This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Theodore V. Galambos Washington University C.E. Dept St. Louis, Missouri 63130
Presented Saturday, May 2, 1981 National Engineering Conference sponsored by AISC
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN THEODORE V. GALAMBOS
Load and Resistance Factor Design, abbreviated as LRFD, is a scheme of designing steel structures and structural components which is different from the traditionally used allowable stress format, as can be seen by comparing the following two inequalities:
The first of these inequalities represents the allowable stress case, while the second one represents the LRFD design criterion. The left side
in each case is the "design strength", and the right is the "required strength". The term defines the "nominal strength" as given by an is the "load effect" (i.e., a com-
equation in a specification, and
puted stress or a force such as bending moment, shear force axial force, etc.) determined by structural analysis for the loads acting on the structure (e.g., live load, dead load, wind load, etc.). F.S. represents
the "Factor of Safety", Ø is termed the "resistance factor" and the are the "load factors" associated with each load effect
Theodore V. Galambos is the Harold D. Jolley Professor of Civil Engineering at Washington University in St. Louis.
* The Terms bracketed by quotation marks in this paragraph are the adopted terms used in Refs. 1 and 2.
The coefficients F.S. > 1.0,
< 1.0 and
> 1.0 all serve the
same purpose: they account for the uncertainties inherent in the determination of the nominal strength and the load effects due to natural variation in the loads, the material properties, the accuracy of the theory, the precision of the analysis, etc. The fundamental difference between LRFD and the allowable stress design method is then that the latter employs one factor (i.e. the Factor
of Safety), while the former uses one factor with the resistance and one
factor each for the different load effect types.
LRFD, by employing more
factors, recognizes the fact that, for example, beam theory is more accurate than column theory (e.g., in Ref. 1, = 0.85 for beams and = 0.75
for columns), or that the uncertainties of the dead load are smaller than
those of the live load (e.g., in Ref. 2, =1.2 and = 1.6). LRFD
thus has the potential of providing more consistency, simply because it uses more than one factor. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of an LRFD specification for steel structures.
SIMPLIFIED PROBABILISTIC MODEL
The strength R of a structural member and the load effect O are both
random parameters since their actual values cannot be determined with
certainty (Fig. 1). The strength of a structure, often referred to also
as its "resistance", is defined in a popular sense as the maximum force that it can sustain before it fails. Since "failure" is a term that is
associated with "collapse", it is more useful, in the context of structural
behavior, to define strength as the force under which a clearly defined "limit state" is attained. Such limit states are, for example, the plastic
mechanism, the plastic moment, the overall or component buckling load,
Q > R is unacceptable. More refined methods. 1. while on the contrary. which take into account also the distribution. When < 1. that the limit state can be exceeded. 3). and the shaded area in Fig. deflection.3. 5) (3) .. a method has been devised which operates only with the mean and the standard deviation of the random parameters (Ref. Even for the most carefully designed and constructed structure there is a small but finite chance that Q > R. It is possible. it is theoretically not possible to state with certainty that for any structure Q R. etc. According to the first-order probabilistic method one can determine a "reliability index" (Ref. Not all of these limit states cause "collapse" in the popular sense. 2 is the probability of this event. vibration. fatigue. 4). i. the limit state using as the abscissa the ratio has been exceeded. to quantify the statistical parameters which describe the probability of exceeding a limit state. and so it is appropriate to define strength as "the limit state which determines the boundary of structural usefulness. Figure 2 is an identical representation of Fig.e. A satisfactory structural design specification is one which minimizes this chance to an acceptably low level. 4) in the actual development of the load factors proposed in Ref. This method is called the "First-Order Second-Moment" probabilistic analysis (Ref. 2. Since the probabilistic distributions of R and Q are not known very precisely. Since Q and R are random. are also available and have been used (Ref. . fracture." Structural behavior is thus satisfactory if Q R. by using a simplified probabilistic approach.
