EVOLUTION OF DESIGN

CODES FOR STEEL

STRUCTURES
Ted Galambos
Emeritus Professor of Structural Engineering
University of Minnesota, USA
Department of Civil Engineering
 The speaker

Galambos
 My credentials
• Member on Committee on Specification
for AISC about 40 years
• Former member of AISI (CF steel) and
Aluminum Ass. Spec. committee.
• Former Member of CSA S16.1
committee
• Accused of being father of LRFD in US
• Translated DIN 4114 into English in
1956
Purposes of the presentation
• Observations about the status of
Structural Engineering in the year 2009
• Reminiscence of a 50 year career in
steel design standards developlent
• Contemplations on the future of steel
design standards
 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
• We are experiencing the positive
gradient in the history of our
profession
• The computer has liberated us from
tedious work of drafting and calculation
• but
• The computer permits us to be
intellectually lazy and thoughtless
 WE CAN DESIGN ANYTHING!

• Complicated
structures can be
analyzed and
designed
 WE CAN DESIGN ANYTHING!
• Creativity can
make structures
act like a bird
(Milwaukee Art
Museum)
• CALATRAVA CAN
DO IT!
 CHALLENGES FOR
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
• Rehabilitation for new use
• Evaluate and repair damaged
structures
• Deconstruction of large structures
• Design for catastrophes: earthquake,
windstorm, ice storm, water surge, fire,
blast, etc.
• Life-cycle design: build, renovate,
demolish
 CHALLENGES FOR
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
• Design for rapid construction
• “Green” structures
• “Sustainability”
• Structures with control mechanisms:
active, passive
• Monitoring behavior of structures
• Creative use of new materials
• Coastal structural engineering
 How to develop standards to
meet these challenges?
• Limit states on strength need to be defined
for design engineers
• Building codes need a basis for safe design
• Building officials need guidance for checking
proposed structures
• Economists need means for optimizing costs
• Fabricators need guidance for details of
connections and for erection
 EVOLUTION OF
SPECIFICATIONS
• Experience and judgment of individual
builders

• “In-house” standards

• Codes of professional and industrial
associations

• Formalized legal codes
 HISTORY OF AISC SPEC.
• 1st edition 1923
experience of past
successful design, Allowable Stress
Design (ASD)
• Major revisions
significant inputs
from research
• 1963: Limit States Design (LSD)
disguised as ASD
• 1986: LSD (Load and Resistance Factor
Design, LRFD)
• 2005: LSD served up as LRFD or ASD
 CURRENT STANDARDS
MAINTENANCE PROCESS
• Example: American Institute of Steel
Construction
• Committee on specification originates
changes and maintains content
• Strict rules on consensus
• Strict distribution of membership:
• 1/ 3 producers, 1/ 3 users, 1/ 3
researchers
 CURRENT STANDARDS
MAINTENANCE PROCESS
• Committee on specification prepares draft
• Public review of draft RESEARCH
• Resolution of negatives
• Submission to and approval by American
National Standards Association (ANSI)
• Adoption by “model codes” (IBC)
• Adoption as legal building code by
governments
Year of Design Code Commentary Committee Researcher
adoption Criteria pages pages Members Members
1923 ASD 11 0 5 0
1936 “ 19 0 * *
1949 “ 30 0 * *
1963 LSD/ASD 44 46 26 5
1969 “ 103 44 36 6
1978 “ 93 68 43 9
1989 “ 83 68 43 14
1986 LSD 91 66 42 14
1993 “ 110 92 46 13
1999 “ 124 113 46 14
2005 “ 196 231 40 12
 AISC Specification

2005

1923
AISC Handbook2005
 THE ENGINEER

TOO
MANY
RULES
LEGAL BUILDING CODES !
… --- …
MODEL BUILDING CODES
(IBC)

INDUSTRY DESIGN STANDARDS APPROVED BY ANSI

(AISC, ACI, AA, AISI etc.)

