To: "INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: FW: What does AISC's Research Show? (Was: ASD vs. LRFD)
From: Peter Higgins <JillHiggins(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 13:33:09 -0400
I fear the entire discussion is moot. As we debate, LRFD is considerably
behind the times compared to the rest of the world. Even the Structural
Institute of ASCE has finally gotten frustrated with AISC and published
their own review of the literature and world codes. The conclusion? LRFD
comes out badly in the comparison, and is considerably more cumbersome to
Debating ASD vs LRFD is sort of like debating the merits of the Model T vs.
the Model A. The rest of the world has switched to at least the V8, some of
them with fuel injection and overhead cams.
Anyone who has used one of the more modern codes cannot come away less than
impressed. Virtually all of them predict behavior better, are easier to
use, and more transparent to the designer.
For example, Is there anyone on the list group who has used limit states
design in Canada who would prefer to use LRFD? I certainly wouldn't. Not
only would I lose in a design competition, but I would take far longer to
do the job, and probably be thoroughly baffled a couple of times in the
Not only is ASD ready for the trash heap, but LRFD should land there right
on top of it. If AISC won't get in tune with the rest of the world, surely
some one else will. As the saying goes: "Lead, follow, or get out of the
Peter Higgins, SE