Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ASD
Pu < Pn
Pa < Pn/
the load consists of one part dead load, one part live load, and two
parts seismic load
For this situation, we introduce the quantity Ps,equiv which is the sum
of the service level load components. For our example:
Ps,equiv = D + L + E
Where
ASD
Pu = CLFLRFD*Ps,equiv
Pa = CLFASD*Ps,equiv
The composite load factor is then computed for each load case.
The largest CLF will be from the controlling load case.
For our example, using the LRFD load cases:
1. Pu = 1.4(0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.35 Ps,equiv
2. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.6(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.70 Ps,equiv
3. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.425 Ps,equiv
4. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.425 Ps,equiv
5. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.0(0.50 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)=
0.925 Ps,equiv
6. Pu = 0.9(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.0(0.50 Ps,equiv)= 0.725 Ps,equiv
The controlling CLFLRFD in this case is from LRFD LC5 and is 0.925.
With the CLFLRFD we can now find the allowable magnitudes of D, L,
and E.
Figure 2.3.1
Comparison of LRFD & ASD Results
From Figure 2.3.1 you can see that, for this case, whenever the total
service load is 25% dead load or less that the AISC ASD method
gives greater capacity (i.e. it allows more actual load on the
structure). Otherwise the AISC LRFD method is advantageous.
The variable factor of safety associated with the LRFD method is
considered to be more consistent with probability since structures
that have highly predictable loads (i.e. a large portion of the total
load is dead load in this case) don't require the same factor of
safety as structures subjected to loads that are not very predictable
(such as live load in this case). So, in the given case, a structure
that is subjected to predominately live loads (D < 25% of total load)
requires a greater factor of safety than is provided by the ASD
method.
Note that the use of other load combination equations will yield
different results.
Allowable Stress Design (ASD) technique is the conventional method accepted for the design
of steel structures over many years. The method is based on pure elastic theory and demands that the
stresses produced in a component by the applied loads must not exceed a stipulated allowable stress.
In1986, the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) presented an alternative method called the
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method. In this method, factored loads are applied to a
steel component to determine the required absolute strength and this is evaluated with the
component's assumed strength and a suitable reduction factor.
Historically, the Allowable Stress Method (ASD) has delivered safe and reliable steel and composite
structures; however, the method does not comprehend inconsistency of various load effects (live load,
dead load) and resistances (i.e. shear capacity, bending, cracks, etc.). For this reason, the Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is the preferred method of structural steel design. LRFD method has
two principle benefits over the ASD method. First, during limit state analysis, engineer does not have to
presume linearity between force and load, or stress and force. Second, different load factors can be
utilized to suggest the degree of uncertainty for various loads (dead and live). Due to these benefits of
LRFD, more consistent reliability is achieved during the structural steel design process and in many
cases a more cost-effective steel structure results.
The principal advantage of the Load and Resistance Factor Design method is that, by applying a
statistical analysis to the random values of component strengths and loads, a consistent factor of safety
may be achieved for all types of steel structures. LRFD models the behavior of the structure at
definitive loads and provides an accurate estimation of the strength of the steel or composite structure.
Inrecent years, LRFD method has been successfully employedto the design of hot-rolled and coldformed steel sections and components in United States, United Kingdom and other countries.
Also when you need to evaluate structure strength under seismic circumstances, a truly elastic design
approach is difficult to correlate with estimated structural response. The existing alternative provisions
for ASD are totally misleading because they utilize a conservative load factor of1.7 on all live and dead
loads and a set of customized ASD factors to determine permissible strengths. At some point, we are
creating more confusion and work by trying to use ASD for the intrinsic inelasticity of seismic design.
A third area where LRFD offers tremendous advantage is in the design of frames with PR steel
connections. Steel Designers will be able to discard the restraining assumptions of perfectly fixed
connection behavior. Modeling connections using their authentic strength and stiffness may result in a
more economic structural frame due to easy connection details.
AISCs LRFD method is a practical, world-class and trusted design specification. Whats more,
because a metric version is now available, it is assumed that most international jurisdictions will
recognize it, either as an alternative to their own code or in the lack of an established code. Even if this
is not the case, the LRFD method would form an economical and convenient base for the US
engineers to get familiar with the internationally established limit states design philosophy. While ASD
may not be beyond its usefulness today, there can be no doubt that LRFD will replace it gradually as
innovative ideas become normal practice for steel structures.