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

RE: What does AISC's Research Show? (Was: ASD vs. LRFD)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
So, Peter, how do you REALLY feel :o)?

Simpler? More straightforward? More accurate?

I sure wish more folks with your kind of thinking was writing US Codes =8O


Bill Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)
Laguna Niguel, CA

||-----Original Message-----
||From: Peter Higgins [mailto:JillHiggins(--nospam--at)]
||Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2000 10:33 AM
||To: INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)
||Subject: FW: What does AISC's Research Show? (Was: ASD vs. LRFD)
||I fear the entire discussion is moot. As we debate, LRFD is 
||behind the times compared to the rest of the world. Even the 
||Institute of ASCE has finally gotten frustrated with AISC and 
||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