RE: ASD vs LRFD...my simple test[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: ASD vs LRFD...my simple test
- From: Charlie Carter <carter(--nospam--at)aiscmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 09:19:26 -0600
> [I tried LRFD and ASD and] got the exact same member sizes...
Another respondent noted that LRFD was incorrectly promoted as a method that will save you material. It will in some cases, such as for gravity loading when the ratio of live load to dead load is less than 3. Above 3, LRFD will give you a heavier design.
I'm assuming your motivation to check into LRFD was maybe to see if you could cut tons out of the structure. This is a mistake in my opinion, because least weight is not synonymous with least cost. The details are what drives the cost. Labor, not tons!
I know that may surprise some of you to hear that, but I think my claim is well substantiated in the following link (it's the same link I posted yesterday, sorry for the repeat).
I think you'll note in that piece that the economy suggestions given therein have nothing to do with which design method you are using.
- Prev by Subject: Re: ASD vs LRFD...my simple test
- Next by Subject: Re: ASD vs LRFD...my simple test
- Previous by thread: RE: ASD vs LRFD...my simple test
- Next by thread: Re: ASD vs LRFD...my simple test