January 2023 - American Institute of Steel Construction
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
January 2023
Steel Fans, Start Your Engines...
CHARLOTTE CONVENTION CENTER | APRIL 12–14, 2023
incorporating
World Steel Bridge Symposium | QualityCon | Architecture in Steel | SafetyCon
SSRC Annual Stability Conference | NISD Conference on Steel Detailing
Registration Earn Nearly
250 opens up to
200
exhibitors January 17 sessions
23 PDHs
Mark your calendars for The Steel Conference: THE premier event for everyone
involved in the design and construction of steel-framed buildings and bridges.
aisc.org/nascc
January 2023
features
32 Forging a New Steel Story
BY BRIAN SHERMAN, PE, AND SEAN POUSLEY
A recently completed multi-use complex
helps lift an old steel town to new heights.
38 Vital Link
BY NICK STAROSKI, SE, PE
in every issue The rebuilt Merchants Bridge over the
Mississippi River in St. Louis is a vital link
departments in creating the international supply chain
6 EDITOR’S NOTE of the future.
8 STEEL INTERCHANGE
10 STEEL QUIZ 46 Going Big with Castellated
61 NEW PRODUCTS Beams
62 NEWS & EVENTS BY JULIE LOW
66 STRUCTURALLY SOUND Thanks to schedule and supply chain
challenges, a new distribution facility in
Georgia becomes the country’s largest
resources
known castellated beam project.
65 ADVERTISER INDEX
65 MARKETPLACE &
EMPLOYMENT 52 All Hands on (Steel) Deck
38 BY GEOFF WEISENBERGER
Hands-on events at ironworker training
facilities across the country were the name
of the game for AISC’s 2022 SteelDay.
columns
conference previews
steelwise data driven
14 Advances in Composite 26 New Year, New Outlook 55 Connection Design:
Construction BY JEFF CARLSON Do the Dos, Avoid the Don’ts
BY CHRISTINA HARBER, SE, PE, While bridge construction costs rose significantly BY MARA BRASELTON, PE
JEROME F. HAJJAR, PE, PhD, AND over the past couple of years, things appear to be There are plenty of connection design
W. SAMUEL EASTERLING, PE, PhD leveling off, and steel bridges are positioned for a pitfalls out there. Recognizing them will
Chapter I of the upcoming 2022 strong 2023. help you avoid them.
AISC Specification includes expanded
field notes
options and upgrades related to
57 Double-Wide
composite construction.
28 Lifelong Learner and Teacher
INTERVIEW BY GEOFF WEISENBERGER
BY FRANK ARTMONT, PE, PhD
A bridge team looks to a concrete-filled
steelwise Chris Raebel’s life thus far has been a fruitful and steel tube solution to expand the width
18 Talking through the Code
BY BABETTE FREUND, BILL ANDREWS,
varied journey, all without having to stray from and extend the life of a river crossing in
the city he loves—Milwaukee—for too long. Tennessee.
PHILIP TORCHIO, AND
JONATHAN TAVAREZ business issues
A “conversation” between an 59 Reliable Rigging
engineer, a fabricator, and an erector 31 Focusing Outward
BY DAN COUGHLIN
BY SCOTT SEPPERS
Understanding the basics of rigging
provides a look into the latest version
Inner focus is essential, but so is focusing on the is crucial to safe, efficient lifts on steel
of the AISC Code of Standard Practice.
needs of others. If you provide value to others, construction sites.
everyone eventually wins.
ON THE COVER: A new steel office tower and surrounding development look to revitalize an old steel mill town near Philadelphia, p. 32.
(Photo: © Connor Mayer)
MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION (Volume 63, Number 1) ISSN (print) 0026-8445: ISSN (online) 1945-0737. Published monthly by the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC), 130 E Randolph Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, IL 60601. Single issues $8.00; 1 year, $60. Periodicals postage paid at Chicago, IL and at additional
mailing offices. Postmaster: Please send address changes to MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION, 130 E Randolph Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, IL 60601.
DISCLAIMER: AISC does not approve, disapprove, or guarantee the validity or accuracy of any data, claim, or opinion appearing under a byline or obtained or quoted
from an acknowledged source. Opinions are those of the writers and AISC is not responsible for any statement made or opinions expressed in MODERN STEEL
Printed on paper made
CONSTRUCTION. All rights reserved. Materials may not be reproduced without written permission, except for noncommercial educational purposes where fewer than 25 from a minimum of
photocopies are being reproduced. The AISC and Modern Steel logos are registered trademarks of AISC. 10% recycled content.
4 | JANUARY 2023
editor’s note
Editorial Offices
130 E Randolph St, Ste 2000
Happy new year! Chicago, IL 60601
312.670.2400
Editorial Contacts
Pretty cool speaker wall CHIEF EDITOR
Geoff Weisenberger
I’m standing in front of, right? 312.493.7694
weisenberger@aisc.org
Right? I feel like a rock star! PUBLISHER
Keith A. Grubb, SE, PE
312.804.0813
grubb@aisc.org
GRAPHIC DESIGN MANAGER
Kristin Hall
Ha, ha, just kidding. Those aren’t Steel Conference is the premier educational 773.636.8543
hall@aisc.org
speakers. What you’re seeing is a large and networking event for the structural
EDITORIAL DIRECTOR
weld fume control system, which collects steel industry, bringing together structural Scott Melnick
particulates from indoor welding operations. engineers, structural steel fabricators, 312.804.1535
The “speakers” are actually filters that can be melnick@aisc.org
erectors, detailers, and architects.
removed and emptied. In addition to nearly 200 practical AISC Officers
CHAIR
Many of you have probably seen such a seminars on the latest design concepts, Stephen H. Knitter
machine. I hadn’t—or at least I hadn’t noticed construction techniques, and cutting-edge Geiger & Peters, Inc.
them in previous shop visits. This one was at research, the conference also features 250+ VICE CHAIR
the Ironworkers Local 5 training facility just exhibitors showcasing products ranging from Hugh J. McCaffrey
Southern New Jersey Steel Co.
east of Washington, D.C., a stone’s throw structural design software to machinery for
SECRETARY/LEGAL COUNSEL
from FedEx Field, where the Washington cutting steel beams. One low registration Edward Seglias, Cohen Seglias
Commanders play. The facility hosted 20 fee gains you access to all of the technical Pallas Greenhall & Furman, PC
Howard University students for AISC’s 2022 sessions, the keynote addresses, the T.R. PRESIDENT
SteelDay celebration this past October and Higgins Lecture, and the exhibitor showcase. Charles J. Carter, SE, PE, PhD
was one of a dozen IMPACT (Ironworker This year’s conference takes place in SENIOR VICE PRESIDENTS
Scott Melnick
Management Progressive Action Cooperative Charlotte, April 12–14, and will incorporate Mark W. Trimble, PE
Trust) SteelDay events that took place across the World Steel Bridge Symposium, VICE PRESIDENTS
the country (you can read more about these QualityCon, Architecture in Steel, SafetyCon, Todd Alwood
and other SteelDay events on page 52). the SSRC Annual Stability Conference, and Carly Hurd
Lawrence F. Kruth, PE
Finding out what a weld fume control the NISC Conference on Steel Detailing.
