News Detail

Research, Building Codes, and Engineering Practice

2/1/2001

In 1960, Siess¹ published his often-referenced paper "Research, Building Codes, and Engineering Practice." It is a topic that never ceases to be of interest, and I have borrowed his title for this memo. Siess stated, "The practice of engineering as a profession is, by its very nature, based on knowledge. There are basically only two sources of this knowledge: research and experience." In order to advance one’s knowledge beyond that which was current at the time of his/her formal education, one must "keep on learning."

Although learning can be done on an individual basis, it may be more efficient to do so collectively. The value of most technical societies like ACI is that they provide a forum for such collective activity, and they support, maintain, and encourage participation. Siess outlined the process by which committees "study collectively the results of research and current practices" and use their "collective judgment" to prepare "a summary of existing knowledge."

The complex interactions between research, codes, and practice discussed by Siess are as valid today as they were 40 years ago—little has changed even though the flow of information is much faster with today’s technology. Siess discussed the interactions in relation to code development, but the same statements apply to other technical documents. The process of discussing research results and tempering them with the experience gained in practice is a very human process that has not yet been computerized. Although today’s information technology makes participation in committee work possible through electronic means, it cannot replace the camaraderie of face-to-face discussions and social interactions that occur at meetings. These are features of committee and association activity that must be retained.

Another issue related to the transfer of research into practice has not changed much since 1938: "One of the greatest ills of the engineering profession is the long lag between research and practice—the time elapsing between the discoveries and findings of research and their general acceptance and application by engineering practitioners." This familiar criticism was made by Frank T. Sheets,² in a paper delivered at the 34th Annual Dinner of the American Concrete Institute. His "frank analysis of the existing situation" and the sort of people who make up the practitioner and research groups makes interesting reading.

Siess also commented on the lag between research and practice and cited several cases where the findings of research projects did not change codes or practice for 30 years or more. It must be remembered that the prime role of codes is to provide public safety. Therefore, code-writers tend to be conservative in applying research findings, and they wait until there is verification by other researchers or the body of knowledge is sufficient to permit extrapolation to a variety of cases. Such long lags are frustrating and discouraging to researchers; however, codes are not the only avenue for implementation of findings. Well-written reports and papers on topics of interest that address critical issues in design and construction can have just as large an impact as code provisions.

Many committees and many committee members see the inclusion of their "knowledge" in a major code or standard such as ACI 318 as the only acceptable or satisfactory validation of their work. The success of a committee in developing knowledge should not be judged in this way. In the case of ACI 318, the objective is to provide minimum standards for structural concrete for public safety. The code cannot be the only source of new technology and innovation. In fact, as Siess has suggested, it may be desirable to wait until there is sufficient data and understanding of an issue before including it in a code such as ACI 318.

One of the most rewarding technical committee experiences I have had is my association with ACI Committee 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures. In 1976, ACI 352 published a document³ that was widely used in practice for many years before any of its design recommendations were incorporated into a code or standard. The development of a report permitted the committee to include much more explanatory material than is generally included in a code, to discuss research needs, and to develop design examples that showed how the recommendations could be implemented.

The concrete community is best served when the views of a diverse group of individuals, all having experience and knowledge in a topic, are heard. Collectively the group then applies its judgment and reaches consensus to provide guidance to the rest of the community.

Back to Past-Presidents' Memo List