Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lecture 2 Steel Design PDF
Lecture 2 Steel Design PDF
RESISTANCE
FACTOR DESIGN
z
(LRFD)
STRUCTURAL DESIGN – 2
CE 524
LOAD COMBINATIONS
Depends upon the resistance type such as bending, tension, and compression. It
represent uncertainties in design theory, material properties, and construction and
fabrication practices. The nominal strength reduced by the ‘resistance factor’ is termed
as the design strength φ Rn .
For fracture in shear on high-strength bolts, tension, and bearing of a bolt against the
side of a hole, the ‘resistance factor’ is taken as 0.75. The resistance factor accounts
for the possible conditions that the actual fastener strength may be less than the
theoretically-calculated strength value as a result of variations in dimensional
tolerances and material properties. Neither the over load factors nor the resistance
factors are proposed to account for careless errors in construction or design.
The ‘resistance factor’ is 0.90 for the limit state of yielding and 0.75 for the fracture
limit state. The ‘resistance factor’ for flexure is 0.90.
For steel, the ‘resistance factor’ for axial force is 0.5 to 0.6 and the shear
‘resistance factor’ is 1.0.
For timber, the ‘resistance factor’ for compression is 0.9, the ‘resistance factor’ for
tension is 0.8, the ’resistance factor‘ for flexure is 0.85, and the ‘resistance factor’
for shear is 0.75.
LOAD COMBINATIONS
Load factors are applied as coefficients in the load combination equations for both
ASD and LRFD. The resistance factor is denoted with the symbol ∅, and the
factors of safety with the symbol Ω.
LRFD equivalent factor of safety is the term Ω eff = (∅ / CLFLRFD). ∅ is a constant. The composite
load factor, CLF = Pu/( Ps,equiv), varies with the relative magnitudes of the different types of
loads. The result is a variable factor of safety for LRFD. In ASD this factor of safety is taken as a
constant.
It can be LRFD Ω eff is more consistent with the probabilities associated with design. Structures
with highly predictable loadings (i.e. predominately dead load) the LRFD Ω eff is lower than the
ASD Ω which results in a potentially lighter structure. For structures subjected to highly
unpredictable loads (live, wind, and seismic loads for example) the LRFD Ω eff is higher than the
ASD Ω which results in stronger structures.
LRFD argument is that ASD is overly conservative for structures with predicable loads and non
conservative for those subject to less predictable loads.
ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT
z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
COMPARISON OF RESULTS with ASD
CONVERTING LOAD COMBINATIONS TO A COMPARABLE
EQUIVALENT LOAD
Example:
Consider a steel tension member that has a nominal axial capacity, Pn
and is subjected to a combination of dead and live loads. Use Φ= 0.90
and Ω = 1.67.
Using ASD
Using LRFD