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

RE: Who's using ASD or LRFD?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I get the impression that your college curriculum failed to give you any
background in design methodology... ASD....LRFD.
So now you can join the elite group of....  'the "old folks" '.... and
continue to educate yourself for the duration.

Peter  Paul  De Vere
JSC, Houston, Texas
Bldg. 13 room 2002

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Ed Fasula [mailto:tibbits2(--nospam--at)]
		Sent:	Thursday, January 27, 2000 12:55
		To:	seaint(--nospam--at)
		Subject:	RE: Who's using ASD or LRFD?

		I'm not an anti-LRFD person, but I think it's pretty silly
to learn it, never hearing the acronym ASD, and then be hit with it (along
with the other realities) after matriculation.  I was trained in LRFD, and I
did pretty well in the class, but I felt that I was learning how to follow
directions rather than design steel.  I think there should be more class
time in LRFD than tradition has been with ASD.  Or better yet, a *required*
course that bridges between mechanics of materials and design, dealing with
the ASD and LRFD approaches, typical code design loads requirements, etc.  

		As a new stressed out EIT, one has to decide to use LRFD and
speak Greek to all of your superiors, or pick up a new method (to you) and
apply it to situations you never learned about in school (i.e. anything
involving construction details or anything else beyond theory) but, at
least, have someone with experience to check your work or give you sample
calcs.  It seems the latter is often the reasonable or only choice, and LRFD
training goes by the wayside.  And the prospect of re-learning it looms on
the horizon.  

		If I had ASD as well as LRFD in hand as I entered the
workforce, I could have spent the learning curve time being bi-lingual,
rather than just learning ASD proficiency (there are only 24 hours in a
day).  In any event, it makes sense to learn ASD in school just to
understand the history of steel design and later understand calculations
(existing structures, etc.) and literature of the "old folks".  

		I realize that requiring ASD coursework would push out other
valuable courses for the prospective structural engineer, such as hydrology,
water chemistry, traffic engineering, hazardous waste management, and other
gems that our CE program (the only path to a structural degree) required.
But that's a separate topic.

		[Considering the history of conversations on the LRFD vs.
ASD subject, I figured I had the license to rant a bit.]

		Ed Fasula, EIT