Mike Mospan
system is and does was just one thing I Registration opens on January 23, when Christopher H. Raebel, SE, PE, PhD
learned at the event. SteelDay is all about the fee for AISC members is $405 (with Brian Raff
providing awareness of the domestic discounts available for additional registrants Editorial Advisory Panel
structural steel industry and educating from the same firm). The fee increases by Brandon Chavel, PE, PhD
Michael Baker International
attendees on how the various components $15 each week, so be sure to register early!
Nat Killpatrick
of the steel supply chain work, from early Attendees can receive up to 17 PDHs. Basden Steel
design to final construction. Every year, it Full registration also includes lunch on Christina McCoy, SE
offers hands-on opportunities like the Wednesday and Thursday, the Welcome Oklahoma State University
School of Architecture
IMPACT events (where attendees were able Reception on Wednesday evening, and the
Allison Shenberger, PE
to try tasks like climbing a column, rigging conference dinner on Thursday. ruby+associates
and bolting beams, welding, and cutting You can learn more about the conference Justin Smith, PE
steel with a torch), fabrication shop visits, at aisc.org/nascc (and also in the conference Walter P Moore
construction site tours, and presentations program packaged with this issue). We hope Advertising Sales
and webinars. you’ll join us in Charlotte this spring! M.J. Mrvica Associates, Inc.
2 W Taunton Avenue
Another educational opportunity, one that Berlin, NJ 08009
packs presentations, an exhibit hall full of 856.768.9360
mjmrvica@mrvica.com
product and service providers, and plenty
Address Changes and
of networking opportunities all under one Geoff Weisenberger Subscription Concerns
roof, is NASCC: The Steel Conference. The Chief Editor 312.670.2401
subscriptions@aisc.org
Reprints
Kristin Hall
hall@aisc.org
6 | JANUARY 2023
BETTER FABRICATION
STARTS WITH SDS2
Drive efficiency and profitability for your
projects with SDS2 by ALLPLAN, the only
steel detailing software with all-in-one
intelligent connection design.
Deloitte Summit Tower, Vancouver
Detailed in SDS2 by Supermétal Structures
Photo courtesy of Westbank
REQUEST A DEMO
steel interchange
If you’ve ever asked yourself “Why?” about something related to structural steel
design or construction, Modern Steel’s monthly Steel Interchange is for you!
Send your questions or comments to solutions@aisc.org.
F3148 Fasteners
We traditionally use A325/A490 bolts standard that incorporates Grades A325, installation tools. Both the 2020 RCSC
for the connection design. However, A325M, A490, A490M, F1852, and F2280, Specification for Structural Joints Using
we have received a request from our which were previously separate standards.” High-Strength Bolts and the upcoming
construction group to consider using For background, when tension- 2022 AISC Specification recognize ASTM
bolting assemblies manufactured to the control (TC) bolts were introduced into F3148 bolts for use. As pointed out in the
ASTM F3148 standard. Do you have any the structural steel industry, they did article, F3148 bolts are produced from 144
information you can share about this not have an ASTM standard number. ksi material, which is stronger than F3125
new bolt standard? They needed to be approved on each Grade F325 and F1852 bolts produced
project as an alternative design fastener. with 120-ksi material and only slightly less
An additional bolt standard, ASTM F3148, Over time, more manufacturers began strong than F3125 Grade A490 and F2280
was added to the 2022 AISC Specification, producing their version of TC bolts with bolts produced with 150-ksi material.
which will be released in early 2023. ASTM some variations. Each manufacturer also The advantage of F3148 bolts over F3125
F3148 has a tensile strength of 144 ksi and began either producing or marketing their Grade A490 and F2280 bolts is that they
is an applicable material for spline drive installation tools. As time progressed, TC can be mechanically galvanized. You will
bolts where the spline is used to pretension bolts obtained ASTM standard numbers find many references to F3148 in the 2020
the bolt but does not twist off. (More details F1852 and F2280 (now F3125 Grade RCSC Specification. There are a few things
are available in the June 2022 Modern F1852 and F2280). With ASTM issuing to consider when using a manufactured
Steel Steelwise article: "Are You Properly an ASTM standard for TC bolts, they are matching bolt/nut assembly. More
Specifying Materials," which can be read at now in common use and produced by many information on topics such as ordering
modernsteel.com/archives.) manufacturers with proprietary tools for bolts or handling and storage that pertain
The AISC Specification for Structural Steel installation. to F3148 can be found in FAQ 6.2.3 and
Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360) lists materials ASTM F3148 bolts are in a similar FAQ 6.4.1 at aisc.org/steel-solutions-
that are approved for use in Section A3, state that TC bolts were when they center/engineering-faqs.
including A307, A353, A449, F3043, F3111, obtained their ASTM standard number. Yasmin Chaudhry, PE
and F3125. The User Note in this section They are presently only produced by one
states: “ASTM F3125 is an umbrella manufacturer and require proprietary
Yasmin Chaudhry (chaudhry@aisc.org)
is a staff engineer in AISC’s Steel Solutions The opinions expressed in Steel Interchange do not
Center. Larry Muir is a consultant to AISC. necessarily represent an official position of the American
Institute of Steel Construction and have not been reviewed.
It is recognized that the design of structures is within the
All mentioned AISC publications, unless
scope and expertise of a competent licensed structural
noted otherwise, refer to the current version Steel Interchange is a forum to exchange useful and
engineer, architect or other licensed professional for the
practical professional ideas and information on all phases
and are available at aisc.org/publications. of steel building and bridge construction. Contact Steel
application of principles to a particular structure.
Modern Steel articles can be found at Interchange with questions or responses via AISC’s Steel The complete collection of Steel Interchange questions and
www.modernsteel.com. Solutions Center: 866.ASK.AISC | solutions@aisc.org answers is available online at www.modernsteel.com.
8 | JANUARY 2023
steel interchange
HSS Corner Radius
I have an ASTM A500 HSS6×6×5∕16, and I
want to make sure that I miss the corner
radius with a drill penetration for a self-
drilling/self-tapping screw. Can you tell
me the outside radius dimension for the
corner?
