Revised Code Brings

Together Full Design Team

By Charles J. Carter, S.E., P.E.

or the first time, AISC

brought together representatives from the entire steel
design and construction
team to revise the Code of Standard
Practice for Steel Buildings and
Bridges. The new document, the fifth
revision since it was first published in
1924, also features another first: It
can be downloaded at no charge
from AISCs website at:
www.aisc.org/code.html

tural steel. Thus, the Code is the

standard of custom and usage for
structural steel fabrication and erection. Alternative and supplementary
requirements may exist in the contract documents and would control;
however, the corresponding commentary clarifies that there may be
some cost associated with such
requirements.
Dated March 7, 2000, the new
edition replaces the June 10, 1992
edition. Represented on the code
Committee were six structural engineers, two architects, one general
contractor, seven fabricators, one
steel detailer, three steel erectors and

one attorney. These members also

brought informal representation of
several affiliated and interested organizations: the National Council of
Structural Engineering Associations
(NCSEA), the Council of American
Structural Engineers (CASE), the
Structural Engineering Institute (SEI)
of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE), the American
Institute of Architects (AIA), NEA
The
Association
of
Union
Constructors (formerly the National
Erectors Association), the Steel
Erectors Association of America
(SEAA), the National Institute of
Steel Detailing (NISD) and Arcom
Master Systems (MASTERSPEC).

Whats New in the

Updated Code?
From adding provisions for fasttrack project delivery to clarifying
the language relating to connection
design responsibility, the new Code
offers clear-cut document language
for every steel project. In essence, the
Code helps to eliminate the need to
reinvent the wheel every time a new
contract is let. The scope statement
in Section 1.1 of the Code indicates
In the absence of specific instructions to the contrary in the contract
documents, the trade practices that
are defined in this Code shall govern
the fabrication and erection of struc-

The following is a summary of the

major changes that have been made
in this 2000 edition of the Code. In
many cases, it may be helpful to have
the new Code handy while reading
this article. The new Code is available as a free download from the
AISC web site:
www.aisc.org/code.html
Its also available as a printed
(paper) document for a fee of $10 +
s/h from the AISC bookstore at
www.aisc.org or by calling 800/6442400.

ommentary information, when

applicable, has been placed in
shaded boxes immediately following
its corresponding section of the Code.

The Commentary often provides

guidance and insight into the issues
that surround a particular Code provision or requirement. This additional information can often be invaluable when applying and interpreting
the Code.

se of the term Owner throughout this Code generally has been

eliminated, where appropriate. As it
used to be, the term Owner most
often really meant the owners representative, but it was just as often not
clear whether this was the designer
or the constructor. To eliminate this
confusion in the new Code, one or
both of the terms Owners
Designated Representative for
Design and Owners Designated

Modern Steel Construction / August 2000

Representative for Construction has

been used. These terms and the term
Owner, which is still used when
appropriate, remain general enough
to allow for the normal range of contractual arrangements, but are specific enough so that the intent is clear.

documents is maintained as well,

although the order of precedence has
been changed for simplicity and to
better reflect current practices. In the
new Code, the design drawings govern over the specifications for both
buildings and bridges.

curved member is now covered in

Section 6.4.2. To do so, the ASTM
A6/A6M tolerances for out-ofstraightness for a straight member
are applied relative to the theoretical
line of curvature of the curved piece
of equivalent length.

oth U.S. customary units and

metric units have been provided.
Inches and pounds are the base
units, with rationalized conversions
to millimeters and kilograms given as
an alternative. To avoid conflict due
to rounding, it is required that these
two systems of units be used consistently and independently. See Code
Section 1.3.

equirements for existing structures have been added in Section

1.7 to cover issues in existing structures, such as demolition and
shoring, protection against damage,
surveying or field dimensioning and
hazardous materials. Although each
of these considerations is not applicable to every project, their inclusion
in this Code serves to highlight the
associated issues. The default condition in the Code states that someone
other than the fabricator and erector
is responsible for these considerations.

