Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SD
SD
design 2
Structural
BSCE V
Engr. Bautista
ASD vs LRF
Steel
Before getting too deep into this section, it would be wise for you to read the AISC Steel
Construction Manual (SCM) sections describing the Load and Resistance Factor Design and
Allowable Strength Design philosophies as well as the section on Design Fundamentals.
These are found on pages of 2-6 and 2-7 of the SCM.
Until AISC introduced the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) specification in 1986,
the design of steel structures was based solely on Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
methodologies. The shift to LRFD has not been readily embraced by the profession even
though almost all universities shifted to teaching the LRFD specification within ten years of
its introduction. Its seems that there was not a perceived need by the profession to change
methodologies even though there was ample evidence that LRFD produced structures with a
more consistent factor of safety.
Timber
LRFD is relatively new to timber. It was explicitly included with ASD in the National Design
Specification with the latest edition of the specification.
Concrete
Because of the complexities of analyzing composite sections using working stress method,
the much simpler strength approach was easily adopted with it was first introduced. The
strength based (LRFD) method has been in use in the concrete specification ACI 318 since
the 1970s.
There were two major differences between the two specifications:
1. The comparison of loads to either actual or ultimate strengths and
2. A difference in effective factors of safety.
Actual vs. Ultimate Strength
The first difference between ASD and LRFD, historically, has been that the old Allowable
Stress Design compared actual and allowable stresses while LRFD compares required
strength to actual strengths. The difference between looking at strengths vs. stresses does
not present much of a problem since the difference is normally just multiplying or dividing
both sides of the limit state inequalities by a section property, depending on which way you
are going. In fact, the new AISC Allowable Strength Design (ASD), which replaces the old
allowable stress design, has now switched the old stress based terminology to a strength
based terminology, virtually eliminating this difference between the philosophies.
Figure DC.5.1 illustrates the member strength levels computed by the two methods on a
typical mild steel load vs. deformation diagram. The combined force levels (Pa, Ma, Va) for
ASD are typically kept below the yield load for the member by computing member load
capacity as the nominal strength, Rn, divided by afactor of safety, W, that reduces the
capacity to a point below yielding. For LRFD, the combined force levels (Pu, Mu, Vu) are kept
below a computed member load capacity that is the product of the nominal strength, R n,
times a resistance factor, f.
When considering member strengths, we always want to keep our final design's actual loads
below yielding so as to prevent permanent deformations in our structure. Consequently, if
the LRFD approach is used, then load factors greater than 1.0 must be applied to the applied
loads to express them in terms that are safely comparable to the ultimate strength levels.
This is accomplished in the load combination equations that consider the probabilities
associated with simultaneous occurrence of different types of loads.
Fixed vs. Variable Factors of Safety
The second major difference between the two methods is the manner in which the
relationship between applied loads and member capacities are handled. The LRFD
specification accounts separately for the predictability of applied loads through the use of
load factors applied to the required strength side of the limit state inequalities and for
material and construction variabilities through resistance factors on the nominal strength
side of the limit state inequality. The ASD specification combines the two factors into a
single factor of safety. By breaking the factor of safety apart into the independent load and
resistance factors (as done in the LRFD approach) a more consistent effective factor of
safety is obtained and can result in safer or lighter structures, depending on the
predictability of the load types being used.
Load Combination Computations
The basis for structural load computations in the United States is a document known as
ASCE 7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings & Other Structures. (See A Beginner's Guide
to ASCE 7-05 for detailed discussion about this document.) Typically, each load type (i.e.
dead, live, snow, wind, etc) are expressed in terms of their service load levels. The one
exception to this is earthquake loads, which are expressed at strength levels. The individual
loads are then combined using load combination equations that consider the probability of
simultaneously occurring loads. The resulting combined loads and load effects from LRFD
combinations equations are given subscript of "u". A subscript of "a" is used to indicate a
load result from an ASD load combination. Particular to this text, a subscript of "s,equiv" is
used to represent the result of a load combination that is the simple algebraic sum of all the
individual load components.
Load factors are applied as coefficients in the load combination equations for both ASD and
LRFD. The resistance factor is denoted with the symbol f, and the factors of safety with the
symbol W. We'll see how they are applied below.
The other issue that seems to be conceptually challenging for many engineers is that, since
LRFD looks at the strength of members (i.e. the loads that cause failure) the "applied" loads
are "fictitiously" increased by a load factors so that they can be safely compared with the
ultimate strengths of the members. Throughout these notes and the specification loads that
have had LRFD load factors applied (and are higher than they will actually be) are
called ULTIMATE or FACTORED loads. ASD loads that are the result of ASD load combination
equations are also FACTORED loads. Loads at their actual levels are referred to
as SERVICE loads.