The corner radius of a hollow structural
section (HSS) can vary. Per ASTM A500,
the corner radius cannot exceed three times
the specified (nominal) wall thickness. You
could conservatively use this value. You
could also measure the actual dimension of the AISC Steel Construction Manual. This of material for use in making connections
an existing piece. value, while likely closer to what you may to HSS. The workable flat dimension is
If you need to miss the corner radius actually get, is not guaranteed. As discussed provided as a reflection of current industry
with a drill penetration for a self-drilling/ in the Manual on p. 1-6: “In the tabulated practice, although the tolerances of ASTM
self-tapping screw, then you need to stay in workable flat dimensions of rectangular A500 allow a greater maximum corner
the middle 41∕8 in. of the face. (and square) HSS, the outside corner radii radius of 3tnom.” (See Figure 1.)
The workable flat is somewhat are taken as 2.25tnom. The term workable Larry Muir, PE
larger—45∕8 in., as shown in Table 1-12 of flat refers to a reasonable flat width or depth
Single-Plate Beam-to-Girder Connection
If you have a beam-to-girder-web
connection on only one side of the
girder, is there a requirement to use a
full-height stiffener instead of a single-
plate connection at this location?
There is no requirement for a full-height
stiffener to be used in this scenario. That
said, a full-height stiffener instead of a
single-plate connection (see Figure 2) at
beam-to-girder-web connections on only
one side of the girder is fairly common. In
my experience, it is specified somewhat less
than 50% of the time, though it is probably
used even less often in construction
because fabricators often suggest the use
of a single-plate connection instead of
full-height stiffeners. This request is often
accepted by the engineer of record (EOR).
When engineers are asked why they
specify full-height stiffeners in lieu of single
plates, responses vary—e.g., a common
explanation is that the end of the supported
beam wants to rotate, and providing a of a spandrel beam and does little to twist in the spandrel, the arrangement
full-depth shear stiffener helps to prevent resist end rotation of the supported beam seems more likely to exacerbate twist in
the spandrel from twisting. However, this under gravity loads. It seems that the full- the spandrel—and speaking to erectors and
explanation is inconsistent with both the depth stiffener ensures compatible (rigid fabricator field representatives, this seems
theoretical model and observed behavior. body) movement between the end of the to be the effect in practice.
A full-depth stiffener does little to supported beam, the stiffener, and the Larry Muir, PE
increase the torsional strength and stiffness spandrel beam. Rather than preventing
Modern Steel Construction | 9
steel quiz
Happy New Year! We are excited about and resistance factors, Φ, to account strength, based on the 2016 AISC
many things as we look forward to the for unavoidable variations in: Specification?
year ahead—including the release of a. materials a. multiply by 1.7
the 2022 Specification for Structural b. design equations b. divide by 1.7
Steel Buildings (AISC 360-22)! c. fabrication c. multiply by 1.5
AISC has dedicated the 2022 d. erection d. divide by 1.5
Specification to longtime volunteer and e. all of the above
6 True or False: Given a specific dead
structural behavior research pioneer
3 True or False: Allowable strength load and live load on a beam, that
Theodore (Ted) V. Galambos (see more
design (ASD) is an elastic design beam designed using LRFD load
in the News section on page 64). In
method based entirely on a stress combinations will have greater
honor of Galambos, often known as the
format without limit states, and LRFD nominal strength, and thus greater
“father of load and resistance factor
is an inelastic design method based capacity, than if the ASD load
design (LRFD),” this month’s steel quiz
entirely on a strength format with combinations had been used.
tests your knowledge of LRFD.
limit states. 7 True or False: A fundamental
1 What year was load and resistance
4 True or False: A high resistance difference between LRFD and ASD is
factor design (LRFD) introduced into
factor, Φ, indicates a larger variability that ASD employs one factor (i.e., the
the AISC Specification?
in test data for a given nominal factor of safety), while LRFD uses one
a. 1978 b. 1986
strength. factor with the resistance and one
c. 1989 d. 1993
factor each for different load effect
2 In LRFD, the margin of safety for the 5 How can LRFD design strength be types.
loads is contained in load factors quickly converted to ASD allowable
TURN TO PAGE 12 FOR ANSWERS
PANEL POINT BRIDGE
Safely Suspend HVAC Equipment, Conveyors or
Other Ceiling Fixtures without Welding or Drilling
Often, specifiers instruct steel joist manufacturers to design their joists
for uniform roof loads applied to the joist top chord, which often includes
extra uniform loading to account for anticipated utility point loads that
may hang from the joist. Since it is often unknown where these loads will
occur during design, building contractors are limited to where they can
Suspension Clamp System &
Panel Point Bridge apply these loads.
The Chicago Clamp Company Panel Point Bridge was designed to
correctly transfer midspan lower chord loads to the lower chord panel
points, the most common acceptable point of load application.
Time and money can be saved by using the Chicago Clamp Company
Panel Point Bridge to load-share with the bottom chord and quickly
transfer the many sprinkler and piping loads to their acceptable locations.
No Welding or Drilling Flexibly Hang Loads where Needed
System Bolts into Place Adaptable for Relocation if Necessary
Easily Suspend up to 2,000 lbs
Always check with the project’s engineer of record (EOR) to verify the joist capacities and loading
points have been accounted for in the loads specified for the joist manufacturer.
Plan your next project using Chicago Clamp Systems™
708.343.8311
10 | JANUARY 2023Everyone is welcome to submit questions and answers for the Steel Quiz.
If you are interested in submitting one question or an entire quiz, contact
steel quiz ANSWERS AISC’s Steel Solutions Center at 866.ASK.AISC or solutions@aisc.org.
Clues can be found in the 2016 Speci- factors, and available strengths in variability in the test data for a given
fication for Structural Steel Buildings Part 2 of the AISC Manual. nominal strength, the lower the Φ
(AISC 360-16) or the AISC Steel Con- factor will be. For example, Φ = 0.9
3 False. It is commonly believed that for limit states involving yielding, and
struction Manual, both available at ASD is an elastic design method
aisc.org/publications. Φ = 0.75 for limit states involving
based entirely on a stress format with-
rupture. Learn more about resistance
1 b. 1986. Ted Galambos is often out limit states, and LRFD is an inelas-
factors in the Commentary to Chap-
referred to as the “father of load tic design method based entirely on
ter B of the AISC Specification.
and resistance factor design (LRFD)” a strength format with limit states.