he classifications of materials in
Section 2 have been editorially
revised and expanded. Section 2.1
lists items that are considered to be
structural steel and, therefore, covered by the Code. Section 2.2 lists
items that are not. For the most part,
the items in Section 2.1 are produced
in the fabrication shop or are directly
related to those items. Other items
and the items in Section 2.2 are not.

rovisions for the resolution of

discrepancies have been added in
Section 3.3. Essentially, the added
provisions require that discrepancies
be reported when discovered, but do
not obligate the fabricator to find discrepancies. For the case where a discrepancy is discovered after fabrication and/or erection, an order of
precedence of the various contract

Modern Steel Construction / August 2000

he provisions in the Code for

revisions have been clarified in
Section 3.5. all revisions, including those that are communicated
through the annotation of shop
and/or erection drawings , shall be
clearly and individually indicated in
the contract documents. It is also
required that the contract documents
be dated and identified by revision
number (and the same drawing number throughout the project). See box
on next page and also Code Sections
3.5, 3.6, 4.4.2 and 9.4.1.

rovisions for fast-track project

delivery have been added in
Section 3.6. Fast-track is recognized
as a great option among project
delivery systems that has the potential to make steel the best (if not the
only) choice for construction. On the
other hand, it also highlights the risk
the Owner must accept for additional
design and construction costs when
the structural design, fabrication
and/or erection is completed before
other aspects, such as the architectural program and mechanical systems, have been completed.

he responsibilities of the various

entities involved in the shop and
erection drawing approval process
have been simplified and clarified in
Section 4. This item is discussed in
greater detail later in this article.

ssues regarding the use of design

drawings by the fabricator and/or
the erector are now covered in
Section 4.3. Permission is required
for such use, since drawings represent intellectual property. Other
more specific requirements apply as
indicated in that Section.

he permissible variation from

theoretical curvature for a

rovisions have been added in

Section 6.4.5 to cover permissible variations in camber for fabricated trusses. At specified points of camber in fabricated trusses, the
tolerance on the camber ordinate is
given as 1/800 times the distance
from that point to the nearest point
of support. (See Figure C-6.1 above).

ection 6.5 has been editorially

restructured and substantively
modified to recognize that the majority of steel in building structures
need not be primed or painted.
Otherwise, the requirements in
Section 6.5 are similar to those in
past editions of the Code.

overage of bearing devices has

been revised: installation of bearing devices is now covered in Section
7.6 and grouting is covered in
Section 7.7. Mostly, this change
emphasizes the importance of the
timing of the grouting operation,
which is now more specifically covered in the Code.

se of the terms self-supporting

and non-self-supporting (in the
old Section 7.9) has been eliminated
and replaced with the provisions for
temporary support in Section 7.10.
Also, the loads that require consideration during erection have been
revised. These changes are discussed
in greater detail later in this article.

he intent of the provisions that

address the accumulation of mill
tolerances and fabrication tolerances
and their relationship to the erection
tolerances has been clarified in
Section 7.12. The accumulation of
mill and fabrication tolerances is
allowed, but subject to the limitation
that the erection tolerances are not
exceeded.

uality-assurance provisions in
Section 8 have been revised to
recognize both the AISC Quality
Certification program for fabricators
and the AISC Erector Certification
program.

ESS requirements for welds have

been clarified in Sections 10.2.5.
In the absence of other criteria, the
visual criteria in AWS D1.1 apply.

ESS requirements for HSS weld

seams have been added in
Section 10.2.8. It is required that
weld seams be oriented away from
view or as directed in the contract
documents.

There are other changes, but those

are the major ones. The following two
sections of this article deal with two
issues in greater detail: (1) the
approvals process and connection
design responsibility; and, (2) temporary support of the structural steel
frame during erection.