MANUFACTURING
MATERIAL CODES LOAD STANDARDS
STANDARDS
(ASTM) (ASCE 7)
(BOLTS, WELDING)
 WHY WE SHOULD COMPARE
DESIGN CODES?
• Globalization of design and
construction
• Safety of designs when
differing codes interact
• To show that despite differing
appearance there is a common
background
 What is in common in
modern steel design
standards?
• Common theory and common
research
• Example: steel column design
 THEORY RESEARCH APPLICATION
2000
MODERN DESIGN
SPECIFICATIONS
NAGOYA DATA EUROPEAN
BATTERMAN BANK COLUMNCURVES
JOHNSTON SSRC COLUMN
EUROPEAN TESTS
TALL, BEER, SCHULTZ CURVES
BJORHOVDE LEHIGH TESTS
DIN 4114
1950
CHWALLA, JEZEK
ROS, BRUNNER
COLUMN THEORY
COLUMN TESTS
WESTERGAARD,
OSGOOD
RESIDUAL STRESS
INITIALLY
von KARMAN
OUT-OF
INELASTIC ANALYSIS STRAIGHT
1900
COLUMNS
RANKINE (1861)
 COLUMN FORMULAS
 Fcr = 0.658 Fy if λ ≤ 1.5 
λ2
 
AISC  0.877 Fy 
 Fcr = if λ >1.5 
 λ 2

−1
 
(
CSA  Fcr = Fy 1 + λ )
2n n
n = 1.34 
 
 
 Fy 
RCDF  n=1.4 
( )
1/ n
 1 + λ 2n
− 0.15 2n

 COMPARISON OF COLUMN FORMULAS

1.0

0.8
φ Fcr / Fy

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(L / r)(1/π)(Fy / E)1/2
 What is in common?
• Common theory and common
research
• Limit states: common basis for
design
• Load and resistance factor design
(LRFD), Limit States Design (LFD),
Design with Partial Safety Factors
 BASIC CODE FORMAT

k
φi Rni ≥ ∑ γ j Q j
j =1

FOR i LIMIT STATES

FOR j LOAD COMBINATIONS
 •Load combination rule
k
γ D QD + γ m Qm + ∑
j = 1; j ≠ m
γ jQ j

DEAD LOAD
MAXIMUM POINT-IN-TIME LOAD

ARBITRARY POINT-IN-TIME LOADS

 What is in common?
• Common theory and common research
• Limit states: common basis for deign
• Load and resistance factor design
(LRFD), Limit States Design (LFD),
Design with Partial Safety Factors
• Factors are based on probabilistic
methods: Level 2 methods used for
developing Level 1 equations
LOAD EFFECT
UNSAFE R=Q
R<Q
R-Q < 0
SAFE
R≥Q
R-Q ≥ 0
RESISTANCE
 LOAD EFFECT Q
0.004
PROBABILITY DENSITY

0.003 RESISTANCE R

0.002

0.001

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000

VALUE OF Q or R
 β σ R +σQ
2 2

0.0030
PROBABILITY DENSITY

mean
0.0025

0.0020
Probability
0.0015 0f
failure
0.0010

0.0005

0.0000

-400 0 400 800 1200 1600

R-Q
 0.0030 β=2.5
PROBABILITY DENSITY

β=3.9
0.0025

0.0020
β=4.4
0.0015

0.0010

0.0005

0.0000

-400 0 400 800 1200 1600

R-Q
 What is in common?
• Common theory and common research
• Limit states: common basis for deign
• Load and resistance factor design
(LRFD), Limit States Design (LFD),
Design with Partial Safety Factors
• Factors are based on probabilistic
methods: Level 2 methods used for
developing Level 1 equations
• Calibration to time-tested methods
 SELECT RELIABILITY TARGET
BRIDGES ANALYSIS: β RELIABILITY βT
(WSD, LFD)

