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

Re: ASD vs. LRFD

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I would never label that attitude as correct, so maybe I overstated things a
bit.  My point was only that if a person can do something very quickly the way
they know it best, it is very tempting to do it that way.  I would _never_
endorse that way of approaching engineering, or anything in a person's life
(your favorite way of tying your shoes being that only exception I can think of
to this).  My point was only that many people _do_ think that way, particularly
when deadlines are tight, and that is part of (if not much of) the source of
resistance to LRFD (in my opinion).

Paul Crocker

Bill Polhemus wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Crocker [mailto:PaulC(--nospam--at)ckcps.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 2:47 PM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: Re: ASD vs. LRFD
> >
> >
> > supervising engineer doesn't want to deal with it or check
> > over calcs done
> > that way.  That's certainly understandable, because after 10
> > or 20 years of
> > using any system, it gets really easy, so why slow yourself
> > down?
>
> That's an interesting attitude.
>
> I think my dentist should just use the methods and practices that she was
> taught in school 20 years ago. If it was good enough then, it should be good
> enough now.
>
> [SARCASM MODE OFF]
>
> The problem isn't LRFD vs. ASD. The problem is engineers who don't have
> "time" or "inclination" to keep up with the state of the art.
>
> The problem is such that many states now require continuing education in
> their license renewal regulations, and many more are soon to follow.
>