Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9


design 2

PR. Research work


Engr. Bautista
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.
LRFD is relatively new to timber. It was explicitly included with ASD in the National Design
Specification with the latest edition of the specification.
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.

Comparing LRFD and ASD Loads

Ultimate or factored loads CANNOT be directly compared with service loads. Either the
service loads must be factored or the ultimate loads must be unfactored if they are to be
compared. This gets even more complicated when you consider the effect on load
combination equations. One method for comparing loads is to compute a composite load
factor (CLF) that is the ratio of load combination result (P u or Pa) to the algebraic sum of the
individual load components (Ps,equiv or Ps,eq). The load combination with the lowest CLF is the
critical load combination. The computation of CLF is shown in Table DC.5.1.

Table DC.5.1
Composite Load Factors



Pu = Ps,equiv * CLFLRFD

Pa = Ps,equiv * CLFASD

CLFLRFD = Pu / Ps,equiv

CLFASD = Pu / Ps,equiv


Ps,equiv is the algebraic sum of all the service load components (i.e. P s,equiv = D + L
+....) and

CLF is the Composite Load Factor for each case.

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



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


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.

LRFD Effective Factor of Safety

Another approach to comparing the two methods is to compute an effective factor of safety
for the LRFD method that can be compared with the ASD factors of safety. This involves
combining the load and resistance factors.
Let us take the axial force limit state to conduct a comparative example between ASD and
LRFD. You can divide through by the load factors to get an equivalent factor of safety:
LRFD : Ps,equiv < Pn (f / CLFLRFD) = Pn/ Weff
Where the LRFD equivalent factor of safety is the term Weff = (f / CLFLRFD). f 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 argued that the variable LRFD Weff is more consistent with the probabilities
associated with design. The result is that structures with highly predictable loadings (i.e.
predominately dead load) the LRFD Weff is lower than the ASD W which results in a
potentially lighter structure. For structures subjected to highly unpredictable loads (live,
wind, and seismic loads for example) the LRFD Weff is higher than the ASD W which results
in stronger structures. The LRFD argument is that ASD is overly conservative for structures
with predicable loads and non conservative for those subject to less predictable loads.
Use of ASD and LRFD
Finally, you should be aware that you must select one or the other of the design philosophies
when you design a structure. You cannot switch between the two philosophies in a given
project! In this text we use both ASD and LRFD so that you can be conversant in both
but this is not the standard in practice.

Types of Material of Steel

Listed below are the material types and grades of steel plate fabricated and processed by
rolling, CNC press brake forming, bending, hot forming, cold forming, welding, flattening and

straightening by Halvorsen. To submit a design or CAD drawing, request a quote, discuss

your current project or place a fabrication order please call 1-800-423-7080 and ask for
Justin Frick or a Sales Engineer or email
The material types and grades of steel plate we process include:

Stainless Steel
Heavy Steel Plate

Heat Resistant Steel and Alloy Plate

High Strength Steel Plate (Including T1 and A514)
Heavy Alloy Plate

Carbon Steel

Carbon Alloy

Armor Plate

Nickel Alloy




Corrosion Resistant Alloys

Abrasion Resistant Alloys (Hardox, Lukens AR, Astralloy)

Non-Ferrous Steel

Chrome Carbide Overlay Plates

Pressure Vessel Quality Carbon Steel

Chrome Moly Steels 4140, 4150 and 4340

11-14% Hadfield Manganese

300 and 400 Series Stainless 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.

Carbon & Alloy Steels

Stainless Steel
Overlay Plate
Wear Resistant
Armor Plate
To submit a design or CAD drawing, request a quote or submit an RFQ, ask a sales engineer
a question, discuss your current project, place a fabrication order or to schedule a tour of our
facilities, please call 1-800-423-7080 and ask for Justin Frick or a Sales Engineer or

Structural Steel Shapes

There are a wide variety of steel shapes available. The most common shapes are listed
below; however, many manufacturers have special shapes.
The nomenclature for steel shapes follows two standards:

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


For steel tubes, pipes, plates, and angles: the 3 numbers indicate the height, width,
and thickness of the steel.





Wide Flange


Flange surfaces are parallel; flange thickness is no

necessarily equal to the web thickness.

Bearing Pile


Flange surfaces are parallel; flange and web have

equal thicknesses.

Standard Beam


The inner flange surface is sloped.



Standard AISC flanges have sloped inner flange








WT shapes are cut from a wide flange.


ST shapes are cut from American Standard Beams


MT shapes are cut from non-standard I-shapes.

Hollow Steel


Steel Tube





Pipe 4 STD

Either nomenclature is acceptable; however, HSS is

more common.

Angles come in equal leg or unequal leg sizes. The

diagram at left shows an unequal leg.







Very small plates can also be called bars.

General Properties of Steels:


Carbon Steels

Alloy Steels

Stainless Steels

Tool Steels

Density (1000 kg/m3)





Elastic Modulus (GPa)





Poisson's Ratio





Thermal Expansion (10-6/K)





Melting Point (C)


Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K)





Specific Heat (J/kg-K)




Electrical Resistivity (10-9W-m)




Tensile Strength (MPa)





Yield Strength (MPa)





Percent Elongation (%)





Hardness (Brinell 3000kg)