Subject: RE: ASD vs. LRFD - related to wood and lateral design of wood structures
From: "Dennis S. Wish" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)gte.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:58:53 -0700
I left the last seminar with the understanding that the train had developed
sufficient momentum that LRFD for wood structures was inevitable. I also
came home with dozens of manuals from NDS related to connectors, proprietary
wood products, sawn lumber, GLB's and more.
It seems that in wood design the simplicity of LRFD that others speak of is
thrown out the window because of the multitude of components required with
What is the take of the community that will be required to adopt these
measures? Is it of value in ALL types of wood structures or should it be
restricted to commercial and industrial design when economics is greatest
concern over aesthetics?
The only way I can see where LRFD may become advantageous is if the tables
of load values is incorporated into computer programs which will help to
simplify the process - otherwise, it looks like our library of reference
manuals will become a tedious and required part of the methodology.
Dennis S. Wish, PE
From: Charles Greenlaw [mailto:cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)speedlink.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 1:43 PM
Subject: RE: ASD vs. LRFD
Scott, you have hit upon one of the general objections to sweeping code
changes which use scads of new terms, symbols and formulas: The effort to
cope makes one's head hurt.
I believe Christopher Wright was alluding to a tactic of "planned
obsolescence" being used by codewriters and academics for their own
purposes, which are other than the purposes given in prefaces to code change
documents and given as "reasons" to code adoption bodies.
"Slipidity" appears to be his caricature and mockery of newly coined
technical terms that put a spin of disfavor on older terminology and on
understandings that are in accepted use.
Charles O. Greenlaw SE Sacramento CA
At 02:46 PM 04/27/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>BTW, what this bit about fluid mechanics...you're making my head hurt!!
>Scott Maxwell, SE, PE
C.Wright had posed this: >>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
>> live. ;->