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


[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
This question comes up quite often, but I'll throw a response at it anyway.

There have been rumors (some substantiated, some not) that there will not be
a 10th edition of the ASD manual.   AISC is committed to LRFD, those who
feel that it's too complicated and unecessary be damned.

Personally, I took LRFD as an undergrad, but was taught (largely by myself)
to use ASD "on the job."  I would be hard pressed right now to design even a
simple beam per LRFD.  In my (admittedly limited) experience, LRFD is only
worth the trouble in large structures that are highly repetitive.

Just my quick $0.02 worth.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bohm, Gabriel [mailto:GBohm(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 12:46 PM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)'
Subject: ASD vs. LRFD

About a year ago I was in a structural engineering seminar in the Los
Angeles area. At one point, the gentleman running the show asked: "How many
of you are familiar with ASD?"  Everyone was, of course. His next question
(And how many of you are regular LRFD users?) generated no response at all.

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.