where and are the mean values and where and are the coefficients of variation denotes the standard deviation It can be seen in Fig. types of members. 1. the probability of exceeding the limit state is smaller. for example). and types of loading. the "reliability" is increased. the converse is true when decreases (Fig. 8. 4. 3). 5) (4) (5) .e. respectively. EXAMPLE OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE RELIABILITY INDEX The use of Eq.4. 7. can thus serve as a comparative measure of The reliability index reliability between various design methods. A "compact" two-span continuous beam will be used for illustration. The mean strength and the coefficient of variation of a compact beam is equal to (Ref.. 6) of R and Q. Typical values of encountered are ranging from 2 to 6. 3 will be illustrated next. that the see Ref. i. When is larger. but a scheme whereby actual designs were "calibrated" prior to the development of the resistance and load factors which are to be used in the design office. This is not a design office exercise (more will be said about that later). magnitude of B effectively positions the coordinates with respect to the distribution curve. each increase of one unit corresponding very roughly to one order of magnitude of decrease in the probability of exceeding a limit state. and it has generally been preferred to use rather than the probability of exceeding the limit state in developing the new LRFD specifications (Refs. 2.
10) (Ref. 7 is the load effect Q. Material. and it can be written as (8) . Ref. The term is the nominal strength (6) where is the nominal plastic moment based on the handbook value of the plastic section modulus and the specified yield stress The coefficients (representing abbreviations for Professional. 11) gives (7) The right side of Eq. Fabrication) are mean values of the following random parameter ratios: P = Test/Prediction M = actual static yield stress/specified yield stress F = actual All available data were examined. 4 (Ref. 4 and 5 gives Plastic analysis of the beam in Fig. It consists of the dead and the live load effect.5. 9) (Ref. and based on the interpretation of these data it was decided that the following statistical values apoiaey prxmtl represent the total population of compact steel beams: (41 indeterminate beam tests. 5) Obviously there is a certain element of judgment involved in these values. Substitution of these values into Eqs. but they represent the best a number of experienced people could come up with on the basis of the available information.
28 ft. The occupancy live load is equal to (Ref. and the bracket is a "live Load reduction factor" dependent on the "influence area" beams and columns. where is the "tributary area"). The mean and the standard deviation are then (Ref. and the reduced live load . 2) gives the following values: (1 1) (12) where the subscript n relates to the nominal code-specified dead and live loads given in Ref. respectively. Basic live load intensity: 50 psf.5 psf. 6) (9) (10) A study of the load effect statistics (Ref. The statistics include the uncertainties due to the loads themselves. for The following data are specified for the given problem: Dead load intensity: 57. Beam length between centers of supports: Beam spacing: 32 ft. For the tributary area of is 30 psf. 2) (13) where is the load effect due to the basic code specified uniformly distributed live load intensity. as well as the effects of translating the loads into the idealized load effects and the idealization inherent in the uniform distribution. 2.6.
7. Part 2: Design according to the proposed AISC LRFD criteria (Ref. Part 1: Live load reduction for Design according to the 1978 AISC Specification. 1): (14) . Design according to the 1978 AISC Specification.
No precisely documented historical account is intended here (the reader is referred to Refs. Simultaneously discussions within the American Concrete Institute eventually resulted in the familiar ACI ultimate design method. 5 and 12 for such a treatise). indicated that the probabilistic nature of the design parameters could somehow be quantified. The basic notions of this quantitative proabilistic approach were formulated in the 1950's by a series of papers authored by Freudenthal. and this explains the evolution of the "factor of safety.W.II. 13).8. Similar studies of thousands of different structure elements form the basis of the LRFD criteria. and the premises advanced in these papers still hold true today (Ref. 14)." Experience with aircraft design during W. Designers were always aware of the uncertainties inherent in the design process. . with its -factors and its load factors. and a specification using them was formulated in the Soviet Union. but just a brief general discussion will be provided to put the present status of LRFD into focus. This simple exercise showed how the comparative reliability of several designs can be compared and that the design of this particular beam according to part 1 of the AISC specification is conservative in comparison to the designs according to part 2 and the LRFD method. At the same time the idea of using multiple factors was suggested in England by Pugsley (Ref. 4. RESEARCH ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF LRFD The ideas of multiple factors and of probabilistic approaches to design are not new.
