> ...I can assure you that whatever design approach you use (LRFD, ASD, or
> beam is *not* seeing exactly the load you designed it for, the inflection
> *not* where you think they are, and the material is *not* as strong as you
think it is.
I want to point out that this is the crux of the argument.
The argument of Mr. Turk is founded on the notion that ASD code design
concepts are "right," and that LRFD code design concepts are aspiring to
upset the established order of things.
Again, the primary value of the LRFD-based design codes are that they bring
"what we know to be true" into the realm of practicality. Whereas, the older
codes, burdened with outmoded assumptions, can't allow this.
I remember taking a course some years ago in "Classical Indeterminate
Structural Analysis Methods" (yeah, it was a graduate course).
One of the most interesting points made was in our study of the old,
so-called, "column analogy method." In this method of analysis, a frame is
somehow "rendered" to be a column section, and submits to classical column
The professor made the observation that it had been a very popular method
because "structural engineers would like to render all knowledge in the
universe into the form M*c/I"!
This is very evident in the arguments being put forth by the ASD proponents.
"Don't rock my world, don't remind me that structural behavior doesn't all
boil down to something as simple as M*c/I."