Load and Resistance Factor Design by Galambos

© All Rights Reserved

8 views

Load and Resistance Factor Design by Galambos

© All Rights Reserved

- Topic09-SeismicLoadAnalysisNotes
- DNV OS-C102
- Proposal of Polynesian Roof Truss
- Trilateral Design and Test Code for Military Bridging and Gap-Crossing Equipment
- IS-800-2007 Example 002
- Jurnal Analisa kegagalan pada rangka truk
- Training Manual
- Design of Welded Steel Structures - Copy
- VOID 004-ROOF_STRUCTURE_DESIGN 36m_dia.pdf
- Calculation Note-Construction Case Structure
- 4
- ASTM A 796 A 796M 2013.pdf
- SSP Design Guidelines
- Exclusion Request - Tesla, Inc - Sheet - HTS 7606123090
- Design of Composite Beam V3 AMD
- Advanced Design Columns
- EN 3-2005 Example 002
- Base Plate
- gr3-Static 1-1
- gate-ce-2009 (1)

You are on page 1of 9

THEODORE V. GALAMBOS

Load and Resistance Factor Design, abbreviated as LRFD, ample, beam theory is more accurate than column theory

is a scheme of designing steel structures and structural (e.g., in Ref. 1,0 = 0.85 for beams and 0 = 0.75 for col-

components which is different from the traditionally used umns), or that the uncertainties of the dead load are smaller

allowable stress format, as can be seen by comparing the than those of the live load (e.g., in Ref. 2, yD = 1.2 and 7^

following two inequalities: = 1.6). LRFD thus has the potential of providing more

consistency, simply because it uses more than one factor.

Rn/F.S. > Qm (1) The purpose of this paper is to describe the development

1 of an LRFD specification for steel structures.

4>Rn > t yiQni (2) SIMPLIFIED PROBABILISTIC MODEL

1

The strength R of a structural member and the load effect

The first of these inequalities represents the allowable stress

Q are both random parameters, since their actual values

case, while the second represents the LRFD design crite-

cannot be determined with certainty (Fig. 1). The strength

rion. The left side in each case is the design strength, and

of a structure, often referred to also as its resistance, is de-

the right is the required strength* The term Rn defines the

fined in a popular sense as the maximum force that it can

normal strength as given by an equation in a specification,

sustain before it fails. Since failure is a term tfrat is associ-

and Qni is the load effect (i.e., a computed stress or a force

ated with collapse, it is more useful, in the context of

such as bending moment, shear force axial force, etc.) de-

structural behavior, to define strength as the force under

termined by structural analysis for the loads acting on the

which a clearly defined limit state is attained. Such limit

structure (e.g., live load, dead load, wind load, etc.). The

states are, for example, the plastic mechanism, the plastic

term F.S. represents the Factor of Safety, 0 is termed the

moment, the overall or component buckling load, fracture,

resistance factor, and the 7 ? 's are the load factors associated

fatigue, deflection, vibration, etc. Not all of these limit states

with each load effect Q z .

cause "collapse" in the popular sense, and so it is appro-

The coefficients F.S. > 1.0, 0 < 1.0, and 7, > 1.0 all priate to define strength as "the limit state which deter-

serve the same purpose; they account for the uncertainties mines the boundary of structural usefulness."

inherent in the determination of the nominal strength and

Structural behavior is thus satisfactory if Q < R, while

the load effects due to natural variation in the loads, the

on the contrary, Q > R is unacceptable. Since Q and R are

material properties, the accuracy of the theory, the precision

random, it is theoretically not possible to state with certainty

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 Ptobabi I ity

Density

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 ex-

Engineering at Washington University in St. Louis.

* The terms in italics in this paragraph are the adopted terms used

in Refs. 1 and 2. Fig. 1. Probabilistic description of Q and R

74

where R and Q are the mean values and_F# and VQ are

the coefficients of variation (VR = OR/R, VQ = (TQ/Q,

Mean

where a denotes the standard deviation; see Ref. 6) of R

and Q, respectively. It can be seen in Fig. 2 that the mag-

nitude of /3 effectively positions the coordinates with respect

to the distribution curve. When (3 is larger, the probability

of exceeding the limit state is smaller, i.e., the "reliability"

is increased; the converse is true when /3 decreases (see Fig.

3).

