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


[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I highly agree with this opinion.  I was one of the first classes in the
nation to be taught LRFD at Georgia Tech.  As many people will attest
to, who originally were taught the "LRFD way", I was also a self-taught
ASD person.  The biggest reason that I chose to learn ASD was to
understand the differences in the methods as a result of my mentors
refusals to keep up with changes in their professions.  I personally
find one method vs. the other to be no harder to design with. In many
cases, when time is available, I like to compare the designs.  This
allows me to see the actual differences  and savings that possibly are
passed on to the owner.  In reply to the challenges of "prove to me that
LRFD is better", I say "Prove to yourself that LRFD is no better than
ASD".  You may actually find LRFD to be useful in many applications.
Besides, look at the history of concrete design.  The future is LRFD.
Dragging your feet only wears away the soles on your shoes quicker.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Crocker [mailto:PaulC(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 3:47 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: ASD vs. LRFD

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
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
that way.  That's certainly understandable, because after 10 or 20 years
using any system, it gets really easy, so why slow yourself down?
ASD being formally taught, or supported in updated steel manuals, I have
hard time seeing how it will exist in another 20 years.  A few UBC
down the road, will they really want to reference a decades old (by
ASD manual when there will be fresh new LRFD manuals around?
the engineers who have been getting out of school lately will ascend to
corner office, and they won't care whether ASD or LRFD are used, since
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,
one will stop them, and ASD will be dead, even if the UBC/IBC hasn't
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)]
> > Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 2:09 PM
> > To:   seaint(--nospam--at)
> > 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)>
> > > To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)'
> > > 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.
> >
> >