Advocates Writing Code 1

[JedClampett]

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.

 

[Ingenuity]

This has puzzled me too, in the US. I have practiced in Australia, Canada and the USA.

In other countries (outside the USA) their building codes (sorry, USA, the International Building Code is not used in every country ) reference national standards that are authored by code committees of the national standards organization (typically a federal level government entity).

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 .

 

[Ron]

Well, as a current member of several ASTM committees and past member of ACI committees, I can tell you each of the systems is flawed. Building Codes, in general, are political documents that get produced through great gnashing of teeth and a heavy dose of compromise, with the result being a watered-down semi-consensus of the least objectional way to go.

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.

 

[SlideRuleEra]

Part of the problem is there is no single "correct" answer. The best answer is probably a compromise... and that can change with increased knowledge, experience and need. Here is an historical example:

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.

http://www.SlideRuleEra.net

http://www.VacuumTubeEra.net

 

[JStephen]

The problem is, there's not really anyone else that is "unbiased", either. For example, consulting engineers that don't have any business investment in a particular area still have their own biases, and one consultant will prohibit the practice that another requires.

 

[TGS4]

One's advocate is another's expert. The other option is non-expert bureaucrats. I'll take the expert/advocate any day.

 

[JedClampett]

The problem is not that advocates are in the committee. It's that they own the committee.

 

[TGS4]

Who would you propose to "own" the committee, then? Do you understand and appreciate the costs associated with running a consensus committee, let alone publishing a standard?

 

[JNieman]

It's kind of a catch 22. If you want subject matter experts to speak on a topic but not have ties to the industry that makes the subject matter - where will they come from, if not from that industry?

 

[TGS4]

Regardless of who owns the standard, in places like the US there is an organization called ANSI (American National Standards Institute). If an organization is develop an ANSI-accredited standard, which I am lead to believe is a requirement in most, if not all, jurisdictions in the US for a standard to be incorporated into law and become a Code, then it must follow the ANSI standards process.

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.)

 

[Ingenuity]

I noticed that, according to Wikipedia, ASTM International (which is a nonprofit organization) has restrictions on the percentage of producer members to committees, as follows:

Members are classified as users, producers, consumers, and "general interest". The latter include academics and consultants. Users include industry users, who may be producers in the context of other technical committees, and end-users such as consumers. In order to meet the requirements of antitrust laws, producers must constitute less than 50% of every committee or subcommittee, and votes are limited to one per producer company. Because of these restrictions, there can be a substantial waiting-list of producers seeking organizational memberships on the more popular committees. Members can, however, participate without a formal vote and their input will be fully considered.

Bold emphasis added by me.

 

[RobertHale]

From a purely pragmatic position look at the standards this way. Yes there are representatives of the material producers on the code committees but there are also contractors and builders. If there was a surreptitious push to make steel structures heavier for the sake of selling more steel, it would not take long before the builders pick up on this and push construction to the less expensive material. It would seem these interests offset each other.

Robert Hale, PE

 

[SteelPE]

Robert,

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?

 

[JedClampett]

You mean like the MBMA does?

 

[SteelPE]

Wasn't specifically referencing anyone. I have a hard enough time doing my job on a day to day basis. I'm not really worried about who is writing the codes I use. If I was concerned I might try and do something about it, but see sentence #2.

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.

 

[nonplussed]

I'm not sure about other countries (I assume it is the same in most countries), but in Australia the only legal requirement is that a structure is designed to satisfy performance requirements, or in other words 'fit for purpose'. All standards and codes can be ignored as long as it can be shown that the building is fit for purpose. I know of several court cases where Engineer 1 was relying on standards and clauses etc and Engineer 2 ignored all standards and proved the building was fit for purpose and Engineer 2 won all of those cases with agreement from the judge that the codes were not relevant in order to satisfy fit for purpose. The reason the law is this way is so that innovation in material, method of construction, and design is not discouraged.

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!!

 

[Mr168]

While I can't attribute to AISC, ACI, or ASTM committees, I do participate in a series of committees on the implementing side that have members representing each of those. Based on ISO commitments, the committees are limited to how many voting members can be from a single organization or company in an attempt to mitigate commercial interests steering the ship.

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.

 

[RobertHale]

SteelPE,
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