To: "SEAOC Newsletter" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: Re: ASD vs. LRFD
From: Christopher Wright <chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 99 13:00:27 -0500
>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?
>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)skypoint.com | this distance" (last words of Gen.
___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)