The reliability index (3 can thus serve as a comparative

In (R/Q)

measure of reliability between various design methods,

types of members, and types of loading, and it has generally

been preferred to use /3, rather than the probability of ex-

ceeding the limit state, in developing the new LRFD

Fig. 2. Definition of the Reliability Index specifications (Refs. 1,4,7,8, for example). Typical values of

/3 encountered range from 2 to 6, each increase of one unit

for any structure that Q< R. Even for the most carefully corresponding very roughly to one order of magnitude of

designed and constructed structure there is a small but finite decrease in the probability of exceeding a limit state.

chance that Q> R, i.e., that the limit state can be exceeded.

EXAMPLE OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE

A satisfactory structural design specification is one which

RELIABILITY INDEX

minimizes this chance to an acceptably low level.

It is possible, by using a simplified probabilistic ap- The use of Eq. (3) will be illustrated next. This is not a

proach, to quantify the statistical parameters which de- design office exercise (more will be said about that later),

scribe the probability of exceeding a limit state. Figure 2 but a scheme whereby actual designs were "calibrated"

is an identical representation of Fig. 1, using as the abscissa prior to the development of the resistance and load factors

the ratio In (R/Q). When In (R/Q) < 1, the limit state has which are to be used in the design office.

been exceeded, and the shaded area in Fig. 2 is the proba- A compact two-span continuous beam will be used for

bility of this event. Since the probabilistic distributions of illustration.

R and Q are not known very precisely, a method has been The mean strength and the coefficient of variation of a

devised which operates only with the mean and the stan- compact beam is equal to:5

dard deviation of the random parameters. 3 This method

is called the First-Order Second-Moment probabilistic R=Rn (PMF) (4)

analysis.4 More refined methods, which also take into ac- VR = (VR 2

+ VM 2 2

+ VF )V2 (5)

count the distribution, are also available and have been used

(Ref. 4) in the actual development of the load factors pro- The term Rn is the nominal strength

posed in Ref. 2. Rn=Mp= Zx Fy (6)

According to the first-order probabilistic method, one

where Mp is the nominal plastic moment based on the

can determine a reliability index /3:5

handbook value of the plastic section modulus Zx and the

In (R/Q) specified yield stress Fy.

(3)

VvR2 + vQ2 The coefficients P, MyF (representing abbreviations for

Professional, Material, Fabrication) are mean values of the

following random parameter ratios:

P = test/prediction

M = actual static yield stress/specified yield stress

F = actual Zx /handbook Zx

All available data were examined and, based on the in-

terpretation of these data, it was decided that the following

statistical values appropriately represent the total popu-

lation of compact steel beams:

(R/Q)

P = 1.06, Vp = 0.07 (41 indeterminate beam tests,

_ Ref. 9)

M = 1.05, VM = 0.10 (Ref. 10)

Fig. 3. Comparative description of the Reliability Index F= 1.00, VF = 0.05 (Ref. 5)

75

THIRD QUARTER / 1981

Design according to the 1978 AISC Specification,

1 I i 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 1 |

rmtrr ffffl'" Parti

t 4- 1 wD = 57.5X32 = 1840 plf

Fig. 4. Two-span beam example Live load reduction for AT = 896 ft2 and D/L =

57.5/50: 0.49

wL = 50(1 - 0.49)(32) = 809 plf

Obviously there is a certain element of judgment involved Mmax = wL2/8 = 3115 kip-in. (at center support)

in these values, but they represent the best that a number 0.9X3115 _ . ,

of experienced people could come up with on the basis of Srea = = 118 in. 3

q

the available information. Substitution of these values into 0.66 X 36

Eqs. (4) and (5) gives R = \AlZxFy and VR =0.13. Use W21x62, Sx = 127 in.3; Zx = 144 in. 3

Plastic analysis of the beam in Fig. 4 gives:11 Thus R = 1.17 X 144 X 36 = 6065 kip-in.

O P + wL)L2 With this value of R, and with VR = 0.13, Q = 2333

MP = (J)

11.66 kip-in. and VQ = 0.11, the reliability index [Eq. (3)]

is: (3 = 5.6.

