To: "INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: Re: More "furrin code" stuff
From: Peter Higgins <JillHiggins(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 14:55:19 -0400
I believe we agree. Simply check your final design using LRFD methods. It
will check out. LS and LRFD with very rare exceptions do agree on the
acceptability of a member under the same design connditions. How you got
there needn't be even mentioned.
The big problem with LRFD is that while whittling down members in a design,
you can invest a lot of effort in checking out something which either
doesn't work, or isn't optimal. Not only that, but the complexity of the
process takes away the "feel" of how a design is going, and makes zeroing
in on a member much more difficult (at least to me). LS converges on the
solution both by being more transparent to the designer, and much quicker
in evaluating a design. You got to where the LRFD designer
also got, just more quickly and easily.
And yes, you're right about the building departments. That's what we get
whenever we try to turn the code into a design handbook.
Peter S. Higgins, SE