Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Who's using ASD or LRFD?

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

>From a legal standpoint, the 2000 IBC will permit steel design by either LRFD or

>From a practical standpoint, AISC is only supporting LRFD.  All recent, current,
and future research will only be incorporated into revisions to the LRFD
specifications and manuals.  ASD is frozen in 1989.  AISC simply does not have
the resources to support and maintain both methods.

>From a practical standpoint, few schools (if any) are teaching ASD.  The crop of
new and enthusiastic structural engineers have probably been trained in LRFD.
It would be a shame to force them to learn ASD simply because their bosses are
not comfortable with change.

>From a practical standpoint, most (if not all) of the FEM program writers are
concentrating on LRFD support improvements.

I see the situation as similar to DOS versus Windows.  It didn't matter if one
was better then the other, or if we were comfortable with DOS.  All that
mattered was that one was not going to be supported.

There is nothing to prevent an experienced structural engineer from analyzing a
structure using a slide rule, moment distribution, and ASD.  After all, it is
his judgment, experience, and how to put a building together that is most
important.  On the other hand using more recent tools such as a PC and LRFD will
also work, and will allow better communication and understanding with younger

Rick Drake, SE
Fluor Daniel, Aliso Viejo


"Randy Diviney" <rsdiviney(--nospam--at)> on 12/09/99 08:10:52 AM

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

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

Subject:  Who's using ASD or LRFD?

Does anyone have an idea of the split between these codes? How many
engineers are using ASD and how many are using LRFD? Will everyone
eventually have to make the switch?