The right side of Eq. (7) is the load effect Q. It consists of

the dead and the live load effect, and it can be written as: Design according to the 1978 AISC Specification,

Part 2

Q = Q.D + QL (8) wD = 1.7 X 1840 = 3128 plf

6

The mean and the standard deviation are then: wL = 1.7X809 = 1387 plf

Q=QB + QL (9) __ (4.515 X28 2 )(12) . 3

Z = 1 l m

VQ = (VD2QD2+VL2QL2)V2/(QD + QL) (10) ^ ~ 11.66X36 -

A study of the load effect statistics (Ref. 2) gives the Use Wl8x50, Z^. = 101 in. 3

following values: The resulting (3 is 3.5.

Qj> = 1.05QnZ) , ^ = 0 . 1 0 (11) Design according to the proposed AISC LRFD

criteria (Ref. 1)

QL = QUL, VL =0.25 (12)

The design criterion is Eq. (2).

where the subscript n relates to the nominal code-specified <t>Rn > \.2QnD+l.6QnL (14)

dead and live loads given in Ref. 2. The statistics include

the uncertainties due to the loads themselves, as well as the 0 = 0.85 for beams

effects of translating the loads into the idealized load effects WD = \.2X 57.5 X 32 = 2208 plf

and the idealization inherent in the uniform distribution.

WL = 1 . 6 X 3 0 X 3 2 = 1536 plf

The occupancy live load QnL is equal to:2

3.744 X 2 8 2 X 12 _. .

QnL = QoL [ 0 . 2 5 + 1 5/y/Tj] (13) Zrea = = 99 in. 3

req

where QoL is the load effect due to the basic code specified 11.66X36X0.85

uniformly distributed live load intensity, and the bracket UseW18x50: Zx = 101 in.3

is a live load reduction factor dependent on the influence

area Ai (Aj = 2AT and Ai = \AT for beams and columns, The resulting /3 is 3.5.

respectively, where AT is the tributary area). This simple exercise showed how the relative reliability

The following data are specified for the given of several designs can be compared and that the design

problem: of this particular beam according to Part 1 of the AISC

Dead load intensity: 57.5 psf Specification is conservative in comparison to the designs

Basic live load intensity: 50 psf according to Part 2 and the LRFD method. Similar

Beam length between centers of supports: 28 ft studies of thousands of different structure elements form

Beam spacing: 32 ft the basis of the LRFD criteria.

RESEARCH ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF LRFD

For the tributary area of 28 X 32 = 896 ft2, the reduced

live load is 30 psf, and The ideas of multiple factors and of probabilistic ap-

2 proaches to design are not new. No precisely documented

n _28 (1.05X 57.5X32)02) _ _ . .

QD = 1559 kip m historical account is intended here (see Refs. 4, 5, and 12

~ 11.66X1000 - - for such a treatise), but a brief general discussion will be

QL = 755 kip-in.; Q = 2333 kip-in.; VQ = 0.11 provided to put the present status of LRFD into focus.

76

LEVEL I.

Research on the LRFD method for steel building struc-

tures, intended as a companion to the AISC Specification,

Used in Design Office

started in 1969 at Washington University, and by 1978 a

With 0's and y's Prescribed draft of such a specification was published.16 These ten-

tative LRFD criteria had also been tested in several design

offices.17

f

It became obvious early in the LRFD research that the

major difficulty, once the method and the format were

LEVE1 II.

agreed upon, was the treatment of the loads and the deci-

First-Order Second-Moment Used to Develop

Level I. Codes

sions on the magnitudes of the load factors. There was a

Probabilistic Analysis clear need for a broader stance on this matter than could

Resistance Judgment

Statistics Model

LEVEL I I I . 1

Full Probabilistic Analysis - Research A n a l y s i s for

Special Structures

Past Experience;

Design Office

Current

Fig. 5. Hierarchies of probabilistic methods Specifications Studies

herent in the design process, and this explains the evolution

of the "factor of safety." Experience with aircraft design Specification

Logic

during World War II indicated that the probabilistic nature

of the design parameters could somehow be quantified. The

r

basic notions of this quantitative probabilistic approach

were formulated in the 1950's by a series of papers au-

LRFD Criteria

thored by Freudenthal, and the premises advanced in these

papers still hold true today.13

At the same time the idea of using multiple factors was Fig. 6. Flowchart of LRFD specification

suggested in England by Pugsley,14 and a specification

using them was formulated in the Soviet Union. Simulta-

neously, discussions within the American Concrete Institute

Load Statistics * | * Resistance Statistics

eventually resulted in the familiar ACI ultimate design

method, with its 0-factors and its load factors.