thanks to his pioneering research This is false for several reasons. Tradi- 5 d. Divide by 1.5. The ASD method
that led to the introduction of LRFD tional ASD was based on limit-states provided in the Specification recog-
in the 1986 AISC Specification principles too. Either method can be nizes that the controlling modes of
(take a walk down memory lane formulated on a stress or strength failure are the same for structures
and download the historic 1986 basis, and both take advantage of designed by ASD or LRFD. In devel-
Load and Resistance Factor Design inelastic behavior. Design, according oping appropriate values of Ω for
Specification for Structural Steel to the AISC Specification, whether it use in the Specification, the aim
Buildings at aisc.org/publications/ is according to LRFD or ASD, is based was to ensure similar levels of safety
historic-standards). on limit states design principles, and reliability for the two methods.
which define the boundaries of struc- The general relationship between
2 e. all of the above. In LRFD, the tural usefulness. Learn more about the the safety factor, Ω, and the resis-
margin of safety for the loads is design fundamentals of LRFD in Part 2 tance factor, Φ, is Ω = 1.5/Φ (this
contained in the load factors and of the AISC Manual. relationship is described further in
resistance factors, Φ, to account for the Commentary to Chapter B of
unavoidable variations in materials, 4 False. The resistance factors, Φ, in the Specification). Thus, a design
design equations, fabrication, and the AISC Specification are based
strength ΦR n can be quickly con-
erection. Learn more about nominal upon research and the experience
verted to an allowable strength Rn/Ω
strengths, resistance factors, safety and judgment of the AISC Commit-
simply by dividing by 1.5.
tee on Specifications. The higher the
6 False. The nominal strength of the
beam is not dependent on the load
approach used in the design. Only
the resistance factor applied for
LRFD and the safety factor applied
for ASD differ. Depending on the rel-
ative intensities of the dead and live
loads, the LRFD or ASD approach
may produce a more efficient design.
They are essentially equivalent at a
live-to-dead-load ratio of 3 for the
load combination that considers
dead plus live loading.
7 True. Ted Galambos stated the follow-
ing in the Engineering Journal article
“Load and Resistance Factor Design,”
which appeared in 1981: “The funda-
mental difference between LRFD and
the allowable stress design method
is, then, that the latter employs one
factor (i.e., the Factor of Safety), while
the former uses one factor with the
resistance and one factor each for
the different load effect types. LRFD,
by employing more factors, recog-
nizes the fact that, for example, beam
theory is more accurate than column
theory…, or that the uncertainties of
the dead load are smaller than those
of the live load…. LRFD thus has the
potential of providing more consis-
tency, simply because it uses more
than one factor.”
12 | JANUARY 2023Quality Management Company, LLC (QMC) is seeking qualified INDEPENDENT CONTRACT AUDITORS to conduct site audits for the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Certified Fabricators and Certified Erector Programs. This contract requires travel throughout North America and limited International travel. This is not a regionally based contract and a minimum of 75% travel should be expected. Contract auditors must have knowledge of quality management systems, audit principles and techniques. Knowledge of the structural steel construction industry quality management systems is preferred but not required as is certifications for CWI, CQA, or NDT. Prior or current auditing experience or auditing certifications are preferred but not required. Interested contractors should submit a statement of interest and resume to contractor@qmcauditing.com.
steelwise
Advances in Composite Construction
BY CHRISTINA HARBER, SE, PE, JEROME F. HAJJAR, PE , PHD, AND W. SAMUEL EASTERLING, PE, PHD
Chapter I of the upcoming 2022 AISC Specification includes expanded options and
upgrades related to composite construction.
THE INTEGRATION of steel and con- SpeedCore for Steel Structures, which is now avail-
crete in composite construction continues After a rigorous research and approval able. (You can also learn more about the
to increase in use in the U.S. and around process, provisions for SpeedCore, the system at aisc.org/speedcore and in the
the world. nickname for the revolutionary concrete- December 2022 articles “Unconventional
New structural systems, higher-strength filled composite steel plate shear wall sys- Wisdom” and “Increasing Speed through
materials, and advanced design procedures tem, have finally made it to the Specification. Research,” both available in the Archives
that bring increased efficiencies are all This wall system consists of structural steel section at www.modernsteel.com. And
driving innovation and popularity in the plates connected with tie bars and (option- you can access all AISC Design Guides
use of composite steel-concrete construc- ally) with steel-headed stud anchors on at aisc.org/dg.) With successful projects
tion. As a result, some of the steel indus- the interior surfaces to develop composite such as Rainier Square Tower in Seattle
try’s most anticipated additions to the 2022 action between the steel plates and con- and 200 Park in San Jose already con-
set of AISC standards are in the realm of crete infill (see Figure 1). Chapter I of the structed using the SpeedCore system, a
composite construction, and designers will Specification contains provisions for stiff- surge in future projects using this highly
appreciate expanded options and upgrades ness calculations, requirements for mini- efficient and rapid-to-construct structural
in Chapter I of the AISC Specification for mum steel, slenderness of plates, and tie bar system can be expected.
Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360- detailing as well as determination of axial,
22). Two new design options include a new flexural, and shear strength. Performance-based Shear
composite wall system and a performance- Connection Design
based alternative for shear connections for In the 2022 version of the Specification,
use in composite beams. Other areas of designers may now determine the flexural
improvement include a new shear strength strength of composite beams with shear
equation for filled composite members and connection configurations outside of the
more direction on reinforcing steel detail- standard range of steel deck, concrete slab,
ing for composite members. and shear connector geometries and mate-
rial properties. This can be done following
the new provisions in Section I8.4, which
outline the performance-based alternative
for designing shear connections.
ANSI/AISC 360-22
Strength, reliability, ductility, and stiff-
An American National Standard
ness criteria are determined for the assem-
Specification for bly that comprises the shear connection
Structural through physical testing. If threshold cri-
teria are met, the shear connection can be
Steel Buildings used in design and is deemed equivalent
Fig. 1. A typical SpeedCore wall.
August 1, 2022
Supersedes the Specification for Structural Steel Buildings
in performance to the conventional shear
dated June 7, 2016, and all previous versions
connection methods provided in Section
Approved by the Committee on Specifications
I8.2. This makes it feasible to analyze a
There are additional system require- composite beam with non-standard as-
ments that appear in Chapter H of the built conditions or to adopt a new inno-
Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel vative deep deck system for design. (See
Buildings (AISC 341-22). Engineers will “Composite Beam Possibilities” in the
be able to find more information on the August 2022 issue for details on how to use
system, including design examples, in these new provisions.)
AISC Design Guide 38: SpeedCore Systems
14 | JANUARY 2023steelwise
Detailing Concrete and Steel combined in practice for applications in
Reinforcement columns and beams where the resulting
Structural steel, concrete, and rein- member does not strictly qualify as a com-
forcing steel can be combined in a variety posite member according to the provisions.”
of applications for structural members in Examples of structural members included
new and existing construction. Structural in the three groups are shown in the follow-
members, including concrete-encased and ing figures: Figure 2 shows composite mem-
concrete-filled columns, beams, and beam- bers in Group 1, where an encased composite
columns can be classified into three broad column or a filled composite column is often
groups according to how the load is resisted: used in mid-rise and high-rise composite
• Group 1: Load is shared between frame construction. Note that using internal
steel, concrete, and reinforcing steel reinforcement in the concrete-filled com-
as a composite member posite column is optional for the designer.
