Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: ASD vs. LRFD

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The "young" guys use LRFD because that is what is taught in the schools.
Schools do not teach ASD.  I have heard of many newly minted engineers being
told to throw away their LRFD books when they start work, because their
supervising engineer doesn't want to deal with it or check over calcs done
that way.  That's certainly understandable, because after 10 or 20 years of
using any system, it gets really easy, so why slow yourself down?  Without
ASD being formally taught, or supported in updated steel manuals, I have a
hard time seeing how it will exist in another 20 years.  A few UBC issues
down the road, will they really want to reference a decades old (by then)
ASD manual when there will be fresh new LRFD manuals around?  Eventually,
the engineers who have been getting out of school lately will ascend to the
corner office, and they won't care whether ASD or LRFD are used, since they
will have learned one in school and one in the work place.  When the new
guys under them, fresh from schools of the future, want to work is LRFD, no
one will stop them, and ASD will be dead, even if the UBC/IBC hasn't killed
it some time before then.  That is why the future is LRFD.


"Ritter, Mike" wrote:

> Well, Fountain...
>
> The engineers around here (Tennessee) don't use LRFD either (unless
> forced to do so).  My company does work all over the world and I've used
> it twice.  I've been to numerous AISC sponsored seminars where the
> presenter laughed and made jokes (along with the audience) about LRFD.
> I've been to other AISC sponsored seminars where the presenter was very
> serious about LRFD and kept making comments about never updating the 9th
> Edition Steel Manual.  These "serious" guys appear to be the young ones
> and I wonder if they've ever been responsible for designing a building.
>
> Fountain, keep up the good (ASD) work!
>
> Michael Ritter, PE
> Senior Structural Engineer
> Lockwood Greene
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fountain Conner [SMTP:fconner(--nospam--at)pcola.gulf.net]
> > Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 2:09 PM
> > To:   seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject:      Re: ASD vs. LRFD
> >
> > Here in the remote reaches of the Florida panhandle, I don't do
> > LRFD...
> > yet.
> >
> > AISC likes LRFD; I don't.  No one has yet convinced me of an
> > advantage.
> >
> > I will use LRFD when either:  1.  The codes demand it; 2.  The client
> > demands it; or 3.  I recognize some advantage in time saving (my time)
> > or
> > substantial savings of material (the owner's money).
> >
> > I understand, but have a problem with this statement, "The future is
> > undoubtedly LRFD".  Somebody please tell me why.  Better yet, show me.
> >
> >
> > Fountain E. Conner, P.E.
> > Gulf Breeze, Fl. 32561
> >
> > ----------
> > > From: Bohm, Gabriel <GBohm(--nospam--at)TechnipUSA.com>
> > > To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> > > Subject: ASD vs. LRFD
> > > Date: Friday, June 11, 1999 11:45 AM
> > >
> >
> > > The future is undoubtedly LRFD. AISC hardly even mentions ASD, but
> > for
> > now
> > > it seems that, in terms of LRFD implementation, the structural
> > engineering
> > > community is quite a few steps behind. Is this assertion correct? I
> > think
> > it
> > > would be of interest to all of us to find out how widespread the use
> > of
> > LRFD
> > > really is.
> > >
> > > Gabe Bohm
> > > San Dimas, Ca.
> >
> >
>