Revisions
The Commentary in Section 3.5 clarifies that, when revisions are communicated through the annotation of
shop or erection drawings or contractor submissions, such changes
must be confirmed in writing by
revising or reissuing the appropriate
contract documents.
As a fabricator, I was pleasantly surprised at how strongly the engineers
on the Committee felt that it was
improper to use fabricator submittals, such as the shop and/or erection drawings, as a means to communicate revisions or to complete
designs. I certainly agree with this
since the practice can cause delays
in fabrication and erection. I have
always believed that shop and erection drawings that are submitted for
approval are intended to reflect that
which is to be constructed, and that
the fabricator has the right to expect
that, once approved, this work can
be produced.

By Barry L. Barger

The Approvals
Process and
Connection
Design
Responsibility

he Committee deliberations surrounding the approvals process

were quite interesting. Given the
mixed reception of the approvals language in the 1992 edition of the
Code by the design community, all
members of the Committee anticipated that it would be an uphill battle to
find the middle ground on issues that
included design responsibility.
However, as usual, perception and
reality are often different.
The engineers that served on the
AISC Code Committee were in general agreement with the basic intent of
the default cases covered in the
Code. Instead, it was the face-slapping lightning-rod terminology used
to convey that intent to which they
objected. Accordingly, the language
was modified as it now reads, particularly in Section 4.4.1. In simpler
terms, the Code approvals process:
Uses submittals to ensure that the
fabricator has met the designers
intent in preparing the shop and
erection drawings; and,
Provides that the fabricator can
start fabricating using approved
(or approved as noted) shop and
erection drawings.
The fabricator retains all responsibility for dimensional accuracy on
the shop and erection drawings and
for fit-up in the field. It is interesting
to note that the current language is
very similar to that used in older editions of the Code.
With regard to connection design
responsibility, there are two general
extremes with a vast number of permutations in between. At the one
end, the structural engineer of record
designs and draws everything on the

design drawings. On the other end,

everything is delegated. As a matter
of practicality, three options are
specifically addressed in this Code
(see Section 3.1.2).
The first option is essentially the
first extreme, where the structural
engineer of record designs and draws
everything on the design drawings.
Helpful guidance is given in the
Commentary as to the nature of the
information that must be reflected in
the design drawings.
The second option is an intermediate step between the extremes
where the structural engineer of
record allows the selection and/or
completion of basic connections that
can be picked out of the AISC
Manual and similar references to be
done by the fabricator and/or steel
detailer. For the latter case, restrictions on connections, data for connection selection and/or completion
and design method requirements are
required to be specified.
As clarification that neither the
fabricator nor the steel detailer is
making design decisions in either of
these options, the Commentary indicates that it is not the intent ... that
the steel detailer practice engineering. Thus, the structural engineer of
record retains responsibility for the
adequacy and safety of the entire
structure, through the approvals
process outlined in the Code. This
language parallels that in CASE
Document 962, which is also referenced in the Commentary.
A few other points are worthy of
note:
Fabricator responsibility has been
summarized in Section 4.2,
including responsibility for the
transfer of information from the
contract documents into accurate
and complete shop and erection
drawings and the development of
accurate, detailed dimensional
information to provide for fit-up
of parts in the field.
Notification is required in advance

Modern Steel Construction / August 2000

of the submission of shop and

erection drawings when the fabricator intends to request a change
to connection details that are
described in the Contract
Documents (see Section 4.2).
The approvals process is still
based upon a 14-day portal-toportal time for the return of shop
and erection drawings. The intent
is that, in the absence of information to the contrary in the
Contract Documents, 14 days may
be assumed for the purposes of
bidding, contracting and scheduling.
The third option is design-build
a special case of the everything is
delegated end of the spectrum. This
option is covered more implicitly
than explicitly in the Code.