to mention only a few. It became obvious early in the LRFD research that the major difficulty. There was a clear need for a broader stance on this matter than could be taken by one single materials oriented specification group. These tentative LRFD criteria had also been tested in several design offices by them (Ref. and by 1978 a draft of such a specification was published (Ref. started in 1969 at Washington University. C. was the treatment of the loads and the decisions on the magnitudes of the load factors. Research on the LRFD method for steel building structures. "First-Order Second-Moment" method whereby multiple design factors could be generated from statistical data and using probabilistic theory. once the method and the format was agreed upon. Cornell. Lind. Benjamin. intended as a companion of the AISC Specification. e. 1960's and early 1970"s brought about first the simple. A. By the beginning of the 1960's then there was available a comprehensive probabilistic theory. Ang. At present (1981) the various approaches are ordered into hierarchies.g. A. 17). Ditlevsen. (Ref. 5. J. as shown in Fig. 8). N.. R. 15). and consequently a study . Easier. and the first design specification for steel structures based on this approach was issued in 1974 in Canada (Ref. and there were a number of design codes in use which used multiple factors which were arrived at by intuitive means. There were many contributors to this development. C.9. and then an The increasingly more sophisticated. Many countries and regions of the world are presently (1981) either adopting or considering the adoption of LRFD type codes. 11) and in the formulation of Load Factor Design for steel bridges (Ref. 16). N. In the US the development of LRFD for steel structures has its origins also in the plastic design for buildings. E.
reinThe recommendations forced and prestressed concrete. where the nominal loads are those of the ANSI A58.. timber. 6 and 7. The load factors incorporated into the draft of the AISC LRFD Specification (Ref. These charts show. of papers and research reports which were generated in the research at Washington University. wind load.1-81 (Ref. . were based on the load statistics given in Table 1. The schematic process of arriving at the LRFD Specification is flowcharted in Figs. These load statistics were obtained from the literature on loads by the various subcommittees of ANSI A58 responsible for the various load types. was initiated under the umbrella of the ANSI-A58 Load Factor Subcommittee at the National Bureau of Standards during 1979. means a one-way procedure which is based solely on probabilistic methods. 4. A sampling of the data for hot-rolled steel structural members is given in Tables 2. live load. Such methods provide a set of tools which permit the decision makers to make rational rather than intuitive judgments. as developed for the ANSI load code. The aim of this research was to arrive at load factors which would be commonly applicable to all structural materials: hot-rolled and cold-formed steel. of this research were published in 1980 in Ref.1 LOAD FACTORS The recommended common load factors. Resistance data were obtained from the literature on the various The data for steel structures were taken from a series materials involved.10. aluminum. in a very simplistic way. and masonry. etc. where similar information was also collected on coldformed and aluminum structures. judgment and experience play a crucial role in the process. THE ANSI A58. e.g. One should note that It is by no the ingredients of arriving at the new criteria. 1) are the same factors which have been recommended in ANSI-A58. 3 and 4.1 Standard. 2).
as target Accordingly a new cycle of probabilistic analyses was made (see Fig. but using a more advanced method (Ref. with the point -in-time" values of the loads.11. the combination stipulates the maximum snow load in the 50 yr. these values turned up most frequently (Ref. . and on the basis of this across- materials survey. The load combinations are of the following general form: (15) where is the dominant transient load effect. and these were recommended for adoption in the new ANSI A58.) value. and transient load effects. 4). lifetime of the structure. The resulting 's were then examined. 's being determined for the "arbitraryFor example. much in the same way as the example illustrated above for the two-span beam of Fig. with based on the load are the other taking on its maximum lifetime (50 yr.1 standard (Ref. On the basis of the available load and resistance statistics and on their (1979) current structural design specifications. and the decision was made by the ANSI A58 subgroup working on the problem to base the new load factors on these values of reliabilities. on the average. 4). and the load factors listed in Table 8 were finally developed. it was determined that. structural design in the US had inherently the following reliability index values for Gravity loads only: Gravity plus wind loads: While there was considerable fluctuation. 2). the values of the reliability index inherent in all types of materials used in building construction were determined. 4. 7).
