×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

ASD vs. LRFD?
3

ASD vs. LRFD?

ASD vs. LRFD?

(OP)
I'm a young gun starting out his career, and my father (a civil P.E.) taught me how to do all my calcs using the ASD method. I recently bought Salmon & Johnson's "Steel Structures" 5th Ed. and they emphasize LRFD. Is this a trend that is starting to be used more and more? I'd like to know which method is more prevalent throughout the country (my guess is ASD), so let me know what you guys are using.

- Adam

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

ASD was more popular for steel design before the most recent steel spec was released (AISC 360-05).  Because of the format of the spec and the manual, LRFD is quickly becoming more popular.  Additionally, the "new ASD", is not your father's ASD.  It is allowable STRENGTH design and uses all of the LRFD equations with a safety factor (omega) as opposed to load and resistance factors.   

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

Us old guys were never taught LRFD and so we use ASD.  The new kids on the block use LRFD.  Having done a few calcs  - LRFD gennearlly allows for a smaller section.  Not sure that is so great.  You must KNOW your exact loads with little "wiggle" room.

ASD worked for 100 years --- so why challenge that??

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

You need to know and understand the (old) ASD, but fluent in LRFD, it is the trend.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

They don't even teach ASD in schools anymore (for steel).

LRFD is becoming more and more prevalent. Concrete is almost exclusively designed using LRFD.

Wood design has attempted to move toward LRFD, but is overwhelmingly designed ASD. (The newest specification is a dual format specification, similar to AISC 13th ed.)

I disagree with you mike; the whole point of having load factors is to account for uncertainties in a statistically significant manner. If your dead load is off by 10%, that's OK because you have factored your dead loads by 20%, etc.

In steel, LRFD and ASD are calibrated to give nearly the same results at a LL/DL ratio of 3. At Higher LL ratios, LRFD generally requires larger sections.
 

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

Technically, ASD and LRFD are now supposed to yield the same result.... So it really shouldn't matter.  

I was taught LRFD in school.  Went to work and had to learn ASD.  Went back to grad school (while working) and had to re-learn LRFD.  Went to a steel seminar on 360-05 and had to learn the LRFD equations again.  No wonder why I get them mixed up from time to time.

Now with the new spec I don't think it really matters.  Use what ever you think is easier.

Personally, I still use ASD.  I think it's easier because you don't have to calculate a different set of loads to figure deflections.... and I don't have to explain everything to my older coworkers.
 

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

ASD and LRFD are only supposed to yield the same result for a LL/DL ratio of 3 (as mentioned above).

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

The obvious reason for one need to know old-school ASD is simply because it has been used for so many structures, and is still in use. The posibility you will need to back-check on one of them is fairly high.   

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

i prefer the OLD ASD, but i learned LRFD in school.   

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

(OP)
Thanks guys. As usual, some great input. Anyone else use Salmon & Johnson's Steel Structures? Any other recommended readings?

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

S&J is pretty much considered the "bible" for structural steel design.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

Ask your dad for first hand response. To me, it is an essential for everyday structural steel design tasks. It covers almost every topics you would encounter in this arena, and bridges the gap in between academic and code.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

I have S&J 4th and 5th ed.  I also find Blodgett's "Design of Welded Structures" extremely useful.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

Omar Blodgett is the man...

All of a sudden I feel like I should be wearing inappropriate amounts of gold.  *sigh*

YS

B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

that blodgett book is great.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

ASD is a much more intuitive design method.  When LRFD started getting popular about 15 years ago, I looked at it as a way to rationalize underdesign by ASD (when evaluating existing structures or distressed structures).  I agree with Mike the Engineer...it often allows a smaller section.

I use both methods, more often ASD, but occasionally LRFD for aluminum analysis.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

Innovation in engineering takes time to stick, many have failed. The sucessful one usually proven its worth by simplicity, savings, and does something not quite possible if without. The best example is the transition from WSD to USD for reinforced concrete design.

Did someone mention the school no longer teaches ASD? It's a surprise and disappointing decision. Not wise, at least for the time being.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

For concrete and masonry design, USD makes sense because deflection is generally not an issue.  You can use factored loads for design, and you don't need to recalculate loads to check deflection (because you don't check deflection).

For steel and wood design, ASD makes sense because deflection generally controls.  You use unfactored loads for design and you then check deflections using those same loads.

DaveAtkins

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

I use the PTGIW* method.






*Pray to God it Works


 

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

I don't want to argue the advantage and disadvantage of a certain method compared to the other. Whenever there is a drastic change like this (ASD to LRFD), you always have pros and cons, both with valid view points and reasons. The results remain to be seen. However, would like to caution those who are reluctant to accomodate inevitable change: do not fall behind the curve, if you want to stay in the game long enough to tell the story to another generation of young engineers about today's change. See you there.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

"For concrete .... you don't need to recalculate loads to check deflection (because you don't check deflection)."

If you have the experience to judge a deflection check may not be required, but many elemnets should always be checked for deflection.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

I think he was referring to the ACI provision that states that if you have a certain L/d ratio for a given support and continuity condition, deflection need not be checked.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

Deflection is a less critical issue in RC than steel structure, but can not be ignored completely. At least, it is a good indication on how well the structural arrangement is, and a good source to spot troubled areas. These days, with help from computer, service load cases and factored load cases, and load combinations, are not that troublesome to generate as old time before, so it (factor vs non-factor) shouldn't be in the dispute of design methods.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

There is really nothing to learn about either method.  It isn't hard to switch from one to the other.

In ASD, you factor one side of the equation.

In LRFD, you factor both sides of the equation.

Am I missing something??

 

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

I think this is a trend that will continue.  The idea is to approach all engineering problems with the same design framework.  

I think since you are young Adam, there is no reason why you cant learn and adopt both methods, either way it makes you are far more rounded engineer.     

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

I can use either it's truly not that big of a change.  Also some of the systems I have checked the sections come out about the same.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

(OP)
Thanks gang. Very helpful.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

abusementpark-

Your statement is true of the new ASD vs. LRFD, but not true of the old ASD vs. LRFD.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

In the old ASD, you checked one or two load combinations.  With the advent of the more rational LRFD, you need to check 47.  When you need to check so many load combinations, it is no longer feasible to design by hand.  Now, those load combinations have found their way into the new ASD.  At this point, it really doesn't matter whether you design by ASD or LRFD.  You still have to deal with all the #$%^%$ load combinations.  You still have to design with a computer.  When you turn to a computer to perform the analysis and design, you begin to lose your feel for the mechanics of the material.  That, I believe, is the unintended result of the more rational LRFD. We're all becoming less rational.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

The building code makes us check 47 load combinations, not the steel design method.

Keep in mind the old ASD is 20 years old and wasn't updated from the time it came out until 2005.  The difference between the old ASD and the new ASD is merely better information, not a dramatic change in philosophy.

RE: ASD vs. LRFD?

Always turn the graphics on, and exam the results graphically. In the computer age, one needs to be more sophisticate on interpretating visual displays, and making simple design decisions by intuition.  

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources