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: Mon, 8 May 2000 00:31:12 -0400
I cannot let this pass unremarked. Does no one read their journals (or
atleast the commentaries) anymore?
LRFD, CAN S16 and S16.1, Eurocode 3 and the Australian standards have all
been rigorously compared for prediction of ultimate capacity. They all give
essentially the same answer (at least well within the precision of our
knowlege of the loads). To suggest that the Canadians or the Americans, or
the Euorpeans, etc. etc. have different
safety standards is sumultanteously ignorant and insular.
Loading factors are virtually identical worldwide, but even if they
weren't, applying the local load factors would yield virturally the same
answer in any of these codes. This is well proven (have you really read the
papers I cited in an earlier message?).
The question is not one of safety. That has already been answered by the
profession worldwide. The question is one of designing practically. How you
get to the answer
is more important than "checking" the final result.
Do a good job with any of these codes, and you will get a design which all
of them will endorse. However, if you use LRFD, you will spend a lot more
time and effort getting there than with any of the others.
Peter Higgins, SE