Lehigh University
Lehigh Preserve
Fritz Laboratory Reports
Civil and Environmental Engineering
1980
Lrfd, a comparison with allowable stress design and
plastic design, "Visuals," Presented at American
Petroleum Inst. Conf. Lehigh University, September
1980, 34p.
L. S. Beedle
Follow this and additional works at: http://preserve.lehigh.edu/engrcivilenvironmentalfritzlabreports
Recommended Citation
Beedle, L. S., "Lrfd, a comparison with allowable stress design and plastic design, "Visuals," Presented at American Petroleum Inst.
Conf. Lehigh University, September 1980, 34p." (1980). Fritz Laboratory Reports. Paper 2032.
http://preserve.lehigh.edu/engrcivilenvironmentalfritzlabreports/2032
This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil and Environmental Engineering at Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Fritz Laboratory Reports by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact
preserve@lehigh.edu.
D
A Com pari .son with.
' ~
Allowlible Stress Des1qn li
and
Pla.st,c
,i
~~
De.si~r:>
~~;
: !
.
i
I
i
StZpt 1980
ftitl: EV)q IV) q(fVI~ la..bDf't.dory
.
Le~t:~ U~'ltreS ily
.
.
i'
.'
Report
371. bv
FUNCTIONAL RE.QUIREME.NTS
suPPORT LOAD
Fig. 1.
PROVIDE STIFFNESS
ECONOMICAL REQUIREMENTS
Structurql Design Objectives. The main objectives of Structural
Design do not change with the design method.
""''
n::::
Steps. in Destqn
1. Function
Z. . Structure and Loadinq
3. Loadinq Conditions
4. Preliminary Desiqn
5. Analysis
6.
7.
Fig. 2.
.
~


Selection
of Section
:
Secondary Deslqn Check
'
The steps in design are also independent of the method that is
used
~
..

 


3'71.1
Allowable Stress Design
Working Stress Design
Elastic Design
Plastic Design
Ultimate Strength Design
Limit Design
Load and Resistance Factor Design
Load Factor Design
Limit States Design
         '                          
Fig. 3.
There are three groups of design concepts: The "allowable stress"
group, the "plastic design" group, and the "load and resistance
factor" group.
'
:: ;:
,.
.;.
. :
~ :.i :
...
. ::
,.'
frR
<
'
:::
..
.:: ....
<~Q
.,<.
.
.
,l
!.
.
..
:' ::
Fig. 4.
'
::: ~ : : ) : ~ . : :
. [ :~ . :
The LRFD formulation is simple: The load factor times the load
effect must be less than the resistance factor times the resistance
of the member. (The format shown in the second line of the
formulation :l.s typical of that which appears in research papers.)
..
: : ; :.
DEAD LOAD
LIVE
LOAD
Long Term
Short Term
Extraordinary
COMBINATIONS

Fig. 5.
I
I
I
 

PLASTIC LIMIT
STABILITY
LIMIT
ELASTIC LIMIT
FATIGUE.
FRACTURE
DEFLECTION
(VIBRATION)
LRFD involves the examination of the loading function (left) and
the resistance function (right). Design is equating the two through
analytical'techniques and the use of the basic LRFD equation.
,LRy
I
!!lllli!I!IIIIJ
I
I
I
I~

Fig. 6.

LRFD is compared with allowable stress design at the left. At the
right it is compared with a form of load factor design, first with
single load.factors and then with multiple load factors. The
comparison is, in fact, with a plastic design, except that the use
of multipleload factors can lead to lighter members.
Fig. 7.
The load deflection curves and load bars of Fig. 6 are simplistic.
Actually there is uncertainty. This figure shows an example of
uncertainty in the loading function fl.

Fig. 8.
..
 


The uncertainty in response is shown (fr). Comparing with Fig. 7,
there ~s less variation in response or resistance than there is in
load .

~R
pp
I
I
I
I
FD
L
fe L ~ ~R
.
(yQ~cpR)

Fig. 9.
Failure is defined according to the following criterion: The
maximum load, fl is less than the minimum possible resistance
(f r x R)..
.; ::
1.0
LOAD
psf
I 00. . ~:.. . ..... . . :..... . _.__...._____,
..
~ i : ~ ;
.. :::
p
Per
~ ;. :
:~:::
t'...~"'..,
.~ !~ ..
.. ~~
..
.. .
: . ~,.....J
::
. . ~ :: ~ j :
:1
0.
I
j.
NO.
I
: . i
Fig. 10.
Actual measured load and resistance data. To the left is shown
the variation in floor load. ro the right, the variation in
resistan~e of continuous beams.
These observations illustrate
the greater scatter in load as compared to that of resistance.
=,
,,'
I
I
I
I
.
,''
! .Po.
Rs
.!
Rs
Ps
I
Load
ASD
PD
LRFD
D.ef lection
Fig. 11.
How safety is achieved in the three design
methods. Allowable
Stress Design: Start with yield and come down to allowable.
Plastic Design: Start with the service load and factor up to
design ultimate load. LRFD: Factor up from service load and
factor down 'from nominal resistance of the structure. The arrows
show where design attention is focussed in each of the three
methods.
APPROXIMATIONS IN ANALYSIS
APPROXIMATIONS IN DESIGN
,
STREss CONCENTRATIONS AND RESIDUALS
VARIATION IN PROPERTIES
VARIATION IN DIMENSIONS
WORKMANSHIP
LOCATION
VARIATION IN LOAD TYPE.
coMB INATION OF LOADS
INTENDED USE

Fig. 12.


Tabulation of the approximations and uncertainties in design,
workmanship, and loading. These factors must be accommodated
in any design method.
 . 
 
..

I :'
. ::
.I~~ : :
'::
!: ::
load Factor
Tension
Ft : 0. 60fy
1.67
Bending
Fb
1.70
0. 66Fy
z
. Compresslon Fa
r ,_ (Kh)
2
_2_ + 3(Kf;r)
. (Kf!r)
Bc;
c:
oc,
3
Fig. 13.
 .
IY
L67 l.9Z
How safety is achieved in Allowable Stress Design for three types
of loading. 'To the right is shown the corresponding load factors.
.....

.
.
3 '7 I
3 }\ '
1.3
GRAVITY
PLUS LATERAL
TENSION
MEMBERS
1.7
SHORT COLUMNS
BEAMS
PLASTIC DESIGN
1.9
LONG COLUMNS
2.2
LOAD
RIVETS
BOLTS
WELDS
SHEAR CONNECTORS

Fig. 14.
Uncertainty in Plastic Design is accommodated by load factors.
Note the'rational progression of load factors depending on the
importariceof member or uncertainty of loading or response.
ALLOWABLE STRESS
PLASTIC
DESIGN
DESIGN
P.u  
P.  
INHERENT
FY
MARGIN
OF
SAFETY
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CTmax =20 ksi
R'""tj'"o~
Deflection
Deflection

