Where does this 70% figure come from? I know several, admittedly young,
engineers who have taken LRFD classes, but use ASD.
I also know that most new graduate engineers we get have to be "trained" to
do the work. So just because professors like it, doesn't mean it will work
well in the real world. And that is not meant to demean professors, but
there is a lot of difference between teaching 20 to 40 students, and
designing something that you are professionally taking liability for.
LRFD may be the greatest new thing since sliced bread (I've always liked
that saying). But there is nothing wrong with ASD either. Both work, and
both can be used.
So what's the problem?
I agree however that if AISC wants to see LRFD used as the primary design
standard, then they should take the lead in letting current engineers know
the benefits. As far as I have seen, this hasn't been done. So a lot of us
"older" engineers (boy that hurts to include me in that "older") do not see
the reason to switch right now.
New Orleans, LA
From: SHAR1210(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:SHAR1210(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: ASD vs. LRFD
Dear Mr. ASD User:
It is no one's job to "Tell you why or show you why" to practice your design
with LRFD. Being a PE it is your choice to be with LRFD or ASD. Using ASD
you will be deprived of design changes, code requriremet changes and
efficient method of design.
ASD will not be revived, nor published, nor any research will be
incorporated. ASD users are already five year behind LRFD. There are 10-12
or more requirement in LRFD design which are not in ASD. So, can you tell
your client that your ASD technically does not meet AISC design requirement?
You are in legal jeopardy my ADS user! I would recommend ASD user like our
Gulf Breeze P. E. guy to attend some AISC seminars, Lecture series and
Classes and meet Professors and P. Es to convince himself/herself.
At present about 70% or more engineers nationwide are using LRFD?
By the way, do not be left out choice is yours.