This debate has been going for a long time. I have given my input
before but I will give it again. Sorry folks, here goes...I use ASD!
Everyone I know uses ASD! For the most part, LRFD is not used when
designing steel structures (at least not in the eastern U.S.). I know
that AISC is pushing LRFD, but if they could hear some of the comments
from their presenters (and audience) at their seminars they would
probably turn red. I'm not saying that LRFD is bad or that ASD is
better. I'm just stating the fact that ASD is widely used by every
practicing professional engineer I know. I know that some folks on the
list will take this message the wrong way...like I'm putting them down.
Wrong. I admire individuals that keep up and try new things. Its just
that I don't know any practicing professional engineers (outside this
list) who use LRFD.
Michael Ritter, PE
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Fasula [SMTP:tibbits2(--nospam--at)metro.lakes.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 1:55 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> 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
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)fluor.com [mailto:Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)fluor.com]
> > Sent: December 09, 1999 11:01 AM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: Re: Who's using ASD or LRFD?
> > >From a legal standpoint, the 2000 IBC will permit steel
> > design by either LRFD or
> > ASD.
> > >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
> > associates.
> > Rick Drake, SE
> > Fluor Daniel, Aliso Viejo
> > ***************************************
> > "Randy Diviney" <rsdiviney(--nospam--at)hayeslarge.com> on 12/09/99 08:10:52 AM
> > Please respond to seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > 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?