Revised Code Brings

Together Full Design Team

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

F
or the first time, AISC tural steel.” Thus, the Code is the one attorney. These members also
brought together representa- standard of custom and usage for brought informal representation of
tives from the entire steel structural steel fabrication and erec- several affiliated and interested orga-
design and construction tion. Alternative and supplementary nizations: the National Council of
team to revise the Code of Standard requirements may exist in the con- Structural Engineering Associations
Practice for Steel Buildings and tract documents and would control; (NCSEA), the Council of American
Bridges. The new document, the fifth however, the corresponding com- Structural Engineers (CASE), the
revision since it was first published in mentary clarifies that there may be Structural Engineering Institute (SEI)
1924, also features another first: It some cost associated with such of the American Society of Civil
can be downloaded at no charge requirements. Engineers (ASCE), the American
from AISC’s website at: Institute of Architects (AIA), NEA
Dated March 7, 2000, the new
The Association of Union
www.aisc.org/code.html edition replaces the June 10, 1992
Constructors (formerly the National
edition. Represented on the code
Erectors Association), the Steel
Committee were six structural engi-
Erectors Association of America
neers, two architects, one general
(SEAA), the National Institute of
contractor, seven fabricators, one
Steel Detailing (NISD) and Arcom
steel detailer, three steel erectors and
Master Systems (MASTERSPEC).

What’s New in the

Updated Code?
The following is a summary of the The Commentary often provides
major changes that have been made guidance and insight into the issues
in this 2000 edition of the Code. In that surround a particular Code pro-
many cases, it may be helpful to have vision or requirement. This addition-
the new Code handy while reading al information can often be invalu-
From adding provisions for fast- this article. The new Code is avail- able when applying and interpreting
track project delivery to clarifying able as a free download from the the Code.
the language relating to connection AISC web site:
design responsibility, the new Code
offers clear-cut document language
for every steel project. In essence, the
www.aisc.org/code.html U se of the term “Owner” through-
out this Code generally has been
eliminated, where appropriate. As it
It’s also available as a printed
Code helps to eliminate the need to (paper) document for a fee of $10 + used to be, the term “Owner” most
reinvent the wheel every time a new s/h from the AISC bookstore at often really meant the owner’s repre-
contract is let. The scope statement www.aisc.org or by calling 800/644- sentative, but it was just as often not
in Section 1.1 of the Code indicates 2400. clear whether this was the designer
“In the absence of specific instruc- or the constructor. To eliminate this
tions to the contrary in the contract
documents, the trade practices that C ommentary information, when
applicable, has been placed in
shaded boxes immediately following
confusion in the new Code, one or
both of the terms “Owner’s
are defined in this Code shall govern Designated Representative for
the fabrication and erection of struc- its corresponding section of the Code. Design” and “Owner’s Designated

Modern Steel Construction / August 2000

Representative for Construction” has documents is maintained as well, curved member is now covered in
been used. These terms and the term although the order of precedence has Section 6.4.2. To do so, the ASTM
“Owner”, which is still used when been changed for simplicity and to A6/A6M tolerances for out-of-
appropriate, remain general enough better reflect current practices. In the straightness for a straight member
to allow for the normal range of con- new Code, the design drawings gov- are applied relative to the theoretical
tractual arrangements, but are specif- ern over the specifications for both line of curvature of the curved piece
ic enough so that the intent is clear. buildings and bridges. of equivalent length.

B oth U.S. customary units and

metric units have been provided.
Inches and pounds are the base
T he provisions in the Code for
revisions have been clarified in
Section 3.5. “… all revisions, includ-
P rovisions have been added in
Section 6.4.5 to cover permissi-
ble variations in camber for fabricat-
units, with rationalized conversions ing those that are communicated ed trusses. At specified points of cam-
to millimeters and kilograms given as through the annotation of shop ber in fabricated trusses, the
an alternative. To avoid conflict due and/or erection drawings …, shall be tolerance on the camber ordinate is
to rounding, it is required that these clearly and individually indicated in given as 1/800 times the distance
two systems of units be used consis- the contract documents.” It is also from that point to the nearest point
tently and independently. See Code required that the contract documents of support. (See Figure C-6.1 above).
Section 1.3. be dated and identified by revision