By the beginning of the 1960's, then, there was available

Probabilistic Analysis

a comprehensive probabilistic theory, and there were a

number of design codes in use which used multiple factors

arrived at by intuitive means. The 1960's and early 1970's B's for Current Specifications

brought about first the simple, and then an increasingly

more sophisticated, First-Order Second-Moment method,

whereby multiple design factors could be generated from Selection of Target g s

statistical data and using probabilistic theory. There were

many contributors to this development, e.g., J. R. Benja-

Probabilistic Analysis

min, G. A. Cornell, N. C. Lind, A. Ang, E. Basler, N.

Ditlevsen, to mention only a few, and the first design

specification for steel structures based on this approach was Search for Optimum

issued in 1974 in Canada. 8 At present (1981) the various Y ' s and to's

approaches are ordered into hierarchies, as shown in Fig.

5. Many countries and regions of the world are presently

either adopting or considering the adoption of LRFD type

Load Factors Resistance Factors

codes.

Recommended i n t o be Determined by

In the U.S. the development of LRFD for steel structures ANSI A58.1 Materials Specifications

also has its origins in plastic design for buildings,11 and in

the formulation of Load Factor Design for steel bridges.15 Fig. 7. Flowchart of load and resistance factor development

77

be taken by one single materials-oriented specification the data for hot-rolled steel structural members is given in

group, and consequently a study was initiated under the Tables 2, 3, and 4.

umbrella of the ANSI A58 Load Factor Subcommittee at On the basis of the available load and resistance statistics

the National Bureau of Standards during 1979. The aim and on their (1979) current structural design specifications,

of this research was to arrive at load factors which would the values of the reliability index (3 inherent in all types of

be commonly applicable to all structural materials: hot- materials used in building construction were determined,

rolled and cold-formed steel, aluminum, reinforced and much in the same way as the example illustrated above for

prestressed concrete, timber, and masonry. The recom-

mendations of this research were published in 1980.4 The Table 2. Material Property Statistics

load factors 7 incorporated into the draft of the AISC

LRFD Specification1 are the same factors which have been Mean

recommended in ANSI A58.1-81. 2 Property Value M VM

The schematic process of arriving at the LRFD Speci-

Static yield stress, flanges 1.05 Fy 1.05 0.10

fication is flow-charted in Figs. 6 and 7. These charts show,

in a very simplistic way, the ingredients of arriving at the Static yield stress, webs, plates 1.10 Fy 1.10 0.11

new criteria. One should note that judgment and experience Modulus of elasticity E 1.00 0.06

play a crucial role in the process. It is by no means a one- Static yield stress in shear 1.11 Fy/y/3 1.11 0.10

way procedure which is based solely on probabilistic

Poisson's ratio 0.3 1.00 0.03

methods. Such methods provide a set of tools which permit

the decision makers to make rational rather than intuitive Tensile strength \A0Fu 1.10 0.11

THE ANSIA58.1 LOAD FACTORS

Tensile strength of H.S.S. bolt, A325, au \.20FU 1.20 0.07

The recommended common load factors, as developed for Tensile strength of H.S.S. bolt, A490, <JU 1.07 Fu 1.07 0.02

the ANSI load code, were based on the load statistics given Shear strength of H.S.S. bolt 0.625 au 0.625 0.05

in Table 1, where the nominal loads are those of the ANSI

A58.1 standard. These load statistics were obtained from Notations:

the literature on loads by the various subcommittees of Fy = Specified yield stress

ANSI A58 responsible for the various load types, e.g., live Fu = Specified tensile strength

load, wind load, etc. Resistance data were obtained from FEXX = Specified tensile strength of weld metal

the literature on the various materials involved. The data

for steel structures were taken from a series of papers and Table 3. Modeling Statistics

research reports generated in the research at Washington

University, where similar information was also collected Type Member Model P Vp

on cold-formed and aluminum structures. A sampling of

Tension member

Tension member AgFyv or

AaF AeeF

or A buu 1.00 0

Compact

Compact W-beam:

W-beam:

Uniform

Uniform moment

moment Mp 1.02 0.06

Table 1. Load Statistics Continuous

Continuous Mechanism

Mechanism 1.06 0.07

W-beam, limit state LTB:

LTB:

Load Type Value of Var. Type Elastic

Elastic S xFcr

SxFcr 1.03 0.09

Inelastic

Inelastic Fig. 10 1.06

1.06 0.09

Fig. 10

Dead 1.05 Dn 0.10 Normal Beam-column

Beam-column Interaction E q 1.02 0.10

Interaction

Interaction Eq.

