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

RE: ASD v. LRFD

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laurence B. Oeth III [mailto:viacalx(--nospam--at)europa.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 10:19 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: ASD v. LRFD
>
>
> We now need to run a strength analysis and deflection
> analysis.  Perhaps
> the Owner will save a few cents at our cost for more work (as usual).

So you NEVER thought it important to check deflections before?

> Concerning conrete design, ASD vs. USD:  I design many water retaining
> structures, wherein crack control is the key, not strength.

Then "crack control" would be the governing limit state in such a design.

The fact is that it is the older ASD-style design codes that tend to
concentrate on strength as the primary concern. The newer codes, while based
on LRFD theory for strength, also go a step farther and get the engineer
thinking about the governing "limit states" in his design.

This is a "good thing," but some would have you believe it just means "more
work."

Tell me, how is taking care that you correctly identify the governing design
criterion a "bad thing"?