Peer-to-Peer Standards Exchange

The question of how research gets noticed and ultimately applied by those involved in codes and standards came up on our recent collaboration community call. It would be great to hear from those involved in code and standard writing on the types of interactions or processes that bridge between these two worlds. 

The question of how research gets noticed and ultimately applied by those involved in codes and standards came up on our recent collaboration community call. It would be great to hear from those involved in code and standard writing on the types of interactions or processes that bridge between these two worlds. 

During my time as teaching & research assistant at ETHZ (Institute of Structural Earthquake Engineering), I saw very successfull short courses for practicioners, e.g. by Bruno Thürlimann on plasticity of concrete, by Hugo Bachmann on man & machine induced vibrations of structures and with Thomas Paulay from New Zealand on capacity design of buildings. Certainly, one successfull way is international collaboration with countries being an early adopter of a new idea. (As ACI did with strut & tie modelling imported from Germany.) A great help is also to have an international journal like Structural Engineering International (SEI) of IABSE, which combines academic research papers with practical reports of advanced structures, maintaining a corresponding e-Learning platform (IABSE - eLearning).

Sometimes, new developments in academia are too complicated for practisioners to employ directly and need first a simplifying adaptation by the software industry. For instance, splitting finite elements for discrete modelling of cracks in mass concrete never made its way into a commercial FEA package, whereas isoparametric contact elements to model arch dam joints are now quite common.  Also modelling seismic reservoir interaction (John P. Wolf's work at EPFL and ETHZ) was introduced into commercial codes not as BEM-FEM coupling but with simpler silent boundaries elements.

A big success -- as spin off from the same Swiss dam engineering research project -- was the development of a finite element code to model embankment dams by Thomas Zimmermann of EPFL (in collaboration with Thomas Hughes and Ted Belytschko) that became known as ZSOIL. Actually, the transfer of academic development into practise thanks to an interested industry partner is a frequent pattern, not only in software but also for new building products like carbon reinforcement and others. Sometimes it needs a publicly owned laboratory (such as the Swiss EMPA) as linking element demonstrating the commercial viability of a new idea.

In my view, commercial acceptance must come first. Standardization is only coding was it already practised informally. For such an open trial apporach there must be, of course, a liberal concept of building codes which is not inhibiting innovation but allowing for engineering judgement (perhaps in combination with scientific monitoring). And a strong participation of practisioners in standardization committees is paramount.

The question of how research gets noticed and ultimately applied by those involved in codes and standards came up on our recent collaboration community call. It would be great to hear from those involved in code and standard writing on the types of interactions or processes that bridge between these two worlds. 

During my time as teaching & research assistant at ETHZ (Institute of Structural Earthquake Engineering), I saw very successfull short courses for practicioners, e.g. by Bruno Thürlimann on plasticity of concrete, by Hugo Bachmann on man & machine induced vibrations of structures and with Thomas Paulay from New Zealand on capacity design of buildings. Certainly, one successfull way is international collaboration with countries being an early adopter of a new idea. (As ACI did with strut & tie modelling imported from Germany.) A great help is also to have an international journal like Structural Engineering International (SEI) of IABSE, which combines academic research papers with practical reports of advanced structures, maintaining a corresponding e-Learning platform (IABSE - eLearning).

Sometimes, new developments in academia are too complicated for practisioners to employ directly and need first a simplifying adaptation by the software industry. For instance, splitting finite elements for discrete modelling of cracks in mass concrete never made its way into a commercial FEA package, whereas isoparametric contact elements to model arch dam joints are now quite common.  Also modelling seismic reservoir interaction (John P. Wolf's work at EPFL and ETHZ) was introduced into commercial codes not as BEM-FEM coupling but with simpler silent boundaries elements.

A big success -- as spin off from the same Swiss dam engineering research project -- was the development of a finite element code to model embankment dams by Thomas Zimmermann of EPFL (in collaboration with Thomas Hughes and Ted Belytschko) that became known as ZSOIL. Actually, the transfer of academic development into practise thanks to an interested industry partner is a frequent pattern, not only in software but also for new building products like carbon reinforcement and others. Sometimes it needs a publicly owned laboratory (such as the Swiss EMPA) as linking element demonstrating the commercial viability of a new idea.