Eq.

M a x . Lifetime Live Ln 0.25 Type I Plate girder:

A.P.T. Live 0.24 L0 0.8-0.4 Gamma Flexure

Flexure Mu 1.03 0.05

Shear

Shear Mu 1.03 0.11

0.11

Vu

M a x . Lifetime Wind 0.78 Wn 0.37 Type I

Comnact comnosite beam

Compact composite beam Mu 0.99 0.08

M a x . Lifetime Snow 0.82 Sn 0.26 Type II Mu

A, = Gross area

Notations: Ae = Effective net area

A.PT. = Arbitrary-Point-in-Time Mp = Plastic moment

Lifetime = 50 yr. sx

= Elastic section modulus

Dn, Wn,Sn,L0 = Code-specified load intensities (ANSI-A58.1) Fcr = Elastic critical stress

Ln =L 0 (0.25 + 1 5 / V ^ ) LTB = Lateral-torsional buckling

Ai Influence area (2 AT for beams, 4 AT for columns) Mu = Ultimate moment capacity

AT Tributary area vu = Ultimate shear capacity

78

Table 4. Resistance Statistics Table 5. Recommended Load Factors

\ADn

Type Member R VR

\.2Dn+ 1.6L

\.2Dn + \.6Sn + (0.5Ln or 0.8 W^)

Tension member, yield 1.05 0.11

1.2Z)n+ \.3Wn + (0.5LJ

Tension member, fracture 1.10 0.11

\.2Dn + \.5En + (0.5Ln or 0.2S)

Compact beam, uniform moment 1.07 0.13

0.9Dn -(\.3Wnor\.5En)

Compact beam, continuous 1.11 0.13

Elastic beam, LTB 1.03 0.12 Notations:

Inelastic beam, LTB 1.11 0.14 D = Dead load

Beam-column 1.07 0.15 L = Live load due to occupancy

Plate girder, flexure 1.08 0.12 W = Wind load (50 yr mean recurrence interval map)

Plate girder, shear 1.14 0.16 = Snow load (50 yr mean recurrence interval map)

Compact composite beam 1.04 0.14 E Earthquake load

Notation:

LTB = Lateral-torsional buckling

RESISTANCE FACTORS

the two-span beam of Fig. 4, but using a more advanced The loads and the load factors in the LRFD design crite-

method.4 rion [right side of Eq. (2)] are now set by ANSI, and the

The resulting /3's were then examined, and on the basis task of the materials specification groups is then to develop

of this across-materials survey, it was determined that, on (j)Rn values which are consistent with the target reliabilities

the average, structural design in the U.S. inherently had inherent in the load factors. Reference 4 gives the proba-

the following reliability index values: bility-based method, as well as charts and a computer

Gravity loads only: /3 = 3.0 program to facilitate this task. The resistance factors <>/ are

Gravity plus wind loads: /3 = 2.5 to be developed for the load combination \.2Dn + 1.6Ln

and for a target reliability index of (3 = 3.0.

While there was considerable fluctuation, these values The following simple example, based on the simplified

turned up most frequently,4 and the decision was made by approach of Eq. (3), will illustrate the method. For a simply

the ANSI A58 subgroup working on the problem to base supported beam of compact shape, Ref. 9 provides the

the new load factors on these values of /? as target relia- following statistical data:

bilities. Accordingly a new cycle of probabilistic analyses

was made (see Fig. 7), and the load factors listed in Table ? = 1.02, F P = 0.06, M = 1.05,

8 were finally developed; these were recommended for VM = 0 . 1 , F= 1.00, ^ = 0.05

adoption in the new ANSI A58.1 standard.2 Therefore, using Eqs. (4) and_(5), R = 1.07i? and VR =

