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

RE: ASD vs. LRFD

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>And this has NO PLACE in academia?
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Academia normally doesn't take a leading 
role in Code promulgation. University research results support Code rules 
and universities teach the principles underlying such rules. For example 
the design code for aluminum structures was first set forth by the ASCE 
sometime in the 60's. I'm sue there was plenty of academic input, judging 
from the list of references, but the Code writing committee was formed by 
the structural division of ASCE. In the case of LRFD, it seems that a 
great deal of university effort favors one set of rules over another, 
despite the response to the straw poll that most practicing engineers 
seem to favor ASD. 


>ASME Section VIII notwithstanding, you see a concerted effort to teach
>steel, concrete, masonry, bridge, timber, etc., code-based design in
>"academia", do you not?
My own training involved first principles, without a lot of 
Code-learning. I only got skilled in Code usage by working with and for 
other engineers who were skilled in particular areas, either on the job 
or in seminars or self-study. The issue isn't university involvement or 
even participation in Code promulgation, but the role in forcing a change 
in methodology. 

>I continue to maintain that the REAL reason we're not using LRFD more widely
>is because we don't want to take the time and effort needed to learn it.
I get the distinct impression from the comments posted here that people 
might take the trouble to learn it if there was some apparent reason to 
do so. It doesn't seem fair to characterize people as being unwilling to 
learn new technology in the face of the willingness to put forth the 
effort to adapt CAD and finite element analysis or all the advances in 
materials engineering. 

>I still maintain that relying on design procedures based on a state of the
>art from 12 years ago (as of this writing) is not a smart thing to do, and
>goes against the grain for most of us.
Twelve years doesn't seem like a lot of time, given that most of the 
engineering science involved in structural design has been around a good 
deal longer than 12 years. Timoshenko gives a list of references for 
limit design dating back to 1920. 

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