To: "SEAOC Newsletter" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: RE: ASD vs. LRFD
From: Christopher Wright <chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 00 09:10:32 -0500
>Personally, my guess is that most people will be doing mostly LRFD within
>the next 5 to 15 years. As more of the younger generation (i.e.
>those of us who learned LRFD in school) become more seasoned, there will
>be more acceptance of the young pups that come out of school achin' to do
Curious. As a young pup I was achin' to do what experienced engineers
were doing. Without meaning to step on anyone's sensibilities, could it
be that LRFD is being pushed on the profession by academia?
Truth to tell, we're getting something of the sort over here on the dark
side. Pressure vessel code committees seem fairly heavy with academics,
probably because industry budgets for that sort of thing are getting
smaller. Seems like fewer papers from engineers in industrial practice
for technical conferences, I suspect for the same reason.
Seems like the first time I've run into a situation where a course of
instruction doesn't reflect professional practice but rather aims to
change such practice. Imagine someone walking into a fluid mechanics
class and announcing that viscosity is an obsolete term and thereafter
shearing stress is actually the velocity gradient divided by a better,
more up-to-date physical property called 'slipidity.' And never mind that
the physics hasn't changed--in five years viscous drag will be completely
replaced by non-slipitude, making the world a better place in which to
Did I mention that I use ASD?
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)