In my view, commercial acceptance must come first. Standardization is only coding was it already practised informally. For such an open trial apporach there must be, of course, a liberal concept of building codes which is not inhibiting innovation but allowing for engineering judgement (perhaps in combination with scientific monitoring). And a strong participation of practisioners in standardization committees is paramount.

The question of how research gets noticed and ultimately applied by those involved in codes and standards came up on our recent collaboration community call. It would be great to hear from those involved in code and standard writing on the types of interactions or processes that bridge between these two worlds. 

Hi Stephen

Research results financed from public funds (i.e. tax payers' money) are accessible to everybody. This is why most PhD theses are downloadable for free, e.g. in Switzerland via Dissertationen Online an der ETH-Bibliothek Zürich, often in English.

Endowed chairs are also considered public money. However, most universities institutes are compelled to raise additional funds from third parties, sometimes in public-private partnership, the results of which could be proprietary. Military research would likewise be subject to non-disclosure agreements (plus restrictions regarding researcher's nationality), even if financed by the Pentagon.

A promising way to gain access are CPD courses, certificates of advanced studies etc., to which also technologists with sufficient experience can be admitted. University short courses (micro-credentials), as mentioned in my post, are becoming an important transfer channel. Since Covid evening colloquy series at universities are increasingly held in hybrid format. Just sign up for newsletters of respective universities institutes. Otherwise I can only recommend joining commissions and task groups of learned societies such as ASCE in order to get connected, subscription to a journal in your field of work, and attendence of a conference now and then. 

Talk about knowledge management in your company (particularly knowledge import) and volunteer to play a role in that!

During my time as teaching & research assistant at ETHZ (Institute of Structural Earthquake Engineering), I saw very successfull short courses for practicioners, e.g. by Bruno Thürlimann on plasticity of concrete, by Hugo Bachmann on man & machine induced vibrations of structures and with Thomas Paulay from New Zealand on capacity design of buildings. Certainly, one successfull way is international collaboration with countries being an early adopter of a new idea. (As ACI did with strut & tie modelling imported from Germany.) A great help is also to have an international journal like Structural Engineering International (SEI) of IABSE, which combines academic research papers with practical reports of advanced structures, maintaining a corresponding e-Learning platform (IABSE - eLearning).

Sometimes, new developments in academia are too complicated for practisioners to employ directly and need first a simplifying adaptation by the software industry. For instance, splitting finite elements for discrete modelling of cracks in mass concrete never made its way into a commercial FEA package, whereas isoparametric contact elements to model arch dam joints are now quite common.  Also modelling seismic reservoir interaction (John P. Wolf's work at EPFL and ETHZ) was introduced into commercial codes not as BEM-FEM coupling but with simpler silent boundaries elements.

A big success -- as spin off from the same Swiss dam engineering research project -- was the development of a finite element code to model embankment dams by Thomas Zimmermann of EPFL (in collaboration with Thomas Hughes and Ted Belytschko) that became known as ZSOIL. Actually, the transfer of academic development into practise thanks to an interested industry partner is a frequent pattern, not only in software but also for new building products like carbon reinforcement and others. Sometimes it needs a publicly owned laboratory (such as the Swiss EMPA) as linking element demonstrating the commercial viability of a new idea.

In my view, commercial acceptance must come first. Standardization is only coding was it already practised informally. For such an open trial apporach there must be, of course, a liberal concept of building codes which is not inhibiting innovation but allowing for engineering judgement (perhaps in combination with scientific monitoring). And a strong participation of practisioners in standardization committees is paramount.

The question of how research gets noticed and ultimately applied by those involved in codes and standards came up on our recent collaboration community call. It would be great to hear from those involved in code and standard writing on the types of interactions or processes that bridge between these two worlds. 

The question of how research gets noticed and ultimately applied by those involved in codes and standards came up on our recent collaboration community call. It would be great to hear from those involved in code and standard writing on the types of interactions or processes that bridge between these two worlds. 

The question of how research gets noticed and ultimately applied by those involved in codes and standards came up on our recent collaboration community call. It would be great to hear from those involved in code and standard writing on the types of interactions or processes that bridge between these two worlds. 