• Group 2: All load is carried by the Figure 3 shows a common application of an
steel member encased steel floor beam in Group 2, where
• Group 3: All load is carried by the concrete encasement is provided for
concrete and reinforcing steel architectural cover, steel fireproofing, and/
or corrosion protection. Figure 4 shows a
The 2016 Specification focused on the filled composite column in Group 3, where
strength design of members in Group 1 the steel shell serves as a form only, with all
as indicated in Commentary Section I1. the load carried by the internal concrete and
General Provisions: “The provisions of steel reinforcement. The concrete and rein-
Chapter I address strength design of the forcing steel are designed according to ACI
composite sections only.” Only the limita- 318 requirements. The new Specification now
Fig. 2. Group 1 example: encased
tions and general detailing requirements addresses member detailing requirements and filled composite column in
of these composite members were speci- for concrete and steel reinforcement for all composite frame construction.
fied. Any limitations and detailing require- three groups used in practice. In all cases,
ments for Group 2 and Group 3 members ACI 318 is required to be referenced for con-
were not specified and left to the judg- crete and steel reinforcement detailing not
ment of the designer. It was stated that specifically addressed in the new Specification.
for Group 1 members, ACI 318: Building The provisions in Chapter I are orga-
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete nized into sections classified by loading type,
should be referenced for member detail- either axial (Section I2), flexure (Section
ing requirements, such as maximum and I3), shear (Section I4), or combined flexure
minimum longitudinal steel limits, trans- and axial force (Section I5). The limitations
verse steel reinforcement (stirrups, ties, and detailing requirements for concrete-
spirals, etc.), spacing, and concrete cover encased and concrete-filled members are
for steel reinforcement and for anchor- now addressed in each of these sections in
age and splice lengths of reinforcing steel. the new Specification. Refer to Chapter I for
Most designers also referred to ACI 318 specific requirements applicable to each
for detailing requirements for Group 2 member type in each of the three groups
and Group 3 members, as was implied in and for each type of load. The common Fig. 3. Group 2 example: steel floor
beam wrapped in concrete.
the Specification. application of composite beams and girders
The new 2022 Specification broadened with steel-headed stud anchors used with
the application to include specific member metal deck or solid slab construction is cov-
limitations and general detailing require- ered in the 2022 version (Section I3), just as
ments for all three groups. This was based it was in the 2016 version.
on many questions coming into the AISC
Steel Solution Center for guidance on Shear Strength of Filled Composite
requirements for Group 2 and Group 3 and Members
because the AISC Specification has become Nominal shear strength of filled
the single source standard for composite composite members gets a boost in the
design in the United States. The broader new Specification. Section I4.2 has been
application was acknowledged in the new updated based on research showing
Commentary Section I1.1 General Pro- how the steel section and concrete infill
Fig. 4. Group 3 example: encased
visions, which states: “Structural steel jointly contribute to the shear strength of reinforced concrete column.
and reinforced concrete are sometimes the member.
Modern Steel Construction | 15steelwise
The 2016 version permitted three options to calculate
shear strength. This included the available shear strength of
the steel section alone, the available shear strength of the
reinforced concrete portion as defined by ACI 318, or the
nominal shear strength of the steel section plus reinforcing
steel. In many cases, these three options produced overly
conservative nominal shear strengths.
The new Equation I4-1 in the 2022 Specification (see Fig-
ure 5) takes into account both the plastic shear strength of
the steel tube and the contribution of the concrete infill fac-
tored by Kc , which depends on shear span-to-depth ratio,
cross-section shape (rectangular or round), and compos-
ite compactness. Reinforcing steel was not found to have
a significant contribution to the strength and is therefore
neglected for simplicity. The bottom line is that designers
will be able to get substantially more shear strength out of
filled composite members.
Composite construction offers cost-effective design
approaches that provide the opportunity to harness the most
valuable characteristics of steel and concrete for structural
systems. The integration of expanded provisions on com-
posite construction in the AISC Specification and the AISC
Fig. 5. The new Equation I4-1 in the 2022 Specification. Seismic Provisions opens up new opportunities related to
VOORTMAN MSI
FULLY AUTOMATED INTEGRATED PRODUCTION LINE
FULLY AUTOMATED BUFFER SMART DATA DRIVEN HIGH CONNECTED BY
PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT UNLOADING APPROACH FLEXIBILITY VACAM-SOFTWARE
With a Voortman beam processing line packed with high-quality
hardware and intelligent software, a door opens to fully automated
production and intra-logistic processes. We call it MSI: Multi System AUTOMATIC WELDING AND ASSEMBLING
Integration. All machines are seamlessly connected via our VACAM-
software, cross transports, roller conveyors, product buffers and • Automatic fitting and welding of
material sensors. Thanks to our intelligent buffer management, the long and heavy beams;
system is able to work autonomously for long periods of time with • Capable of the most common
maximum throughput. connection types;
• Simultaneous loading and
DESIGNING A PERFECT FIT! unloading of the machine with an
To get to such an optimal lay-out with maximum efficiency, we use a automatic magnetic crane.
data-driven approach combining your input and requirements with • The Fabricator can be integrated
real data while keeping future expectations into account. Curious with other Voortman machines in
what your optimal lay-out with maximum processing efficiency looks a complete production line.
like? Then challenge us!
Voortman USA LLC / 26200 S. Whiting Way / Monee, IL 60449 - USA / +1 708 885 4900 / WWW.VOORTMANCORP.COM
16 | JANUARY 2023steelwise
composite design. Through ongoing work,
it is anticipated that new provisions in the
next cycle of these documents will con-
tinue to expand the scope of opportunity
to design using composite steel-concrete
structural systems. ■
You can find the AISC Specification and Seis-
mic Provisions at aisc.org/specifications.
The authors would like to thank the mem-
bers of AISC Task Committee 5 on Compos-
ite Design for their contributions to the new
provisions on composite construction in the
2022 versions of the AISC Specification and
Seismic Provisions.
