It is "wrong" in the sense that it is based on a much more imprecise model.
One hundred years from now, I suspect structures will still be designed
based on "imprecise" models of material and systemic behavior. However, I
suspect those models will be much refined compared to what we use now.
We look back on the way they first designed two-way slabs, for example, and
think them "quaint." The methods they used don't even satisfy statics. Yet
that was "satisfactory" for them at the time, and they worked. This is the
same argument being used to justify continued use of ASD.
But knowing what we know now, in a relative sense ASD is "wrong."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen12959(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:Karen12959(--nospam--at)aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 12:08 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: ASD vs. LRFD
> In a message dated 6/14/99 7:36:22 PM EST, polhemus(--nospam--at)insync.net writes:
> Few days ago you said:
> > ASD is wrong >>>
> Why is it "wrong", or "incorrect" ??? Please explain.