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: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:21:46 -0400
First off, my humblest apologies. I cannot believe I let that message get
out without censorship.
The words "arrogant" and "insular" have no place in reasoned discourse
between colleagues. I apologize to the entire list for using them.
Now, on to the matter at hand. I promised to shut up, but will answer
I believe we agree. First off, the entire code formulations are based upon
the evaluation of individual elements as part of a whole. Therefore, if the
on the individual elements, they very likely will agee on the whole. I have
provide my office practice with "foreign" engineers in an earlier response.
For what it's worth, this office engineers about US$400 million in steel
structures per year. I have yet to be sued on this issue, and I've been
doing it for decades now.
A good code correctly reflects the laws of physics and material behavior. I
have yet to find fundamental conflicts in them. There are significant
differences in local
practice which you ignore at your peril, but they are practical issues, not
What I do find is a substantial difference in "convenience" if you wish to
call it that. Some codes are much easier to design in. My experience, again
for what it is worth, is that LRFD is the most difficult to work with on an
everyday design basis. So much so that it would ruin my bottom line on any
project with significant seismic content.
For that simple reason, I do not use it. It's ASD in the US or a cobbled
version of notional loads/limit states, whatever you wish to call it,
which we then check to LRFD, and
make it look like that's what we used all along (just to keep the local
building authorities happy). I love run on sentences.
The bottom line is that LRFD as a basic design tool for rigid frames in
earthquake country is cumbersome and expensive to use. We need a
replacement. ASD is a dead issue from this perspective.
Peter Higgins, SE