Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Code development processes for the modern times [was OMRF (R val ue)]

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Ah, we have gone a long time without a rousing interchange, haven't we?

>The people that "wrote the code," according
>to ICBO, were the people "out there," ....

And those same folks are now members of the AISC (and ACI, TMS, AF&PA, ASCE,
etc.) Committees that write the documents that become national standards
through incorporation by reference in the building codes.

>These code change proposals, for *all* parts
>of the UBC were to be submitted by a specific
>date each year, heard by the code committee
>to which assigned at a certain date, ...

It works the same way at AISC and always has. In fact, many of you have seen
our public review notices in Modern Steel Construction -- and in special
postings I have personally made to this and other list servs. These
organizations follow ANSI-accreditted consensus procedures.

>In the associations that Charlie mentions, I
>can't recall once seeing a code change proposal form ...

See the above answer. You can submit a comment without a form. We're very
flexible. (-:

>Now, if I understand Charlie Carter's position
>correctly, proposed code changes will have to
>be submitted to the group publishing (writing)
>the code at some unknown date, and to make sure
>that it gets in the code, also submit it at some
>different date to the ICC.

No. You only have to submit it to AISC (or ACI, TMS...). ICC and NFPA just
want to reference our documents and depend upon us to accomplish the code
change process.

>Code changes published by associations are not
>always safe, viz., the increase in the concrete
>shear stress that led to the Wright-Patterson AFB 
>hangers, and in wood construction, the sudden
>increase from 25 percent to 75 percent in connection
>capacity with steel side plates, both of which were 
>found to be seriously non-conservative.

You're probably correct that nobody always gets it right. But the AISC (ACI,
TMS...) processes are not just a bunch of industry hacks. It is a balanced
group with one third practitioner, one-third industry and one-third general
interest. All I can say is, I've never ever witnessed a purposefuly
dangerous attempt to manipulate the code within the AISC process.

And in all fairness, or perhaps heresy, a group composed of only structural
engineers -- evne the best of the best -- will not always get it right
either. You need the material, fabrication, erection, painting, galvanizing,
detailing, etc. experts just as much as they need you to make the process
meaningful, safe and cost effective.

>Whether the code bodies like it or not,
>different regions of the country have 
>different concerns.  Seismic design requirements
>should not be dictated by the area of the country
>that is not as seismically active as the western 
>region of the country.  Likewise, areas of the
>country subject to hurricanes should not have
>their design requirements dictated by
>non-hurricane regions.

And when you separate load effects from resistance effects properly, you do
not have these problems. We do. ASCE handles the loads, AISC the steel
strength, ACI the concrete strength, ...

Also, national bodies better ensure that you do not get seismic effects
dictating in non-seismic applications. Local bodies tend to do the opposite.

Again, respectfully,

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********