My response is as a practitioner who has been active in code/standards development for 40 years, first as a member of the SEAOC Seismology Committee, then as a member of the BSSC Provisions Update Committee, ASCE 7 Committee and AISC and AWS specifications committees.  My focus if primarily on building structures.  There are several paths for research into practice:

1- Some researchers are active about promulgating the results of their research they believe is relevant  They do this through seminars/webinars and publishing articles which may be viewed by code committee members.  This is pretty indirect and not particularly effective.  As an example, about 10 years before the 1994 Northridge earthquake, Prof Egor Popov developed doubts as to the fragility and lack of suitability of the standard steel moment connection, then prescribed by the building code.  He advertised this widely in seminars, which were attended by code developers, but his warnings were ignored.  Then the Northridge earthquake occurred and fractured connections were discovered.  Code developers (me included) said, Oh!  Popov warned us about this! and then took action to change the code.

2- Some researchers take a more direct approach and directly contact the cognizant code/standard committee and make presentations of their research and recommended code changes.  This is often done at the request of one or more sponsors of the research, but also for more altruistic reasons.  Many researchers are members of the code committees which facilitates this transfer, but this is not a requirement.

3- Industry associations, e.g. AISC, ACI, TMS, AFPA, sometimes sponsor research they deem important either to obtain competitive advantage in the marketplace, or to correct a perceived safety issue.  Representatives of these associations are often members of the code committees and directly present the information.

4- Practicing engineers on the committees will become aware of research that they discover in trying to execute a project, are impressed by what they find, and then take this forward to the code committees.

5- Prior to adoption, new building codes and standards go through a public comment process when anyone can challenge the code/standard and present reasons why.  Sometimes research is brought to the attention of the committees in this manner.

The question of how research gets noticed and ultimately applied by those involved in codes and standards came up on our recent collaboration community call. It would be great to hear from those involved in code and standard writing on the types of interactions or processes that bridge between these two worlds. 

Ronald really useful observations from someone who has been involved in the academia. Do universities and colleges publish research that is being carried out so that Professionals can access this research (or titles) for example through a web search? From your comments it would appear that unless research is published in a formal/ structured platform the research is not "made known" to Professionals who may find a particular piece of research useful to what they are doing. Would appreciate your comments.

My response is as a practitioner who has been active in code/standards development for 40 years, first as a member of the SEAOC Seismology Committee, then as a member of the BSSC Provisions Update Committee, ASCE 7 Committee and AISC and AWS specifications committees.  My focus if primarily on building structures.  There are several paths for research into practice:

1- Some researchers are active about promulgating the results of their research they believe is relevant  They do this through seminars/webinars and publishing articles which may be viewed by code committee members.  This is pretty indirect and not particularly effective.  As an example, about 10 years before the 1994 Northridge earthquake, Prof Egor Popov developed doubts as to the fragility and lack of suitability of the standard steel moment connection, then prescribed by the building code.  He advertised this widely in seminars, which were attended by code developers, but his warnings were ignored.  Then the Northridge earthquake occurred and fractured connections were discovered.  Code developers (me included) said, Oh!  Popov warned us about this! and then took action to change the code.

2- Some researchers take a more direct approach and directly contact the cognizant code/standard committee and make presentations of their research and recommended code changes.  This is often done at the request of one or more sponsors of the research, but also for more altruistic reasons.  Many researchers are members of the code committees which facilitates this transfer, but this is not a requirement.

3- Industry associations, e.g. AISC, ACI, TMS, AFPA, sometimes sponsor research they deem important either to obtain competitive advantage in the marketplace, or to correct a perceived safety issue.  Representatives of these associations are often members of the code committees and directly present the information.

4- Practicing engineers on the committees will become aware of research that they discover in trying to execute a project, are impressed by what they find, and then take this forward to the code committees.

5- Prior to adoption, new building codes and standards go through a public comment process when anyone can challenge the code/standard and present reasons why.  Sometimes research is brought to the attention of the committees in this manner.

The question of how research gets noticed and ultimately applied by those involved in codes and standards came up on our recent collaboration community call. It would be great to hear from those involved in code and standard writing on the types of interactions or processes that bridge between these two worlds.