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

RE: ASD vs. LRFD

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Sir,
	Why "wrong". Is LRFD "right". I have not tried designing steel
structures using LRFD. As I understand it, LRFD increases the "allowable
stresses" and at the same time introduces load factors similar to Ultimate
Strength Design for RC. I have been reading e-mails with the subject "ASD
vs. LRFD" and I still am not convinced why ASD is either "wrong" or
"inferior" to LRFD. Just an inquiry.

	Thanks.

Allan Yango
CE/SE
TMP

> ----------
> From: 	Bill Polhemus[SMTP:polhemus(--nospam--at)insync.net]
> Reply To: 	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Sent: 	Tuesday, June 22, 1999 1:55 AM
> To: 	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: 	RE: ASD vs. LRFD
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>