Fig. 15.
The philosophy behind selection of load factor F in Plastic Design
is this: The same safety in continuous beams as inherent in the
past ASD of simple beams.
'~
,(!":
::: :::
F=
~l
Mp
y
Q'"d s
Ma
Pa
a.,  0. 66 (J"'i
Pp
z . f
S.
Fig. 16.
The
~a1cu1ation
..!!
LIZ
of F based on concept of Fig. 15.
'1
_)
'7/
t/
!~n:
:
:::.
Q.R
~
I
Q
0
Fig. 17.
"
Examining safety in LRFD. Variations of load and resistance
indicated in Fig. 9 are shown. Resistance at top, load at
bottom. What is failure? When Q is greater than R. Area under.
curves (see shaded at left) is related to robabilit of failure.
? Il
I
~~;
Tj[:
Pn
<
.) /I lr
Pfz
P.Q.
Fig. 18.
Safety depends upon two things: The difference in Q and R and
the variabilityof Q and R. This figure illustrates the first.
.. .. ::: =:
Pfl <
Pfz
Variability
Fig. 19.
1m11m l.l\~mmm1
An illustration of how an increase in the variability (in this
case variability of load) increases the probability of failure.
klormal
Event
Mean
En
Uo~
Fig. 20.
Nomina\
(hand book)
ol Occurrences
Some of the terms and functions associated with measuring and
evaluating variability: Normal and skew distributions. Standard
deviations a. Mean and nominal (handbook) events (Em and En ,
respectively).
l.
R.
Rm
Fig. 21.
Functions shown are the mean value of load, Q standard deviation
m
of load a , meanvalue of resistance R , and standard deviation
of resist2nce aR. Coefficient of vari~tion is ratio of standard
deviat_ion to mean value.
::
Rm
fTR
T
RmGm
.  
Qrn
(JQ.
Q
Saf~ty Marqin:
R.&
0
Fig. 22.
Failure can now be defined more specifically. The safety margin
is R  Q, so safety will depend on two things: R  Q and on a.
m
m
Area under curve ~s probability of.failure.
f!
. :3, ..,, . II
'
RQ
RI
Fig. 23.
If safety depends on R  Q it can be plotted that way.
right.
See on
I ; "~
.~.
. :.
 ::::
'''T
 3/1 _I,?J
:::
RQ
II"'J
UQ
Fig. 24.
B is defined as the "safety index" or "reliability index".
relationship shown is only true for normal distributions.
The
ol:,
::
..
R
lnQ
Fig. 25.
The relationship of S to R , Q , and standard deviation can also
m m
be express~d in terms of logar1thmic functions of R and Q.
.: ':.
Connections
Beams
f3 = 3. 0
f: 4.5
3.0 cr
4.5 cr
0
Fig. 26.
,~~
"Calibration" is achieved by comparing the 8v<~lues with what
would be obtained in the design of a beam by Allowable Stress
Design. Two cases are shown.
Rm
Rn
"Related"
to t5
0
Fig. 27.
. :. :
:::
...
:~.
Although the specific comparison is not indicated, this illustrates
the fact that F x R and F x Q are related to 8 .
.r
q
Fig.
28.
The relationship of load and resistance factors with
mathematically.
: ,. . , ,, : i.ri:!!!Hlln\l11lT!n :l:!~ill 1 :i :::1: 1::::: :r:m:::::! :!:! ::: ::1::.:: ~::: ::l 11:::
B is
shown
1: :: . : 1:1 1:! ::,.:: : : :~,: :1, .:: T1:: 1:: 1: r :! 1:r::.: m.::: : ' : : : ,
Yf.(t3
I\
,.::::
<
F.L
t
Fig. 29.
The simplification of the LRFD format shown earlier, is expanded
here to show the multipleloadfactor aspect.

Load Combinations
Load Factors
_D_e_,a_d___;_____l__iv_rz__S_noY!______ '~~~~9 ~o'!h~u~ak~
;1.4
l.2
1.6
0.5
1.2
I.Z
I.Z
'.2.
I.Z
.
0.5
0.5
 0.9
 0.~
I.6
1.6
A possible
~et
! 
0.6
I ,3
t5'
O.Z
:t5

;1.5 . !
(. 3
:~'
Fig. 30.
I I
   'i~~ .. ~ ..1~I
of load combinations and load factors for use in
LRFD.
;1
:::
II
rr~
:: :i. ,'; .'~ _.'~ .'~
r:T
~ lj ~
H1l
Resistance Factor&
Limit State
Element
Tension Member .
Beam
Bolt
I shape
Other
6roove
Fillet
Fig. 31.
..
.:
0.9
YiQid
Fracture
.8
.9
Bendinq (Mp.M,r)
Shear (Vp.Vcr.)
Co{umn
Weld
Fr ()
mmml" u11l
.9
Stability
Stability
. ,8
Fracture
.9
.8
.s
Shear Fracture
Shear Fracture
Possible resistance factors for use in LRFD.
simplified and rounded off.
.7
These have been
, r '~@ mmrm:
..
:
:;
...
P: ZIf( 0:9
l: ll
fo Q1> + FL QL
1'
fL:.
Qo: Mo
QL: ML
, o~<1oKrz)
Fig. 32.
.
'
'
::
'
fr lln
f0 : L2
l.Z M0 + I. 6 ML
<CJlzol<
12.)
12
<

.(
FR. = 0.~
Rn:
t!y 'i
<fy'l:.
0.9(36)
Some of the. essentials of the LRFD method are shown in this
design example.
I,
zo'
PL4
(.6 .
 0.9
(..
II
II
64.0
6Z. z 59 9
59. 6 .
60
46.7
cost
Save
40
,
zo
0
All Dead Load
Fig. 33.
Ot\.
The required plastic modulus according to three
3
3
ASD (59.9 in. ), PD (59.6 in. ). LRFD (46.7 to
depending on ratib of dead load to live load).
multiple load factor aspect of LRFD has a great
~hether material will be saved or not.
All
liv~
different designs:
3
62.2 in. ,
Evidently the
deal to do with
load