DESIGN EQUATION
RELIABILITY FORMAT
ANALYSIS FOR
φ FOR ELEMENT
φ Rn ≥ ∑ γ i Qi
& MATERIAL

OPTIMIZE γi FOR
ALL TYPES OF LOADS
AND COMBINATIONS
FOR ALL TYPES OF BRIDGES
 FRAME DESIGN METHODS
COMPARED
• Common features:
• Elastic 2nd-order analysis is required
• Limit states: first plastic hinge to form,
member or element buckling
• Direct 2nd-oder analysis is preferred
• First-order analysis with force
amplification factors is permitted
 δ AND P∆
Pδ ∆

δ and P∆
IN UNBRACED FRAMES, Pδ ∆ CAN OCCUR

2H HL ∆
P∆
δ
Pδ

H
M diagram
P
 SECOND-ORDER ELASTIC
LOAD ANALYSIS

1.2Dn+1.6Ln
FIRST ORDER ANALYSIS

SECOND-ORDER ANALYSIS

Mrequired

MOMENT
 INTERACTION EQUATIONS
Pu 0.85 M u Mu
+ ≤ 1.0; ≤ 1.0
φ Pn φ Mn φ M n Canada/RCDF/SA
Pu Mu
+ ≤ 1.0 Eurocode & Australia
φ Pn φ M n
Pu 8 M u Pu
+ ≤ 1.0; if ≥ 0.2
φ Pn 9 φ M n φ Pn United States
Pu Mu Pu
+ ≤ 1.0; if ≤ 0.2
2φ Pn φ M n φ Pn
 INTERACTION EQUATIONS COMPARED

1.0
CANADA / SA / RCDF
0.8 Eurocode / Australia
USA - AISC
Pu / φ Pn

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Mu / φ Mn
 AUSTRALIA AS4100 (1999?)
• Second-order analysis required for
actual design (factored) loads.
• Column strength Pn is determined
with effective length factor K>1.0
for sway frames
• Alternate choice: “Advanced
analysis”
 CANADA / RCDF (?)/SA
• Second-order analysis is required
with design (factored) loads plus a
“notional” lateral load at each
story level of 0.005ΣPgravity.
• Column strength Pn is
determined with effective
length factor K=1.0 for sway
frames
 Eurocode 3 CHOICE #1
• Second-order analysis is required
with design (factored) loads plus a
“notional” lateral load at each
story level of 0.005ΣPgravity.
• Column strength Pn is
determined with effective
length factor K=1.0 for sway
frames
Eurocode 3 (2004) CHOICE #1
• Can also make analysis of
“imperfect” structure with 0.005 x
height as “initial out-of-plumb”.
• Reductions permitted for
allowances due to height of
structure and number of columns
in a story.
Eurocode 3 (2004) CHOICE #2
• Second-order analysis required for
actual design (factored) loads.
• Column strength Pn is determined
with effective length factor K>1.0
for sway frames
American (AISC/05) Choice #1
• Second-order analysis required for
actual design (factored) loads.
• Column strength Pn is determined with
effective length factor K>1.0 for sway
frames
• Minimum lateral load of 0.002ΣPgravity.
• Under some conditions may use K=1.0
American (AISC/05) Choice #2
• “Direct 2nd-order analysis with notional
lateral load of 0.002ΣPgravity. required
for all factored load conditions.
• Use reduced stiffness of 0.8EI and
0.8EA
• Column strength Pn is determined
with effective length factor K=1.0
for sway frames
 CRITIQUE OF MODERN
STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN
CODES
• Too many features to “serve” special
products: composite design, different
bolt tightening methods, prefab metal
buildings etc.
• Too many codes: CF steel, Stainless
Steel, Aluminum, composite design,
steel joists
• Too many choices for methods of
frame design
 CRITIQUE
• Emphasis on strength limit states, even
though most designs are controlled by
serviceability
• Code committees are dominated by
“high-end” design professionals and
professors
• Many legal constraints, including the
language: “…shall be permitted…” for
“…may…”
 CRITIQUE
• Disincentive for sponsoring research to
improve criteria satisfactory to the sponsors
• Research is often crisis driven
• Codes are driven by seismic considerations
• Everybody is happy with LSD format, so
there is delay in implementing probability
concepts
• Tendency to diverge by industry, nation:
TRADITION!
PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN
PBD
• A new Buzzword?
• Has been around a long time
• All modern steel design standards have
either implicit or explicit clauses
permitting PBD.
• AISC/05 has explicit criteria for fire
resistant design
• Seismic design recommendations by
FEMA contain PBD
 AISC DEFINITION OF
PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN
• “An engineering approach to structural
design that is based on agreed-upon
performance goals and objectives,
engineering analysis and quantitative
assessment of alternatives against
those design goals and objectives
using accepted engineering tools,
methodologies and performance
criteria.”
 AISC DEFINITION OF
PRESCRIPTIVE DESIGN
• “A design method that
documents compliance with
general criteria established in a
building code.”
 AISC PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE
• “Structural components, members
and building frame systems shall
be designed so as to maintain their
load-bearing function during the
design-basis fire and to satisfy
other performance requirements
specified for the building
occupancy.”
PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN IN
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
• EXAMPLE:
• “Recommended Seismic Design
Criteria For New Steel Moment-
Frame Buildings.”
• FEMA 350, July 2000
 Building performance level
Immediate Life Near
Operational occupancy safe collapse
50% in 50yr
Frequent
Ground motion levels