ThE PRovEn
STEEL BRIDgE
DESIgn SoLuTIon
FREE
15-DAY
TRIAL*
*see website
Christina Harber (harber@aisc.org) is for details
AISC’s senior director of education and
the secretary of AISC Task Committee 5 The leading software package
(TC 5) – Composite Design. Jerry Hajjar
for designing and rating curved
is the CDM Smith Professor and chair of
the Department of Civil and Environmen-
and straight steel girder bridges.
tal Engineering at Northeastern Univer-
sity and the chair of TC 5. Sam East- Used by Many State DOTs and Top Design Firms
erling is the James L. and Katherine S.
Melsa Dean of Engineering at Iowa State (573) 446-3221 n www.mdxsoftware.com n info@mdxsoftware.com
University and the vice-chair of TC 5.
Modern Steel Construction | 17steelwise
Talking through the Code
BY BABETTE FREUND, BILL ANDREWS, PHILIP TORCHIO, AND JONATHAN TAVAREZ
A “conversation” between an engineer, a fabricator, and an erector provides a look
into the latest version of the AISC Code of Standard Practice.
LONG GONE ARE THE days when fabricator, and the erector. Let’s listen in on to the contrary shall not violate any provi-
the AISC Code of Standard Practice for Steel this hypothetical interview as these three sions of the building code, and the contract
Buildings and Bridges (ANSI/AISC 303) was parties share their thoughts on the major with the fabricator or erector shall iden-
considered the “fabricator’s handbook.” revisions incorporated in the latest version. tify by Code section number any specific
As the construction industry has evolved, instructions to the contrary not contained
so too has the Code into a framework for Section 1.1 in the design documents or specifications.
the entire project team: the owner, struc- Section 1.1 provisions were revised If specific instructions to the contrary have
tural engineer, fabricator, and erector to to strengthen the Code and provide clear not been provided as required, the provi-
successfully deliver structural steel projects. requirements when specific instructions sions of the Code shall apply.
It can be said that the Code serves as the to the contrary are included in contract This revision provides a greater level
structural steel Rules of Engagement. As documents. of understanding among all parties as to
business management author Patrick Len- ENGINEER: Understand that the what the project and scope expectations
cioni once penned, “If you could get all the provisions of the Code will govern unless are and how those expectations shall be
people in an organization rowing in the the owner’s designated representative for achieved. This benefits not only fabricators
same direction, you could dominate any design (ODRD) provides alternate instruc- but rather all parties involved in the project.
industry, in any market.” tions for the design and structural engineer A common understanding of the responsi-
The new 2022 Code addresses several of record (SEOR) in the contract docu- bilities and expectations of each party is the
areas of concern in the industry while also ments. When the ODRD/SEOR provides first and most important step in delivering
providing clearer harmonization with the “instructions to the contrary” in the con- a project on time and within the specifica-
AISC Specification for Structural Steel Build- tract documents, they must 1) be specific tion requirements. Time spent previously
ings (ANSI/AISC 360). There are three as to what is in variance (a tolerance on debating the scope of work and assigning
important perspectives from which the fabrication or erection, submittal require- responsibility can now be spent fulfilling
Code can be considered: the engineer, the ments, QA/QC requirements, etc.), 2) not project requirements.
violate the International Building Code (IBC) ERECTOR: A major change in the
by modifying provisions of the Code, which Code is the requirement for any instruc-
are incorporated by reference into the IBC, tions to the contrary to reference the Code
either directly or indirectly through the section that is to be excluded. If not, the
Specification, and 3) maintain consistency Code stands as written for any project that
with the other provisions of the Code. involves fabricated structural steel regard-
ANSI/AISC 303-22
An American National Standard
FABRICATOR: One of the many chal- less of delivery method. The Commen-
Code of lenges that the Code in general, and more tary then suggests, regardless of delivery
specifically, Fabricators, have faced is a lack method, that the parties discuss the scope
Standard Practice of compliance among trades with the provi- prior to document release for construction
Steel Buildings
for sions contained in the Code, especially when to ensure an understanding of the respon-
and Bridges specific instructions to the contrary are sibilities of the parties and any instructions
cited in a scope of work discrepancy, and to the contrary.
May 9, 2022
those specific instructions have not been
The Commentary to Section 1.1
Supersedes the Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges,
clearly noted and/or easily identifiable.
dated June 15, 2016, and all previous versions
Section 1.1 has been revised to specifi- The Commentary to Section 1.1 was
Approved by the Committee on the Code of Standard Practice
cally address this challenge. The 2022 Code expanded and clarified to achieve a com-
now clearly states, as part of the Code lan- mon understanding of the responsibilities
guage (not Commentary), that the Code and expectations of each party.
shall apply to all projects that involve fab- ENGINEER: The Commentary has
ricated structural steel. Further, unless spe- been expanded to emphasize the value of
cifically noted in the contract documents, communication and collaboration between
all provisions apply. Specific instructions all project stakeholders prior to the design
18 | JANUARY 2023steelwise
documents being released for construction. the timeframe of preceding trades to Section 2.2
There is a recommendation to conduct understand the schedule goals. Steel used as piling or other piling
a preconstruction meeting with the key Changes to Section 1.7 now address accessories was added to Section 2.2 as
stakeholders in the structural steel deliv- that challenge. The change requires the “other steel, iron, or metal items.”
ery—the owner’s designated representative ODRC to provide a construction sched- ENGINEER: The SEOR shows all the
for construction (ODRC), ODRD, fab- ule in the bid documents. Further, the structural elements in their design docu-
ricator, erector, and detailer. View it as an performance period by the steel fabricator ments according to their contract with
opportunity to create clarity in the project and erector shall be mutually agreed upon their client, including steel items that the
requirements while reducing risk. A sample before awarding the contract. Code may classify as “other steel.” Suppose
meeting agenda could discuss some or all This section is extremely helpful to fab- the SEOR intends that these items, such as
of the following: ricators. Many fabricators have multiple steel piling, be treated as structural steel.
• Project schedule projects running through their shops at In that case, these items need to be speci-
• Material availability once. As a result, the ability to accurately fied explicitly in the contract documents as
• Substitutions schedule and shop load while implement- structural steel. This is an opportunity to
• Submittal process ing timely updates is critical. Scheduling exercise the “instructions to the contrary”
• Variances from Code provisions and shop loading as soon as a bid is com- provision of Section 1.1. The ODRC must
• Delegated connection design mitted are extremely important in planning discuss with their trade partners who will
• Use of the ODRD’s 3D model for labor and materials and ensuring timely provide the “other steel” and according to
• Special erection procedures ordering, fabrication, and delivery. which standard, if not specified in the con-
• Testing and inspection ENGINEER: The ODRD should tract documents.
• AESS and painting request a copy of the ODRC’s construc- FABRICATOR: Fabricators are often
• Value engineering opportunities tion schedule to inform their work plan- asked to provide material for a project that
• Timing of SEOR site visits ning for submittal reviews and the timing does not fall within the scope of structural
of site visits. steel. One such material often in question
New: Section 1.7 ERECTOR: A construction schedule is steel used as piling or piling accessories.
A new Section 1.7 was added with provi- has been added as a requirement for the The 2022 Code has been updated to
sions on construction scheduling. ODRC to include in the bid documents. clearly note that steel used as piling or
FABRICATOR: What’s a fabricator's Further, the agreement of the fabricator piling accessories does not fall within the
first question (beyond “how many tons”)? and erector to the proposed schedule is category of structural steel, and is not the
“When do you need steel”? required before the contract award. The responsibility of the fabricator, unless
Typically, the answer is verbal and is mutual agreement is crucial as we have all specifically addressed and agreed upon
seldom accompanied by a project schedule seen schedules change with every activity contractually.
that enables the fabricator to understand except the end date!
Modern Steel Construction | 19steelwise
Section 3.0 and its Commentary ENGINEER: Section 3.1 defines the FABRICATOR: Section 3.1 now
Section 3.0 and its Commentary were requirements of structural design docu- refers to the Specification for the require-
revised to coordinate with the Specification. ments “issued for construction,” a new ments of what should be included in the
ENGINEER: In probably the most term defined in the glossary. The detailed design documents. Since the Specification
significant Code update in recent editions, requirements and the associated Com- is fully incorporated into the IBC, there is
Section 3 has been significantly revised, mentary have been moved to Section A4 now no question as to what is required to
introducing new terminology of “issu- of the Specification and are incorporated be shown for trades to accurately provide
ing” design documents by the ODRD and here by reference. This list in Section bids without assumptions.
“releasing” design documents by the ODRC A4 will look familiar to the SEOR, as it Further, Section 3.1 now clearly
along with the purposes of these actions. was found in prior editions of the Code in requires that when painting is required, the
This parallels the revisions in Section A4.2 Section 3.1. New to the list of require- following must be provided:
of the Specification, which are referenced in ments for structural design documents is • Specific members identified
the Commentary of Section 3. See Table 1 (c) Shop Painting and Surface Preparation • Surface prep clearly noted
for a summary of these terms. Requirements. The SEOR’s designation • Paint specifications and
FABRICATOR: The 2022 Code clearly of structural design documents as “issued manufacturer product identification,
addresses the difference between issuing for construction” indicates they are autho- including color
design documents and releasing design rized to be used to construct the steel • Minimum dry film shop coat
documents (and specifications), as well as structure. It follows the SEOR’s tradi- thickness
who is responsible for each. This will serve tional use of this term on their documents • Shop- and field-applied paint system
to help eliminate the question of what that the design is complete, approved by compatibility
should be done with design documents the government AHJ (authority having • Party responsible for touch-up,
when received and whether the design doc- jurisdiction) with a building permit, and including repair of shipping and
uments were received based on issuance or the documents possess a PE seal from the handling damage after shop
a release. engineer-of-record. The fabricator can application
Great care has been taken to coordinate then use these documents for ordering If this information is not available at the
the 2022 Code with the 2022 Specification. steel and detailing. time of the bid, the fabricator is entitled to
Terminology has been harmonized, and ERECTOR: In Section 3.1(c)(6), the an equitable contract price and schedule
redundancy between publications has been party responsible for field touch-up and adjustment.
eliminated. It is important to remember repair of shipping and handling damage The clarity provided concerning coat-
that the Specification is incorporated in the must be specified in the structural design ings in this section will further strengthen
IBC, and, therefore, the 2022 Code is now documents and specifications issued for the understanding of all contracting par-
incorporated by reference. construction. The sentence following ties as to which parties are responsible for
directs the erector/fabricator to omit this what scope of work items. Field touch-up
Section 3.1 scope from the bid if not specified, and has always been a contentious issue and
A new Section 3.1 was added with provi- when the requirements are furnished, the has often resulted in costly back-charges
sions on structural design documents and contract price and schedule shall be equita- as a result of a lack of clarity in the con-
specifications issued for construction. This bly adjusted. Section 3.1(d) requires mem- tracting process.
section also contains updated requirements bers to be handled as AESS and be desig-
and guidance on painting responsibilities. nated in the construction documents.
Table 1: Structural Design Documents and Specifications
2022
Issuing AISC-
Term Entity Receiver Purpose Design Complete? 303 Ref.
Released for Construction ODRC To Establish a Steel Contract; Glossary;
> no change from the 2016 (Owner, Fabricator Ordering steel, detailing, and Yes 303-4.1;
edition CM, GC) fabrication 303-5.1
Released for (any other purpose) Owner, GC, CM, As stated in the Structural Documents No—Qualified by Glossary;
> new in 2022 edition CM, GC Cost Est., (Cost Estimate; Bidding; GMP; “Purpose of Drawings” 303-3.2.2;
Peer Rev. Peer Review; Constructability Review) Statement 360-A4.2
Issued for Construction ODRD Owner Yes; PE Seal, AHJ Glossary;
> new in 2022 edition (SEOR) and GC Construction approval with building 303-3.1;
permit 360-A4.1
Issued for (any other purpose) ODRD GC, CM, As stated in the Structural Documents No (unless issued for Glossary;
> new in 2022 edition (SEOR) Cost Est., (Bidding; Cost Estimate; GMP; Owner Permit Review by AHJ)— 303-3.2;
Peer Rev., or Peer Review; AE Coordination; Qualified by “Purpose of 360-A4.2
AHJ Constructability Review, AHJ Permit) Drawings” statement
20 | JANUARY 2023steelwise
Section 3.2
A new (Section 3.2) was added with pro-
visions for structural design documents and
specifications issued as contract documents.
ENGINEER: Section 3.2 introduces
new provisions for design documents
issued by the ODRD as contract docu-
ments. These new provisions differenti-
ate between issuing design documents
as a basis for contract documents under
the traditional design-bid-build delivery
method and issuing drawings as the basis
for a contract under an alternate project
delivery method. These alternate delivery
methods may include design-build (stipu-
lated sum or progressive), integrated proj-
ect delivery (IPD), construction-manager-
at-risk, P3, lease-leaseback, negotiated
GMP, and others. Section 3.2.2 further
states that when an alternative project
delivery method is used, the release of
the structural design documents is for the
expressed purpose stated on the drawings
issued by the SEOR, as stated in Section 3.
The benefit to the SEOR is that for many
years, structural design documents have
been issued for some purpose other than
for construction—for pricing, bidding,
owner review, GMP, etc. The Code now
explicitly acknowledges these alternative
project delivery methods where the SEOR
defines the purpose for which documents
are being issued and the responsibility of
the owner and ODRC to release them only
for that stated purpose. A good, descrip-
tive “purpose of documents” statement is
essential for design documents issued for
any purpose other than for construction.