The load combinations are of the following general 0.13. The load effect data is: Q = l.05Dn + Ln , where Ln

form: = Lo(0.25 + 1 5 / V 2 ^ r ) [ E q s ^ ) and (13)], and VQ is

given by Eq. (10). Noting that D = 1.05Z>, VD=0A.L

1.2Dn + 7 I -Q I - n + yQjn 05) = Ln, VL = 0.25 (Table 1), and letting

based on the load taking on its maximum lifetime (50 yr) then

value, and Qjn are the other transient load effects, with the

7 / s being determined for the arbitrary-point-in-time Q = Dn (1.05 + L0X/Dn) (17)

values of the loads. For example, the combination VQ = [0.011025 + 0.0625 (L0X/Dn) }^ /Q 2 2

(18)

1.2Z)n + \.(>Sn + 0AWn For the design according to the AISC 1978 Specification,

stipulates the maximum snow load in the 50 yr lifetime of Part 2:

the structure, while the wind load is based on the maximum Rn = \.lDn(\+L0X'/Dn) (19)

annual value.

The load factors and load combinations in Table 5 are where

presently (1981) being balloted for adoption in the ANSI X' = 1 - 0.0008 AT > 0.4 or 1 - 0.23(1 + Dn/L0)

load standard. 2 They are meant to apply to building

(20)

structures made from any of the traditional building ma-

terials. whichever is larger.

For the design according to the AISC LRFD Specifi- Table 6. Tentatively Recommended Resistance Factors

cation,

Type Member 0*

Rn=Dn(\.2 + \.6L0X/Dn)/(t> (21)

Tension member, limit state: yield 0.90

Substituting R/RnyRn, Q, VR and VQ into Eq. (3), the Tension member, limit state: fracture 0.70

variation of /3 with the tributary area and the live-to-dead Columns, rolled W sections 0.75

load ratio L0/Dn can be determined, as seen in Figs. 8 and Columns, all other type sections 0.70

9 for a value of 0 = 0.85. It is seen that the LRFD design Beams, all types and all limit states 0.85

gives a nearly constant reliability of approximately /3 = 3.0 Fillet welds 0.75

H.S.S. bolts, tension 0.75

over the whole range of parameters. 0.65

H.S.S. bolts, shear

By performing similar analyses on other types of struc-

tural members and components, 0-factors were derived, * These are not necessarily the values which will be finally adopted.

and some of these are given in Table 6. It should be noted

that these 0-factors provide roughly /3 = 3.0 for members,

and /3 = 4.0 for connectors. This is consistent with the traditional practice of providing higher factors of safety for

the latter.

The ^-factors listed in Table 6 are not necessarily the

values which will finally appear in the AISC LRFD

O

Specification. They are at present (May 1981) still under

discussion. The point to be made here, however, is that,

whatever final value they are assigned, the method pre-

sented here will permit an evaluation of the consequences

on the reliability index /3.

LIMIT STATE: Lateral-Torsional

Buckling

O LRFD Specification, 0 = 0.85

Mr=SK(f\j-l)

I I I I I I I I I I

400 800 1200 1600 2000

>

flange beam, live-to-dead load ratio, L0/Dn = 1.0 LIMIT STATE: Flange Local

^KMr

^v. 2looo

O^

\-.^(^ V-i^|Vfy^

--o

LIMIT STATE: Web Local Buckling

O 1978 AISC Specification

-L L /D _L rh'f

Fig. 9. Reliability Index for simply supporte d compact wide- Fig. 10. Nominal strength of wide-flange beams under

flange beam, tributary area = 400ft2 uniform moment

80

LRFD-type specifications which are now (1981) appearing

throughout the world. These specifications employ several

resistance factors and load factors to account for the various

types of uncertainties which underlie design. The reliability

is to be interpreted as being "notional," i.e., it is a com-

parative concept. It should not be confused with actual

k structural failures, which are the result of errors and

omissions. Only the natural statistical variation of the pa-

rameters is included, and, as in other traditional specifi-

cations, human errors must be guarded against by other

<j>P % MA- -S ^

control measures.

Basically, the LRFD Specification attempts, within the

limits of the first-order probability theory used, to provide

designs across the whole design parameter space, which

have an approximately consistent reliability under a given

load combination. For the first time a method is provided,

and load factors are proposed, which would permit the

design of building structures of all structural material types

Fig. 11. LRFD design method for wide-flange beam-columns to be based on a common approach.

in bending about the major axis

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper is an update of an earlier paper5 for which the

THE AISC LRFD SPECIFICATION author was awarded the 1981 T. R. Higgins Lectureship.

