To: "SEAOC Newsletter" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: Re: ASD vs. LRFD
From: Christopher Wright <chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 00 20:41:03 -0500
>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
>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
>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)