Only if the code you are working under requires or allows it. Outdated codes/guides frequently do not comply with current requirements and do not represent the required standard of care. The codes are not changed arbitrarily (well sometimes), so there should be improvements from one revision to the next.
The 13th Ed has applied 20 years of research and development to the antiquated 9th Ed. Although codes are slow to adopt the AISC edition changes, professional engineers should be using the most current information available.
You should in a technical sense, but in a legal sense you should use the ADOPTED building code in the applicable jurisdiction, and use the version of AISC that is referenced in that code.
You could certainly make a case that the 13th edition is "better" in terms of accuracy, conservatism, etc., but the local building official may just say to you - tough, we haven't adopted that version yet and you are legally obligated to use the older version.
so what does the latest IBC say that i should use?
based on IBC 2006.
1604.3.3 Steel. The deflection of steel structural members
shall not exceed that permitted by AISC 360, AISI-NAS,
AISI-General, AISI-Truss, ASCE 3, ASCE 8, SJI JG-1.1,
SJI K-1.1 or SJI LH/DLH-1.1, as applicable.
i dont see anything about manual of steel construction
i checked IBC 2003.. was it wrong to use ASD 9th edition at the time because IBC said use AISC-LRFD?
thanks,
SECTION 2205
STRUCTURAL STEEL
2205.1 General. The design, fabrication and erection of structural
steel for buildings and structures shall be in accordance
with either the AISC-LRFD, AISC 335 or AISC-HSS. Where
required, the seismic design of steel structures shall be in accordance
with the additional provisions of Section 2205.2.
If an engineer is truly familiar with the changes and updates included in the latest publication, how can they ethically choose to apply antiquated information which may be less conservative or incorrect. In some countries the antiquated codes become illegal for use. Simply the IBC cannot keep up with the trade codes which are updated between publications. It is the specific design professional's responsibility to stay current.
To answer your question, using 9th Edition AISC was legal until the 2006 IBC is adopted by the governing building authority. If 2003 IBC (or earlier IBC, or UBC, etc.) is still in force, 9th Edition is fine.
As far as if it's ethical, I'll leave that argument to others.
JAE is right. Check Chapter 35 of the building code for the edition of the AISC document you want to use. If you want to use something else, contact the building official/AHJ for permission and get the response in writing.
Cities or counties in Texas frequently adopt codes if they have jurisdiction.
You can use the 9th if you don't mind designing something which does not meet the current state of the art. Can you defend your design without saying, "well, back in the day, this was the way we did it", or "yes, I knew there was a newer code, but I used the old one because it was more convenient"?
I have never had a jurisdiction say "no" to using the latest standard. Also, structures designed to the latest will typically provide the same or increased strength as those designed using prior editions.
TXStructural
I agreed completely. There are advantages and disadvantages with using the 13th Ed, and you can't pick and choose. The most current specificaton should be used.
If a failure occurs, it won't matter if it is related to a specification change. How will the jury understand that you based your design on a outdated manual.
The 14th Edition is complete and coming in a few months. Many building codes have not the 13th Ed. But the 14th edition changes are relevant and significant in many cases.
What ever happened to the 10th, 11th and 12th editions? Is this like versions of windows where the intermediate ones are crap and then a good one finally comes along so everyone starts using it?
10th-12th were LRFD only. A lot of engineers that had been practicing for a while with ASD were very reluctant to the change. 13th has LRFD and ASD combined, so the ASD approach can be used with a current code. No reason to stick with the Green 9th Ed manual at this point.
connectegr - I guess we just have to disagree on this one.
Using the most current specification isn't always more conservative. Some of the provisions in the newer codes are LESS conservative. Code writers for years have been trying to get more "exact" with the limit states and this results in more complicated codes as well.
Some jurisdictions, California for example, didn't like some new seismic provisions that the ICBO adopted into their model code UBC 97. That was because they didn't agree with the provisions and some of the "updated" features used in the code. So in that case, using the newer code was definitely not aggreeable to the officials.
Again, you can use the more updated code if you like, but legally you must use the adopted code in your particular jusidiction.
henri2 - thanks for the reference - I should have pointed out Chapter 35 of the IBC.