Temporary
Support of the
Structural Steel
Frame During
Erection

he new Code could not be clearer in its intent on means, methods and safety of erection. In Section
1.8, it is stated that the structural
engineer of record is responsible for
the structural adequacy of the structure in the completed project, and
that the erector, not the structural
engineer of record, is responsible for
the means, methods and safety of
erection.
Section 7.10 expands upon this
premise and is equally clear. The old
terms self-supporting and nonself-supporting, lightning rods in
their own right, are now gone,
replaced with requirements that center on what information the erector
needs from the designer and constructor to properly erect the structural steel. Accordingly, in Section
7.10.1, the owners designated representative for design is required to

Modern Steel Construction / August 2000

Figure C-6.1. Illustration of the tolerance on camber for fabricated trusses

with specified camber.

identify the lateral-load-resisting system and connecting diaphragm elements that provide for lateral
strength and stability in the completed structure. And in Section 7.10.2,
the owners designated representative
for construction is required to indicate when the non-structural-steel
elements identified by the designer
will be in place, including, for example, roof and floor diaphragms of
metal-deck with or without concrete.
Armed with this information, the
erector can then meet the requirements in Section 7.10.3 to secure the
bare structural steel framing in whole
and part against the loads that are
likely to be encountered during
erection, including those due to wind
and those that result from erection
operations. Included in this language revision is the switch of hurricane and earthquake loads to the
default category of unpredictable
during erection, a category that also
includes tornado, explosion and collision.
Again, a few other points are worthy of note. Unless specifically contracted to do so, the erector need not
consider loads that result from the
work of others, or loads caused by
non-structural-steel
elements
(cladding, partitions, etc.), during or
after erection. Also, coordination of

the work of the erector and that of

the various other trades is the
responsibility of others.

In Conclusion
The March 7, 2000 AISC Code of
Standard Practice for Steel Buildings
and Bridges represents a major
advancement in the basis for contractual agreement for the purchase
of fabricated structural steel. It is the
result of the deliberations of a fair
and balanced Committee. Users of
the new Code will find that it is
much more straightforward and
plainspoken, with improvements in
several key areas that should spur
increased acceptance of the Code,
thereby minimizing project misunderstandings.

The AISC Committee on the Code of Standard Practice

Chair: Frank B. Wylie, III, Wylie Steel Fabricators, Inc., Brentwood, TN
Vice Chair; Barry L. Barger, Southern Iron Works, Inc., Springfield, VA
Paul M. Brosnahan, Arcom Master Systems, Alexandria, VA
James R. Burdette, Jr., Steel, Inc., Scottdale, GA
Richard B. Cook, Stowell Cook Frolichstein, Chicago
William B. Cooper, W & W Steel Company, Oklahoma City
William R. Davidson, Turner Construction, Chicago
Joseph A. Free, Jr., J.A. Free, Jr. & Company, Inc., Columbia, SC
Lawrence G. Griffis, Walter P. Moore & Associates, Houston
D. Kirk Harman, Cagley, Harman & Associates, Inc., King of Prussia, PA
James L. Larson, L.R. Wilson & Sons, Gambrills, MD
William F. McEleney, National Steel Bridge Alliance, Cranston, RI
Leonard R. Middleton, Middleton Engineering Association, Minneapolis
James Mirgliotta, Forest City Erectors, Twinsburg, OH
Donald G. Moore, Steward Steel, Inc., Sikeston, MO
Homer R. Peterson, II, Peterson Beckner Industries, Inc., Houston
David B. Ratterman, Stites & Harbison, Louisville
Rex D. Smith, Fought & Company, Inc., Portland, OR
James A. Stori, STS Steel, Inc., Schenectady, NY
Thomas S. Tarpy, Jr., Stanley D. Lindsey & Associates, Ltd., Nashville
Michael J. Tylk, Tylk, Gustafson & Associates, Inc., Chicago
Michael A. West, Computerized Structural Design, Inc., Milwaukee
Secretary: Charles J. Carter, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago