ASD vs LRFD[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "SEAINT" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: ASD vs LRFD
- From: "E.B.Davison, P.Eng." <rndeng(--nospam--at)planet.eon.net>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:25:40 -0600
I regret to say that I must be on of the old" guys as LRFD in steel was not taught at the time I went to University. However, Limits States Design has been in Canada for twenty some years and all the agruments both for and against seem to be repeating. Interesting how time does not change an issue. Personaly I prefer "real" loads and "real" stresses ie ASD, others will prefer LRFD. I find that the majority of light buildings designs are governed by deflection and servicability rather than strength, therefore using ASD I do not end up double book keeping loads. The other interesting issue is the cost saving and efficiency. I have not encountered either using LFRD. Our Canadian Steel books are now all LFRD and metric, yet the only clients that seem to require metric and LFRD are governments, and a few corporate firms. As for computer programs...I get concerned when we place reliance on programs to understand design procedures for us...
As for the future I see the use of both LFRD and ASD in all areas of Structural Design as each has a particular place in the design office. I would not design a concrete water storage facility using USD and I do not expect contractors or the public to comphrehend the difference between factored and service loads, product load tables should be in ASD for clarity. I have seen numerous errors made when contractors have misinterpreted product load table issued in a LFRD format.
RND Engineering Ltd.
- Prev by Subject: Re: ASD v. LRFD
- Next by Subject: ASD vs LRFD
- Previous by thread: Women SE's
- Next by thread: ASD vs LRFD