M
2% in 50yr
MCE
 POST_EARTHQUAKE STRUCTURAL
PERFORMANCE LEVEL DEFINITIONS

• Collapse Prevention:
• Structure is on the verge of partial
or total collapse. Must carry gravity
load demands.
• Immediate Occupancy:
• Only limited structural damage has
occurred.
FEMA-350 PERFORMANCE DEFINITION

• Example:
• A design shall provide a 95% level of
confidence that the structure will
provide Collapse Prevention or better
performance for earthquake hazards
with a 2% probability of exceedance in
50 years.
• Methods are given for a “simple” or
“detailed” evaluation of the level of
confidence.
 BRAVE NEW WORLD?

• Code committees
define the performance
requirements and all
computations reside in
“software”?
CODE AUTHORITY
DEFINES GENERAL
REQUIREMENTS

OWNER, ARCHITECT, ENGINEER

FABRICATOR, BUILDER
DEFINE PROJECT-SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS

HAVE CRITERIA
BEEN MET
?
 PERFORMANCE
REQUIREMENTS FOR STEEL
STRUCTURES
• SERVICEABILITY: drift, deflection, slip,
vibration
• Economics, utility, user confidence and
comfort

TOLERANCE > PERFORMANCE

LIMITS
WHAT IS
ACCEPTABLE CAN DO NOW
? RISK?
STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS
• Safety is pre-eminent concern
• Limit states: now defined in design
standards
• Can they be lumped into a small
number of performance criteria?
• Overall system buckling, Complete
collapse mechanism, Local
mechanism, Etc.
 SERVICEABILITY FOR
ARBITRARY- POINT- IN -TIME DEMANDS
THE USUAL

HOW ABOUT SOMETHING IN-BETWEEN?

STRENGTH
MAXIMUM LIFETIME DEMANDS
THE WORST
 INTERMEDIATE STAGE
• Most modern codes are really in
this stage
• Limit states: first hinge formation,
member instability, etc.
• Tolerable local damage to provide
safety and economic repair
 WHAT TO DO NEXT?
• Formulate an acceptable
framework for PBD
• Engineering methods
• Systems behavior
• Probability
• Economics
• Research results, old and new
• Experience and good judgment
 CHALLENGES FOR DESIGN
STANDARDS
• How to deal with Performance-Based
Design?
• How can building authorities validate
designs without formulas (FEM)?
• How to develop codes for repair,
rehabilitation, re-use, new types of
structures, new materials?
• The answer: Continue to keep a healthy
research infrastructure.
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
• Laboratories are better than ever
• Field testing to monitor and to assess
strength
• Testing from another site via
communications network
• Provide each structural engineer to
engage sometimes in research as part
of professional experience
Multi-axial structural testing laboratory at University of Minnesota
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR KIND
ATTENTION.

QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION??