were any of these kinds of interpretations
> intended by the Committee. Would you testify to these kinds of
> interpretations yourself? I hope not.
> >It appears that some other group had a better lobby and won this point
> >and hung this thing around the necks of structural engineers.
> As Secretary of the Committee, I can say first-hand that representation of
> interests on the AISC Code Committee was very well balanced. Furthermore, I
> can tell you that the people on the Code Committee worked together to find
> common ground with the intent of producing an AISC Code of Standard
> Practice
> that would be fair and equitable to all parties. They certainly didn't form
> a lobby or try to hang each other. If you could have been there to hear
> their discussions as I was, you'd have the same high regard for all of them
> that I do.
> I hope you will agree that there is no need for an Oliver Stone expose at
> this point.
> Charlie
> <