R equirements for existing struc-

tures have been added in Section
number (and the same drawing num-
ber throughout the project). See box S ection 6.5 has been editorially
restructured and substantively
modified to recognize that the major-
on next page and also Code Sections
1.7 to cover issues in existing struc- 3.5, 3.6, 4.4.2 and 9.4.1. ity of steel in building structures
tures, such as demolition and need not be primed or painted.
shoring, protection against damage,
surveying or field dimensioning and
hazardous materials. Although each
P rovisions for fast-track project
delivery have been added in
Section 3.6. Fast-track is recognized
Otherwise, the requirements in
Section 6.5 are similar to those in
past editions of the Code.
of these considerations is not applica- as a great option among project
ble to every project, their inclusion
in this Code serves to highlight the
delivery systems that has the poten-
tial to make steel the best (if not the C overage of bearing devices has
been revised: installation of bear-
ing devices is now covered in Section
associated issues. The default condi- only) choice for construction. On the
tion in the Code states that someone other hand, it also highlights the risk 7.6 and grouting is covered in
other than the fabricator and erector the Owner must accept for additional Section 7.7. Mostly, this change
is responsible for these considera- design and construction costs when emphasizes the importance of the
tions. the structural design, fabrication timing of the grouting operation,
and/or erection is completed before which is now more specifically cov-

T he classifications of materials in
Section 2 have been editorially
other aspects, such as the architec-
tural program and mechanical sys-
ered in the Code.

revised and expanded. Section 2.1

lists items that are considered to be
tems, have been completed.
U se of the terms self-supporting
and non-self-supporting (in the
old Section 7.9) has been eliminated
structural steel and, therefore, cov-
ered by the Code. Section 2.2 lists
items that are not. For the most part,
T he responsibilities of the various
entities involved in the shop and
erection drawing approval process
and replaced with the provisions for
temporary support in Section 7.10.
the items in Section 2.1 are produced have been simplified and clarified in Also, the loads that require consider-
in the fabrication shop or are directly Section 4. This item is discussed in ation during erection have been
related to those items. Other items greater detail later in this article. revised. These changes are discussed
and the items in Section 2.2 are not. in greater detail later in this article.

P rovisions for the resolution of

discrepancies have been added in
I ssues regarding the use of design
drawings by the fabricator and/or
the erector are now covered in T he intent of the provisions that
address the accumulation of mill
Section 3.3. Essentially, the added Section 4.3. Permission is required tolerances and fabrication tolerances
provisions require that discrepancies for such use, since drawings repre- and their relationship to the erection
be reported when discovered, but do sent intellectual property. Other tolerances has been clarified in
not obligate the fabricator to find dis- more specific requirements apply as Section 7.12. The accumulation of
crepancies. For the case where a dis- indicated in that Section. mill and fabrication tolerances is
crepancy is discovered after fabrica- allowed, but subject to the limitation
tion and/or erection, an order of
precedence of the various contract T he permissible variation from
theoretical curvature for a
that the erection tolerances are not
exceeded.

Modern Steel Construction / August 2000

Q uality-assurance provisions in
Section 8 have been revised to The Approvals design drawings. On the other end,
everything is delegated. As a matter
recognize both the AISC Quality
Certification program for fabricators
Process and of practicality, three options are
specifically addressed in this Code
and the AISC Erector Certification
program.
Connection (see Section 3.1.2).
The first option is essentially the
Design first extreme, where the structural
A ESS requirements for welds have
been clarified in Sections 10.2.5.
In the absence of other criteria, the
Responsibility engineer of record designs and draws
everything on the design drawings.
visual criteria in AWS D1.1 apply.
T he Committee deliberations sur-
rounding the approvals process
were quite interesting. Given the
Helpful guidance is given in the
Commentary as to the nature of the

