Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: [used to be] Channels - Weak-axis bending [now it's LRFD an

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


One of the reasons for AISC and the U.S. steel industry to switch from the
familiar ASD to the not-so-different LRFD method is to be more consistent with
the basis of foreign steel codes.  By sharing a common limit state basis, we can
also share the latest research and design formulations.  As Charlie Carter
pointed out, whenever LRFD is different than ASD, it's because the LRFD reflects
later and more complete research, often limit state research completed in other

Rick Drake, SE
Fluor Daniel, Aliso Viejo


Christopher Wright <chrisw(--nospam--at)> on 09/27/99 08:25:05 PM

Please respond to seaint(--nospam--at)

To:   seaint(--nospam--at)
cc:    (bcc: Rick Drake/AV/FD/FluorCorp)

Subject:  RE: [used to be] Channels - Weak-axis bending [now it's LRFD an

>You're onto something here, Christopher. In fact, LRFD and ASD are very
>similar; much more so than most people realize at first glance.
So why all the blather? Why invent a whole new vocabulary? Why all the
claims about superiority if we're talking substantially about multiplying
both sides of an equation by the same factor. (Plastic design in bending
aside--that really is different, maybe even better, although I could
quibble with the notion that an elastic-perfectly plastic assumption is
much better than a tweak.)

At the same time, 'Essentials of LRFD' is a nice piece of work, if only
to point out that all the fuss may boil down to a distinction without a
difference. If that truly is the case, someone has done us a great

Christopher Wright P.E.    |"They couldn't hit an elephant from
chrisw(--nospam--at)        | this distance"   (last words of Gen.
___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)