Section 3.2 further states that when
structural design documents are issued as
contract documents and do not include all
the information required for a complete
design as defined in Section 3.1, allowances
for items not defined in partially complete
design documents are to be provided in the
contract with the fabricator. Nonetheless,
the structural design documents must con-
vey the “character, quantity, and complex-
ity of the structural steel to be fabricated
and erected” so that the Fabricators have a
rational basis for developing bid prices.
The revised Section 3.2.2 provides
enhanced guidance to the entire project
team on effectively using allowances and
the subsequent equitable adjustments to
contract price and schedule.
Modern Steel Construction | 21steelwise
Revisions in Section 3.2.3: Require-
ments for Connections – Option 3 clarified
that the SEOR is required to show project-
specific connection detail concepts and not
just “typical” details, which may not be
directly applicable. The robust Commen-
tary to Section 3.2.3 now includes a dis-
cussion of transfer forces and the SEOR’s
responsibility to specify them.
ERECTOR: Section 3.2.2: The major
changes in this edition of the Code focus
on alternative delivery methods for con-
struction. This method now comprises
most of the structural work and provides
the greatest opportunity for a highly effi-
cient project or, if not implemented cor-
rectly, problems for all the parties involved.
The erector being the tail that wags the
dog, often has the least contract protection
being a third-tier subcontractor subject to
the pass-through contract requirements
of the owner to the ODRC to the fabri-
cator, often with no bond protection, and
being the last entity to touch the structure
is often looked at as the proximate cause
of late delivery or quality issues. The new
changes in the Code provide the best frame-
work of Code and Commentary to level
the field and ensure a chance for success.
It focuses on communication between the
parties and mutual agreement on what is
shown and what is not. Section 3.2.1 lists
the information critical for preparing a
complete bid for the work. Then when any
of the information is not specified, the fab-
ricator and erector shall provide allowances
per section 9.1.5, which says, “When an
allowance for work is called for in the con-
tract documents, and the associated work
is subsequently defined as to the quantity,
complexity, and timing of that work after
the contract is executed, the contract price
for this work shall be adjusted by change
order.” This clearly means that when the
work to be done is defined, the allowance
will be adjusted to reflect the work required.
The Commentary further urges the
parties to work together to identify work
not shown in the released contract docu-
ments, mutually agree, and document this
work so it can be priced as the design is
completed. The Commentary also reminds
the owner that alternative delivery meth-
ods may speed the process, but this benefit
may be offset by cost and schedule impacts
as the unknown requirements are revealed.
22 | JANUARY 2023steelwise
FABRICATOR: For alternative deliv-
ery methods, the 2022 Code requires that
the contract documents convey the charac-
ter, quantity, and complexity of the struc-
tural steel to be fabricated and erectors.
This allows the fabricator and erector to
provide bids that are accurate and com-
plete, without assumption. It is essential
for everyone to understand the list of the
minimum requirements, (a) through (g),
that must be included in the design docu-
ments and specifications. This creates an
even playing field for all involved in the
bidding process.
Section 4.5
In Section 4.5, requirements were
added for the review of fabrication and Section 6.1 where the paint is exposed to atmospheric
erection documents, including additional In Section 6.1, preferred material speci- conditions or corrosive conditions that are
commentary guidance. fications were updated to parallel the 16th more severe than the intended use of the
FABRICATOR: Many fabricators con- Edition AISC Steel Construction Manual. paint. Further, the fabricator is not respon-
tract to fabricate structural steel from fabri- ENGINEER: The revisions to “shop sible for deterioration when painted mem-
cation documents that are not furnished by standard material” in Section 6.1.1 are bers are stored for unanticipated durations
the fabricator. When the fabrication docu- coordinated with similar revisions to Table due to project delays not caused by the
ments are furnished by others, changes to 2-4 in the 16th Edition Manual. Updates fabricator.
the 2022 Code require that these documents to the shop-standard material for channels, Handling damage or damage during
be reviewed and approved by the ODRD. angles, plates, and other shapes are based transportation is not the responsibility of
As a result, the fabricator is not responsible on an extensive survey by AISC of fabrica- the fabricator unless the painted material is
for the coordination or accuracy of the fab- tors and mills of steel materials in produc- under the direct control of the fabricator or
rication and erection documents that were tion and readily available. Material avail- a subcontractor of the fabricator.
furnished, nor is the fabricator responsible ability can always be verified through the Unless specifically provided for in the
for the general fit-up of the members that AISC website at aisc.org/steelavailability. contract documents, the properties of the
are fabricated, as long as fabrication is in FABRICATOR: This section has been optional shop coat are at the discretion of
accordance with the documents provided. updated to coordinate with the 16th Edi- the fabricator. Touch-ups and abrasions
This section now also requires that tion Manual to eliminate any confusion or caused by shipping and handling after
these documents be delivered to the fabri- discrepancy when specifying and ordering painting shall be the responsibility of the
cator in a timely manner. materials. contractor that performs the touch in the
ERECTOR: Section 4.5: Fabrication field or field painting.
and/or Erection Documents not Furnished Section 6.4
by the Fabricator provides cautionary lan- In Section 6.4 the paint and steel clean- Section 7.10
guage regarding the preparation of fabrica- ing provisions were expanded. In Section 7.10, there is added Com-
tion and erection drawings by a party other FABRICATOR: Field touch-up and mentary to clarify shoring requirements.
than the fabricator. If the owner or ODRC handling damage has been an area of con- ERECTOR: These requirements
does direct another party to prepare fabri- tention over the course of many projects would not be apparent to the erector and
cation documents, the Code now requires and can result in extensive cost. Disputes must be provided by the ODRD, and ref-
the ODRD to review and approve the sub- may arise when responsibilities are not erence to Section A4 of the Specification for
mitted documents. Further, the fabricator clearly defined in the contract documents. cantilever conditions is provided. Section
and erector shall not be responsible for Additions and changes to Section 6.4 of the 7.10.3 expands the requirements for the
any failure of the material fabricated and 2022 Code have been made to help mini- erector to determine the need and to pro-
erected in accordance with the furnished mize or eliminate the dispute. vide all temporary structures, shoring, fram-
documents. Additional clarification regarding paint ing, and cabling to facilitate the erection of
The Commentary then lists in 14 bullet and steel cleaning has been added to the the structure. This will include the design
points, enumerating most of the potential 2022 Code. Section 6.4.4 specifically notes of these items. This design shall adequately
issues with using this method. that the fabricator is not responsible for support the structure for erection forces and
the deterioration of the shop-applied paint environment, including wind.
Modern Steel Construction | 23You can also read
