AISC Manual Errata

[JAE]

This isn't a question - just a rant.

I just downloaded three different errata pdf's from AISC's website. Took one look at them (I have the first edition) and decided to send them an email asking why there were so many errors in all three printings.

Over 20 pages. To update these neatly in my manual would take me about 1 to 2 hours - at my billing rate that is the cost of the manual itself. Does it seem like the number of errors showing up in more recent AISC manuals is higher than in past years? Some of the errors are just plain stupid things. Some are incredible (entire pages re-done).

I guess with that many errors they'd recall the whole book - they did that to me with the first printing of the AISC Seismic Manual. Where is their quality review in all this?

 

[nutte]

Yes, it is frustrating. It also irritates me that it's so hard to find the errata. With the old website, I could go right to it. I couldn't follow a logical path to it this time. I had to resort to using the search.

 

[Stazz]

I was going to post something about this when WillisV pointed out that the entire Sz values are wrong for single angles (Thanks for the link Nutte). We're not throwing down $350 bucks for wrong information.

Yeah, some of these errors are stupid, but couldn't this also be dangerous? I wonder if the integrity of a hanger design could hinge on an Sz value. I'd like to see AISC liable for that.

Plus, you can't even update a thick bounded bible like this. The entire thing needs to be digital. But then again, sometimes things are all about MONEY!!!!!

 

[whyun]

AISC assumes NO liability. ANYONE who uses the information assumes all liability. Read the disclaimer on page vi.

 

[JAE]

I understand the structural design liability issue. I don't contend with that.

What I'm pushing here is basic flawed product responsibility. They sold us a manual that requires substantial editing to be correct. As Stazz said, we paid good money for a flawed product. I'd like to see them recall my book and give me one that doesn't require so much cutting and scotch tape to make right.

I don't recall the previous manuals (I have 7 previous editions sitting on my desk) having this degree of errors.

 

[Stazz]

If they (AISC) assume no liability then why are we using this book? That basically says that all the info in there could be garbage and that we as engineers need to derive and calculate our own tables and methods. This book is more of a $50 concept guide that you buy on eBay than a $350 professional manual.

 

[WillisV]

The increase in errors can be partially attributed to the decrease in code-cycle times. Just like engineers are having trouble keeping up with the code-changes, the pace of code changes is also difficult to keep up with and be properly vetted in a code committee.

Subsequent to the re-issuance of the seismic manual, everything at AISC seems to have undergone a much more substantial review process (hence the delay of the much discussed stability design guides etc.).

Regarding the liability clause - almost every engineering aid you use has the same or similar wording (take a look at any of your software programs - no liability - the onus is on you). That being said, I definitely would hope that we could trust the AISC manual itself over other commercial products.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Well, I tend to be a bit more forgiving with AISC this time. The 13th edition manual is a major re-write of the manual.

It's not like it was just a simple update of the last LRFD manual. I think the combination of ASD / LRFD together into one manual was pretty ambitious.... After all, they certainly could have produced a LRFD only manual (with the ASD/LRFD specificatioin). That would have left ASD users out on a limb, but it would have resulted in a much more polished manual.

I am a bit frustrated that I cannot just download one errata document to use to review / update by 1st printing copy. But, in the grand scheme of things, that's not that big of a deal....

 

[ash060]

Everyone should take a moment to review the AISC 2010 Spec. becuase they do have a comment review time going on right know.

I have all ready noticed some errors in the draft spec. and I am going to fill out the forms and send it to AISC.

Maybe we can help get the spec right, but this will not help with the manual.

 

[whyun]

I do share the same frustration in the amount of error in the AISC manuals as it is similar with other manuals/codes we use in the practice of structural engineering.

The number of errors in future editions will not decrease if they continue their attempts to make an exact science out of what should be conservatively empirical.

 

[JAE]

ash060 - that is just the specification, right? The errata that got me all flustered was for the whole manual.

I agree that the shorter code cycles would be a legitimate explanation for all these errors.

For a working engineer, I ordered the 13th Edition when the first printing came out. I did this mainly for the interest I had in it and now, with all these errors I feel like "next time" I'll wait for the later editions. Usually the building codes come in slower so the new AISC edition isn't usually needed right away.

But that puts AISC's cash flow in a slower rate so would that initiate more errors since they would have less cash for checkers early on if we all waited for the third or fourth printing? Or would waiting delay the subsequent printings?

 

[Ussuri]

OK, I looked for them and couldn't find them. Are these available to members only?

 

[miecz]

Try

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

 

[ash060]

JAE

Yes it is for the spec only. The manual does not get a global review becuase I am guessing that people would not buy it if you could get a pdf of it even though it is just a draft.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

ash060 -

The review period of the draft specifications (and the on-line posting of the drafts) is really about going through the necessary ANSI procedures so that it can be a directly referenced standard in the IBC.

Since this is only desired for the specification itself, there is no need to do this for the the commentary, the design manual, or similar design aids.

At least, that's my take on the subject....

Josh

 

[jdonville]

Never mind that the AISC Search Utility v13 (for properties of structural shapes) has errors that they have not issued errata or updates for...

Specifically, I have noticed that the labels for various properties of MC shapes are mixed up - the data (once you sort out what is wrong) match up with the published values from the printed tables in Section 1 of the Manual.

There may be other errors that I have not noticed...

Jeff

 

[GreenFacades]

Note that the values in the database for single angles Sz and rz are not the values in the book or the errata but something entirely different again....
Richard