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

Re: ASD vs. LRFD

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>I don't think that this line of reasoning is disingenuous at all if the
>discussion is whether or not LRFD is the future.
The discussion began with the question of what makes LRFD any better or 
more useful than ASD. So far we've been wave-of-the-future-ed to death; I 
recollect one comment about uniform design factors world-wide, several 
posts pointed out that the arithmetic effort is little different and one 
said that LRFD is more correct, although it's hard to imagine how this 
could be true given the assumptions involved in going from a true 
non-linear, large deformation analysis to something practicable for 
design office use. So let's have it--why is LRFD better? One thing does 
spring to mind: have I missed any comments about superior service 
performance? Is there any such experience?

>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."
There's no question that ASD will live on, if only in the Nuclear Codes 
and lifting equipment design codes, simply because the design of such 
things is governed by service loading. 

Christopher Wright P.E.    |"They couldn't hit an elephant from
chrisw(--nospam--at)        | this distance"   (last words of Gen.
___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)