They are meant to apply to building structures made from any of the traditional building materials.12. Reference 4 gives the probability-based method. using Eqs. The load effect data is: and (Table 1). 4 and 5. RESISTANCE FACTORS The loads and the load-factors in the LRFD design criterion (right side of Eq. based on the simplified approach of Eq. Ref. will illustrate the method. 3. 9 provides the following statistical data: therefore. 2) are now set by ANSI. as well as charts and a computer program to facilitate this task. and letting (16) then (17) (18) . while the windload is based on the maximum annual value. The resistance factors 0 are to be developed for the load combination and for a target reliability index of The following simple example. and the task of the materials specification groups is then to develop values which are consistent with the target reliabilities inherent in the load factors. . For a simply supported beam of "compact" shape. The load factors and load-combinations in Table 5 are presently (1981) being ballotted for adoption in the ANSI load standard (Ref. 2).
as seen in Figs. (21) Substituting into Eq. (19) where (20) whichever is larger. The point to be made here. (May 1981) still under discussion. for members. is that whatever final value they are assigned. Table 6. Part 2. 3. For the design according to the AISC LRFD Specification. For the design according to the AISC-1978 Specification.13. and some of these are given in -factors provide roughly This is consistent with the It should be noted that these for connectors. The -factors listed in Table 6 are not necessarily the values which They are at present will finally appear in the AISC LRFD Specification. the method presented here will permit an evaluation of the consequences on the reliability index THE AISC LRFD SPECIFICATION . 8 and 9 for a value of can be It is seen that the LRFD design gives a nearly constant reliability of approximately over the whole range of parameters. By performing similar analyses on other types of structural members and components. the variation of with the tributary area and the live-to-dead load ratio determined. however. and traditional practice of providing higher factors of safety for the latter. -factors were derived. The draft has been put together by Professor Steven Fenves of Carnegie-Mellon University and a number of Task Committees of the AISC. . The LRFD Specification is now (May 1981) ready to be debated by the Specification Advisory Committee of the AISC.
type specifications which are now (1981) appearing over the whole world. variation of the parameters is included. It is subdivided by members (e. It compression members. tension members. 11) will be treated differently from the 1978 AISC Specification.g. connections). The AISC LRFD Specification has. Emphasis was placed on the numerous It is one of the several new LRFD - sources on which this document stands. The document is an entirely self-contained specification which encompasses all the parts of the well known 1978 AISC Specification. 2). for the first time. The reliability is to be interpreted as being "notional".. The and the nominal resistance -factors are determined by the The applicable load probabilistic method described earlier in this paper. factors are those which were recommended for the ANSI load standard (Ref. i. and each type element is given the appropriate resistance factor for each applicable limit state. 10) and beam-columns (Fig. and only a few will be mentioned: beams (Fig. also a number of other new features. it is a comparative concept. composite beam design will be based on ultimate strength concepts.e. and. flexure members. These specifications employ several resistance factors and load factors to account for the various types of uncertainties which underlie design.. is arranged in accordance with the decision table logic developed by Professor Fenves. as in other traditional . Only the natural statistical which are the result of errors and omissions. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS An attempt was made here to summarize briefly the existing development of the AISC LRFD Specification. the Specification will contain provisions for the design of composite columns. It should not be confused with actual structural failures.14. and. It is not the intent here to enumerate these in detail. in addition to the arrangement and the LRFD format.
The author is deeply grateful to the AISC Award Committee for giving him this award. of the AISC. R. M. the LRFD Specification attempts. Cooper. within the limits of the first-order probability theory used.15. with whom he was privileged to share the excitement of about five years of creative collaboration. Gaylord. specifications. 5) on which the author was awarded the 1981 T. and load factors are proposed. The greatest appreciation goes to his co-author of the 1978 paper. P. W. Higgins Lectureship. K. L. J. who passed away in 1979 and who will not be able to see the completion of this work. Dr. Cornell. which would permit the design of building structures of all structural material types to be based on a common approach. orate Dr. A. many other deserve credit for Among these I sadly commem- the development of LRFD for steel structures. Kulak and C. C. R. Messrs. Fenves. human errors must be guarded against by other control measures. Milek. Among the many others I want to mention with gratitude are: Mr. J. H. Professors S. For the first time a method is provided. Professor Cornell also deserves . and since 1968 he has tirelessly forged ahead. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is an up-date of an earlier paper (Ref. Many. to provide designs across the whole design parameter space. Beedle. Basically. as well as all of the co-authors of the papers in 1978 ASCE Symposium. A. Fisher. S. Ravindra. M. which have an approximately consistent reliability under a given load combination. I. B. Viest is due the greatest credit: he had the idea of doing this work. Bjorhovde. Hansell. Dr. Mr. E. Clarkson Pinkham. Yura. W. W. G. Winter and E. giving guidance and impetus when things appeared to falter. G.
