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

RE: ASD vs simple test

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

I'm not sure that LRFD is being pushed hard.  I think it's a matter of
practicality to AISC.  They don't have budget to maintain both ASD and LRFD
manuals, specs, etc.  Since most of the rest of the world is using LRFD, it
makes sense for AISC to support LRFD.  This allows international research to be
shared, the best example being the new HSS Manual, based a lot  on French and
Canadian research and methods.

I've taught both ASD and LRFD undergraduate steel design at California
Universities.  Except for composite construction, the resulting member sizes are
usually very similar.  I don't believe either method is universally superior to
the other, although there are several topics only addressed in LRFD
specifications, primarily because of recent research.

Remember, your trusted ASD Manual is 11 years old.

Rick Drake, SE
Fluor Daniel, Aliso Viejo


Christopher Wright <chrisw(--nospam--at)> on 02/03/2000 08:17:38 AM

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

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

Subject:  RE: ASD vs simple test

>A number of years ago when LRFD was first being pushed there was a
>traveling road show organized by AISC as I recall.  The emphasis of this
>presentation was on all of the special situations and tricks where LRFD
>resulted in a savings in weight.
And I'm still wondering why it's being pushed so hard. I bet some of my
family must've been equally puzzled when they got back from France in
1919, and started asking themselves how the hell Prohibition got passed.

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