A ESS requirements for HSS weld

seams have been added in
Section 10.2.8. It is required that
mixed reception of the approvals lan-
guage in the 1992 edition of the
information that must be reflected in
the design drawings.
The second option is an interme-
weld seams be oriented away from Code by the design community, all
diate step between the extremes
view or as directed in the contract members of the Committee anticipat-
where the structural engineer of
documents. ed that it would be an uphill battle to
record allows the selection and/or
find the middle ground on issues that
completion of basic connections that
included design responsibility.
can be picked out of the AISC
There are other changes, but those However, as usual, perception and
Manual and similar references to be
are the major ones. The following two reality are often different.
done by the fabricator and/or steel
sections of this article deal with two detailer. For the latter case, restric-
The engineers that served on the
issues in greater detail: (1) the tions on connections, data for con-
AISC Code Committee were in gener-
approvals process and connection nection selection and/or completion
al agreement with the basic intent of
design responsibility; and, (2) tempo- and design method requirements are
the default cases covered in the
rary support of the structural steel required to be specified.
Code. Instead, it was the face-slap-
frame during erection.
ping lightning-rod terminology used As clarification that neither the
to convey that intent to which they fabricator nor the steel detailer is
Revisions objected. Accordingly, the language making design decisions in either of
was modified as it now reads, partic- these options, the Commentary indi-
The Commentary in Section 3.5 clar-
ularly in Section 4.4.1. In simpler cates that “it is not the intent ... that
ifies that, when revisions are com-
terms, the Code approvals process: the steel detailer practice engineer-
municated through the annotation of
shop or erection drawings or con- • Uses submittals to ensure that the ing.” Thus, the structural engineer of
tractor submissions, such changes fabricator has met the designer’s record “retains responsibility for the
must be confirmed in writing by intent in preparing the shop and adequacy and safety of the entire
revising or reissuing the appropriate structure”, through the approvals
erection drawings; and,
contract documents. process outlined in the Code. This
• Provides that the fabricator can
As a fabricator, I was pleasantly sur- start fabricating using approved language parallels that in CASE
prised at how strongly the engineers (or approved as noted) shop and Document 962, which is also refer-
on the Committee felt that it was erection drawings. enced in the Commentary.
improper to use fabricator submit-
tals, such as the shop and/or erec- The fabricator retains all responsi- A few other points are worthy of
tion drawings, as a means to com- bility for dimensional accuracy on note:
municate revisions or to complete the shop and erection drawings and • Fabricator responsibility has been
designs. I certainly agree with this for fit-up in the field. It is interesting summarized in Section 4.2,
since the practice can cause delays to note that the current language is
in fabrication and erection. I have
including responsibility for the
very similar to that used in older edi- transfer of information from the
always believed that shop and erec-
tions of the Code. contract documents into accurate
tion drawings that are submitted for
approval are intended to reflect that With regard to connection design and complete shop and erection
which is to be constructed, and that responsibility, there are two general drawings and the development of
the fabricator has the right to expect extremes with a vast number of per- accurate, detailed dimensional
that, once approved, this work can mutations in between. At the one information to provide for fit-up
be produced. of parts in the field.
end, the structural engineer of record
By Barry L. Barger designs and draws everything on the • Notification is required in advance

Modern Steel Construction / August 2000

 of the submission of shop and
erection drawings when the fabri-
cator 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-to-
portal time for the return of shop
and erection drawings. The intent
is that, in the absence of informa-
tion to the contrary in the
Contract Documents, 14 days may
be assumed for the purposes of
bidding, contracting and schedul-
ing.
Figure C-6.1. Illustration of the tolerance on camber for fabricated trusses
The third option is design-build— with specified camber.
a special case of the “everything is
delegated” end of the spectrum. This
option is covered more implicitly identify the lateral-load-resisting sys- the work of the erector and that of
than explicitly in the Code. tem and connecting diaphragm ele- the various other trades is the
ments that provide for lateral responsibility of others.
Temporary strength and stability in the complet-

Support of the
ed structure. And in Section 7.10.2,
the owner’s designated representative
In Conclusion
for construction is required to indi- The March 7, 2000 AISC Code of
Structural Steel cate when the non-structural-steel Standard Practice for Steel Buildings
elements identified by the designer and Bridges represents a major
Frame During will be in place, including, for exam- advancement in the basis for con-
tractual agreement for the purchase
Erection ple, roof and floor diaphragms of
metal-deck with or without concrete. of fabricated structural steel. It is the
result of the deliberations of a fair
T he new Code could not be clear-
er in its intent on means, meth-
ods and safety of erection. In Section
Armed with this information, the
erector can then meet the require-
and balanced Committee. Users of
the new Code will find that it is
ments in Section 7.10.3 to secure the much more straightforward and
1.8, it is stated that the structural
bare structural steel framing in whole plainspoken, with improvements in
engineer of record is responsible for
and part against the loads that are several key areas that should spur
the structural adequacy of the struc-
“likely to be encountered during increased acceptance of the Code,
ture in the completed project, and
erection, including those due to wind thereby minimizing project misun-
that the erector, not the structural
and those that result from erection derstandings.
engineer of record, is responsible for
operations.” Included in this lan-
the means, methods and safety of
guage revision is the switch of hurri-
erection.
cane and earthquake loads to the
Section 7.10 expands upon this default category of unpredictable
premise and is equally clear. The old during erection, a category that also
terms “self-supporting” and “non- includes tornado, explosion and col-
self-supporting,” lightning rods in lision.
their own right, are now gone, Again, a few other points are wor-
replaced with requirements that cen- thy of note. Unless specifically con-
ter on what information the erector tracted to do so, the erector need not
needs from the designer and con- consider loads that result from the
structor to properly erect the struc- work of others, or loads caused by
tural steel. Accordingly, in Section non-structural-steel elements
7.10.1, the owner’s designated repre- (cladding, partitions, etc.), during or
sentative for design is required to after erection. Also, coordination of

Modern Steel Construction / August 2000

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