Kuentz. the financial assistance of the American Iron and Steel Institute in sponsoring this research is gratefully acknowledged.16. was a pleasure to work with. J. The AISI . Ellingwood. Mr. staff representative. much credit for providing the theory on which to base the development of LRFD and for working with us throughout the decade of the 1970's as the LRFD criteria were formulated. A. Thanks go also to my other two collaboraMessrs. tors in the ANSI load factor work: Finally. MacGregor and B. G.
M.. 1978. "The Safety of Structures". American Concrete Institute. Vol. Vol. ASCE. Pugsley. National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 577. 10. ST9. "Probability. ST9. "Load and Resistance Factor Design for Steel". Journal of the Structural Division. S. A. Cornell. 5. M.. Canadian Standards Association. 13. Sept. A. "Tentative Specification for Load and Resistance Factor Design.. 98. Cornell. 1970. 11. T. 12. "Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American National Standard A58". Journal of the Structural Division. "Safety. 8. "Plastic Design of Steel Frames". T.H. 6. April 1972. 7. MacGregor. Sept. ASCE.17. 12. March 1961. K. L. Arnold Publishers. "Properties of Steel for Use in LRFD". Ravindra. K. Benjamin. J. B. Vol. Recommendations for Loading and Safety Regulations for Structural Design". Freudenthal.. V. Journal of the Structural Division. Reliability and Structural Design". J. Galambos. Ang. No. June 1980. Vol. Galambos. 87.. No. A.. 2. 66. R. Beedle. ST4. "Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Building and Other Structures".. ST3. Galambos. Dec. 9. 104... "Structural Safety . "A Probability-Based Structural Code". Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings"... No. Vol. ASCE. Ravindra. "The Bending Resistance of Steel Beams". T. C. Ravindra. Nov. A. Journal of the Structural Division. 3. J.1-81 draft. C. ST9. 1978. 1969. V. American Institute of Steel Construction..1-1974. 36.. V.-S. Feb. Cornell. A. Yura. 104. 14. Journal of the Structural Division. The Nordic Committee on Building Regulations". Ellingwood. ASCE. K. G. Fourth Draft. A. Statistics. No. 8. M. E. 1958.A Literature Review". McGraw-Hill Book Co.. ASCE. American National Standards Institute. Sept. and Decision for Civil Engineers". 1966. 4. C. V.. . T. Vol. . CSA Standard S16. REFERENCES 1. A. ANSI A58. John Wiley and Sons. 1978. "Steel Structures for Buildings Limit States Design"... M. 1978. NKB Report No. Journal. London. 1981. 104. Galambos.
AISI Bulletin No.18. AISC. 27. K.. First Quarter. Vincent. Wiesner. 16.. 1969. "LRFD Design Office Study". B. 1978. No. G. 15. AISI Bull. 17. Engineering Journal. Galambos.. "Tentative Criteria for Load Factor Design of Steel Highway Bridges". . "Proposed Criteria for LRFD of Steel Building Structures". T. S. V. January 1978. 15.
for beams. of Var.25 0.73 Max.8 to 0.19. Gamma Type I.37 Type I. = "Arbitrary-Point-in-Time" Lifetime = 50 yr.1) Influence Area.P. Lifetime Wind Max. Type II.P.T.T.26 0. for columns . Distribution Type Dead Max. Code-specified load intensities (ANSI-A58. LOAD STATISTICS Load Type Mean Value Coeff. Lifetime Snow 0. Live Max. Table 1. Tributary Area. 0. Lifetime Live A. Annual Snow Lognormal A.4 0.10 Normal 0.
