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

Re: ASD vs. LRFD

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>This has been discussed on this list server many times.
And, yeah, we have discussed this at great length, but the basic 
questions never seem to get real answers. 
>  We are in an international market.  Most steel design in the rest of the 
world is done 
>based on strength design.
I'll side with Bill on this. I've been using international research since 
Hector was a pup. I worked for people who had designed the V-2 while I 
was in knee pants and the work they carried out with them was quite 
usable.

>Another reason for structural engineers to support LRFD design is that all 
>U. S. seismic codes are strength design based
The ASME Nuclear Codes and pressure vessel and piping codes aren't 
strength-based. This isn't much of a reason--you've stated a result, not 
a cause. 

>They two methods really aren't that different.
Agreed. So the question remains--why has someone taken such pains to 
create distinction without a difference?



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