I don't think that this line of reasoning is disingenuous at all if the
discussion is whether or not LRFD is the future. Anything that is not taught in
schools, and not supported by the code writing bodies will die, in the same
manner that a person who is denied food will starve. It's no reflection on the
character of the person who starves, it just means they weren't fed. If you
think that ASD should live on, then action needs to be taken to turn the
academics and code writer soon, or for better or worse it will "starve."
Christopher Wright wrote:
> >When the new
> >guys under them, fresh from schools of the future, want to work is LRFD, no
> >one will stop them, and ASD will be dead, even if the UBC/IBC hasn't killed
> >it some time before then. That is why the future is LRFD.
> Isn't this argument a bit disingenuous? If LRFD is better, so be it. If
> it's just trendy among academics, that's a much different matter. So far
> no one has actually said how it's any better, except for some allusions
> to economy. If that economy comes at the expense of reduced performance,
> the LRFD-future may not be as nice as we intend.
> Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant from
> chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com | this distance" (last words of Gen.
> ___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)