10 1.04 0. Table 2.10 0.07 0.00 1. Shear Strength of Weld Tensile Strength of H.84 1. Shear Strength of H.00 1.S. Bolt. MATERIAL PROPERTY STATISTICS Property Static Yield Stress.05 1.10 0.625 specified tensile strength of weld metal .02 0.07 0. Flanges Static Yield Stress.10 1.S.S.11 0.20 1.S. Bolt.03 0.S. Plates Modulus of Elasticity Static Yield Stress in Shear Poisson's Ratio Tensile Strength Tensile Strength of Weld.05 0.S. Bolt : : : specified yield stress specified tensile strength Mean Value 1.10 0.20.11 0.05 0.06 0. Tensile Strength of H.11 1. Webs.
limit state LTB elastic inelastic Beam Column Interaction Eq. Plate Girder flexure shear Compact composite beam gross area effective net area plastic moment elastic section modulus elastic critical stress lateral-torsional buckling ultimate moment capacity ultimate shear capacity .21. Table 3 MODELING STATISTICS Type Member Tension member Model Compact W-beam uniform moment continuous Mechanism W-beam.
continuous Elastic beam.11 0. uniform moment Compact beam. Table 4.14 0. LTB Beam-Column 1.13 0.11 1.03 1.12 0. RESISTANCE STATISTICS Type Member Tension member.22.12 0.10 1. yield Tension member .13 0. shear Compact Composite beam 1. flexure Plate girder. LTB Inelastic beam.14 1.07 1.15 0.16 0.04 .07 1. fracture Compact beam.08 Plate girder.11 0.11 0.05 1.14 1.
mean recurrence interval map) E : Earthquake load . mean recurrence interval map) S : Snow load (50 yr. RECOMMENDED LOAD FACTORS D : Dead load L : Live load due to occupancy W : Wind load (50 yr.23. Table 5.
Table 6.S.85 0. limit state: yield Tension member. tension 0.75 0.70 0.75 0. all types and all limit states Fillet welds H. bolts. shear * These are not necessarily the values which will be finally adopted.S. bolts.24.75 0.65 H. all other type sections Beams. .S.90 0. TENTATIVELY RECOMMENDED RESISTANCE FACTORS Type Member Tension member.70 Columns. rolled W sections 0.S. limit state: fracture Columns.
Fig. 2 Definition of the Reliability Index . 1 Probabilistic Description of Q and R Fig.25.
26. Fig. 3 Comparative Description of the Reliability Index Fig. 4 Two-Span Beam Example .
LEVEL I.27. First-Order Second-Moment Probabilistic Analysis Used to Develop Level I. 5 Hierarchies of Probabilistic Methods . Codes LEVEL III. Full Probabilistic Analysis Research Analysis for Special Structures Fig. Operational Design Specifications With 's and 's Prescribed Used in Design Office LEVEL II.
6 Flowchart of LRFD Specification .28. Current Specifications Design Office Studies Specification Logic LRFD Criteria Fig. Load and Resistance Statistics Probabilistic Judgment Model Past Experience.
1 to be Determined by Materials Specifications Fig. 7 Flowchart of Load and Resistance Factor Development .29. Load Statistics Resistance Statistics Probabilistic Analysis for Current Specifications Selection of Target Probabilistic Analysis Search for Optimum and Load Factors Resistance Factors Recommended in ANSI A58.
8 Reliability Index for Simply Supported Compact Wide-Flange Beam. Fig. .30. Live-to-Dead Load Ratio.
Fig.31. Tributary Area = 400 ft . 9 Reliability Index for Simply Supported Compact Wide-Flange Beam.
32. 10 Nominal Strength of Wide-Flange Beams Under Uniform Moment . LIMIT STATE: Lateral-Torsional Buckling LIMIT STATE: Flange Local Buckling LIMIT STATE: Web Local Buckling Fig.
Fig. 11 LRFD Design Method for Wide-Flange Beam-Columns in Bending About the Major Axis .33.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?