Table DC.5.1
Composite Load Factors
LRFD
ASD
Pu = Ps,equiv * CLFLRFD
Pa = Ps,equiv * CLFASD
CLFLRFD = Pu / Ps,equiv
CLFASD = Pu / Ps,equiv
Where:
Ps,equiv is the algebraic sum of all the service load components (i.e. P s,equiv = D + L
+....) and
Examples of this are given in the next section on load combinations since it is in the load
combination equations where the load factors are applied.
Putting it all together, the general form of the limit state inequalities can each be expressed
three ways. Table DC.5.2 shows how this is done for LRFD and ASD for four common
strength limit states. Note that each equation is equivalent.
Table DC.5.2
Limit State Expressions
LRFD
ASD
Axial Force
Pu < fPn
Req'd Pn = Pu / f < Pn
Pu / fPn < 1.00
Pa < Pn/ W
Req'd Pn = Pa W < Pn
Pa W / Pn < 1.00
Bending Moment
Mu < fMn
Req'd Mn = Mu / f < Mn
Mu / fMn < 1.00
Ma < Mn/ W
Req'd Mn = Ma W < Mn
Ma W / Mn < 1.00
Shear Force
Vu < fVn
Req'd Vn = Vu / f < Vn
Vu / fVn < 1.00
Va < Vn/ W
Req'd Vn = Va W < Vn
Va W / Vn < 1.00
Ru < fRn
Req'd Rn = Ru / f < Rn
Ru / fRn < 1.00
Reaction/Resistance
Ra < Rn/ W
Req'd Rn = Ra W < Rn
Ra W / Rn < 1.00
The choice of form is dependent on what you are trying to do. This will become evident as
the limit states are explained and demonstrated throughout this text. In general, the second
form (Req'd nominal effect < actual nominal strength) is useful when you are selecting (or
designing) member for a particular application. The other two forms are useful
when analyzing the capacity of a particular member.
Stainless Steel
Heavy Steel Plate
Carbon Steel
Carbon Alloy
Armor Plate
Nickel Alloy
Aluminum
Copper
Brass
Non-Ferrous Steel
High Nickel Alloys Including 600, 601, 617, 625, 825 and 800H
Other materials we process include DH-36, AH-36, EH-36 and FH-40 steel plate. We can
fabricate custom structural steel shapes and components from a variety of alloys including
A-572 grades, A-36, A-514, stainless steel and high nickel alloys. We can perform hot forming
services for all grades and types of material required.
The Halvorsen Company uses a wide range of pressure vessel quality (PVQ) steel plate to
fabricate, manufacture and produce welded pressure vessels, boilers and other high
pressure applications. The materials we use include PVQ516 (Grades 55, 60, 65, 70), ASTM
A516-70 Plate, A-36/SA-36, SA-516-70/SA-516-70N, SA-514/SA-517, A516/70 and C-1045.
The PVQ steel plates that we use can be normalized or stress relieved. We use PVQ steel
because it can possesses excellent welding capabilities. The Halvorsen Company fabricates
boilers and pressure vessels and their accompanying forgings with pressure vessel quality
steels that also exhibit outstanding notch toughness.
Click on the links below to learn more about the materials that we work with and process.
For more information about the types of materials we fabricate, please call us at 1-800-4237080.
For wide flange, bearing pile, S-shapes, channels, and tees: the letter indicates the
shape, the first number indicates the nominal height, and the second number indicates
the weight per 1 foot of length. For instance, the W12x36 listed in the table below is a
wide flange shape that has a nominal height of 12" and weighs 36 pounds per foot of
length.
2.
For steel tubes, pipes, plates, and angles: the 3 numbers indicate the height, width,
and thickness of the steel.
IMAGE
DESC.
NOMEN.
NOTES
Wide Flange
W12x36
Bearing Pile
HP14x73
American
Standard Beam
S15x50
Channel
C12x30
IMAGE
DESC.
Tee
NOMEN.
NOTES
WT12x38
ST12x38
MT12x38
Hollow Steel
Section
HSS12x6x0.
5
Steel Tube
TS12x6x0.5
L2x2x0.5
Angle
Pipe
L6x3x0.5
Pipe 4 STD
IMAGE
DESC.
NOMEN.
NOTES
Plate
PL
0.5x12"x30"
Properties
Carbon Steels
Alloy Steels
Stainless Steels
Tool Steels
7.85
7.85
7.75-8.1
7.72-8.0
190-210
190-210
190-210
190-210
Poisson's Ratio
0.27-0.3
0.27-0.3
0.27-0.3
0.27-0.3
11-16.6
9.0-15
9.0-20.7
9.4-15.1
1371-1454
24.3-65.2
26-48.6
11.2-36.7
19.9-48.3
450-2081
452-1499
420-500
130-1250
210-1251
75.7-1020
276-1882
758-1882
515-827
640-2000
186-758
366-1793
207-552
380-440
10-32
4-31
12-40
5-25
86-388
149-627
137-595
210-620