I have been a part of a couple volunteer organizations and understand that good volunteers are hard to get. I'm sure he knows the dedication that his volunteers put in to their work, and would just defend them more. He certainly could have taken up more of our time, but that's OK. He seems to be a good representative for AISC.
#Errata aisc 14th edition manual#
We do hear you and do work hard to improve so that you have an easier time.Ĭharlie RE: Lousy AISC manual - errata errata errata msquared48 (Structural) 10 Dec 10 20:39Ĭharlie seems like a nice guy and a diplomat. I'm lucky enough to know about all the bodies and I'm of the opinion that quality is improving, not declining. Back when we didn't have web sites, it used to be hard to tell people, and people often didn't know.
We discovered it, corrected it, and told you. The calculation approach is complicated, and many people missed that it had a sign error on one of its terms. The angle Sx case is a perfect example of this. That saves all of us on most of the mistakes we all make. Things fall down when the mistake says 100. Things don't fail because the answer was 10 and the mistake said 15. There is some solace: most errors are small and conservative. Now, my penance is to have a better understanding of the challenges that my predecessors faced as I am one among many trying to successfully do that work. At the time I always thought I must be wrong, but often I wasn't, and it was a surprise. I remember finding errors in the 8th Edition when I was a student. The astonishing part is that the error lasted through about thirty printings (and two new editions) before it was discovered and corrected. My most astonishing discovery is that the column equation in the First Edition (1928) AISC Manual was printed with the division line in the wrong place.
#Errata aisc 14th edition manuals#
Older AISC Manuals aren't error free either. A couple of things I wish were not the case (and that relate to your stated perceptions about there being more errors): RE: Lousy AISC manual - errata errata errata CharlieAISC (Structural) 10 Dec 10 19:33Īgain, I understand your position and I am sympathetic. I just wish, as you do, that there were a more reasonable number of errors. I'm a member of AISC and think it a very good organization. Either that or I should send AISC an invoice for my time in fixing their manual. In some sense I should expect AISC to take back the manual I purchased and give me one without the errors. I'm simply comparing the 13th edition to its "peer group" which essentially are the past editions. Engineers are compared to what another reasonable engineer would do in the same circumstance. You compared your manual to the engineer's standard of care.no human endeavor is perfect. But haven't you all done this before? I guess I expect a little more accuracy with a manual that is used by "150,000" to design structures that people walk under! I can appreciate that you have staff and volunteers doing this, and that everyone is human. All the Sx values for angles were wrong? Come on. And some of them appeared to be just.well. The frustration is that, after looking at the 8 editions of the manual that I have on my shelf, this 13th edition (is 13 an unlucky number?) had so many more errors than past editions. RE: Lousy AISC manual - errata errata errata IFRs (Petroleum) 10 Dec 10 17:07Ĭharlie - I guess I shouldn't back off on anything I post here - in this case the adjective "lousy" was a vent and nothing more and I probably shouldn't have been so textually melodramatic. I hope you will agree that "lousy" is an unfair criticism. I regret the difficulty it creates for you when you have an error in your Manual. But can your expectations be met? I suspect any set of drawings or calculations we could find would suffer when sent to 150,000 engineers to use over and over for many years. Note that some of the items are revisions necessitated by changes, not changes to correct errors.Īre you aware that not everyone tells you when something is wrong in their documents? We tell you about it, and that act invites the kind of criticism you've leveled. We are human, and we do make - and miss - mistakes in those processes. AISC's books are written by volunteers and staff, and checked by volunteers and staff. I can appreciate your frustration, and want you to know we do the best we can to make our publications the best they can be.
0 kommentar(er)
