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

Re: ASD vs. LRFD

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
To Bill Polhemus:

(All others note -- We don't hate each-other) 

I know LFRD is "easier to use".  

But, you haven't addressed my challenge -- Show me how LFRD is better.

Your quote in favor of LFRD, ""It is a "rationality-based" standard. It
takes structural design (whatever the material) closer to the state of
knowledge of structural behavior."" is prejudicial, not enlightening .  And
just because word "rationality" is used in a sentence does not guarantee
rationality.

I'm reasonable.  If LFRD is better, prove it to me.  Not only will I adopt
it; I will "champion" it, embrace it, and defend it.  But don't "blow
smoke" at me.  

For example, your quote, ""> But those who won't take the small increments
of time to get "updated" to
> the newer methodologies risk one day being so totally outmoded that
younger
> colleagues will use them as the butts of jokes."" ...may well come back
to haunt you...

I can hear it now, "Poor old Bill.  He used to be such an aggressive,
progressive engineer, but now he's so totally outmoded that he's the
laughing stock of the profession .  He just won't take the small increments
of time to get "updated" to the newer methodologies".

This is an engineering forum.  Neither you nor I will make too many points
with rhetoric.

Will we rise to the challenge, or rot in rhetoric?

Fountain

----------
> From: Bill Polhemus <polhemus(--nospam--at)insync.net>
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: ASD vs. LRFD
> Date: Friday, June 11, 1999 2:49 PM
> 
> I will say this:
> 
> Once you get over a small learning curve, LRFD is actually easier to use,
> particularly if you are accustomed to strength design of concrete. All
the
> bogus "stress checks" of ASD are just so much hot air anyway.
> 
> I don't think LRFD was ever really seriously considered an "economics
> driven" standard (although it was initially marketed as such--probably
not a
> smart thing to do). It is a "rationality-based" standard. It takes
> structural design (whatever the material) closer to the state of
knowledge
> of structural behavior.
> 
> I know that engineers get "comfortable" with what they know. I believe
that
> is a serious drawback to engineers' being taken as serious professionals.
> 
> I recently dealt with a "much" older structural engineer who argued that
> embedment lengths for rebar in a design of mine didn't "check" because
the
> "bar stresses were too high." When I pointed out to him that rebar hasn't
> been embedded in concrete based on the fictitious "bond stress" between
the
> bar and concrete for more than twenty years now, he looked at me like I'd
> gone mad.
> 
> Anyway, enough rant. You can do whatever you like insofar as design
> methodology is concerned, as long as it meets the building code where you
> are.
> 
> But those who won't take the small increments of time to get "updated" to
> the newer methodologies risk one day being so totally outmoded that
younger
> colleagues will use them as the butts of jokes.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fountain Conner [mailto:fconner(--nospam--at)pcola.gulf.net]
> > Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 1:09 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.