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
||From: Peter Higgins [mailto:JillHiggins(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
||Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2000 10:33 AM
||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
||comes out badly in the comparison, and is considerably more
||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
||use, and more transparent to the designer.
||For example, Is there anyone on the list group who has used
||design in Canada who would prefer to use LRFD? I certainly
||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
||some one else will. As the saying goes: "Lead, follow, or get
||out of the
||Peter Higgins, SE