The author is deeply grateful to the AISC Award Com-

The LRFD Specification is now (May 1981) ready to be mittee for giving him this award. The greatest appreciation

debated by the Specification Advisory Committee of the goes to his co-author of the 1978 paper, Dr. M. K. Ra-

AISC. The draft has been put together by Professor Steven vindra, with whom he was privileged to share the excite-

Fenves of Carnegie-Mellon University and a number of ment of about five years of creative collaboration. Many,

Task Committees of the AISC. many others, deserve credit for the development of LRFD

The document is an entirely self-contained specification for steel structure. Among these I sadly commemorate W.

which encompasses all the parts of the well-known 1978 C. Hansell, who passed away in 1979 and who will not be

AISC Specification. It is arranged in accordance with the able to see the completion of this work. I. M. Viest is due

decision table logic developed by Professor Fenves. It is the greatest credit; he had the idea of doing this work, and

subdivided by members (e.g., tension members, compres- since 1968 he has tirelessly forged ahead, giving guidance

sion members, flexure members, connections), and each and impetus when things appeared to falter. Among the

type element is given the appropriate resistance factor 0 and many others I want to mention with gratitude are: W. A.

the nominal resistance Rn for each applicable limit state. Milek, of AISC, Clarkson Pinkham, S. Fenves, L. S.

The 0-factors are determined by the probabilistic method Beedle, G. Winter and E. H. Gaylord, as well as all of the

described earlier in this paper. The applicable load factors co-authors of the papers in 1978 ASCE Symposium, J. A.

are those which were recommended for the ANSI load Yura, R. Bjorhovde, P. B. Cooper, J. W. Fisher, G. Kulak

standard.2 and C. A. Cornell. Professor Cornell also deserves much

The AISC LRFD Specification also has, in addition to credit for providing the theory on which to base the devel-

the arrangement and the LRFD format, a number of other opment of LRFD and for working with us throughout the

new features. It is not the intent here to enumerate these decade of the 1970's as the LRFD criteria were formulated.

in detail, and only a few will be mentioned: beams (Fig. 10) Thanks go also to my other two collaborators in the ANSI

and beam-columns (Fig. 11) will be treated differently from load factor work: J. G. MacGregor and B. Ellingwood.

the 1978 AISC Specification; composite beam design will

Finally, the financial assistance of the American Iron and

be based on ultimate strength concepts and, for the first

Steel Institute in sponsoring this research is gratefully ac-

time, the Specification will contain provisions for the design

knowledged. The AISI staff representative, A. Kuentz, was

of composite columns.

a pleasure to work with.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

An attempt has been made here to summarize briefly the 1. American Institute of Steel Construction Tentatiye Spec-

existing development of the AISC LRFD Specification. ification for Load and Resistance Factor Design, Fabrication

Emphasis was placed on the numerous sources on which and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings Fourth Draft,

this document stands. It is one of the several new Feb. 8, 1981.

81

THIRD QUARTER / 1981

2. American National Standards Institute Building Code 9. Yura, J. A., T. V. Galambos, and M. K. Ravindra The

Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Building and Bending Resistance of Steel Beams Journal of the Struc-

Other Structures ANSI A58.1-81 draft. tural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. ST9, Sept. 1978.

3. Cornell, C A. A Probability-Based Structural Code 10. Galambos T. V. and M. K. Ravindra Properties of Steel

Journal, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 66, No. 12, Dec. for Use in LRFD Journal of the Structural Division,

1969. ASCE, Vol. 104, No. ST9, Sept. 1978.

4. Ellingwood, B., T. V. Galambos, J. G. Mac Gregor, and C 11. Beedle, L. S. Plastic Design of Steel Frames John Wiley

A. Cornell Development of a Probability-Based Load and Sons, 1958.

Criterion for American National Standard A58 National 12. Ang, A.H.-S. Structural SafetyA Literature Rev-

Bureau ojStandards Special Publication 577, June 1980. iew Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 98,

5. Ravindra, M. K. and T. V. Galambos Load and Resistance ST4: April 1972.

Factor Design for Steel Journal of the Structural Division, 13. Freudenthal, A. M. Safety, Reliability and Structural

ASCE, Vol. 104, No. ST9, Sept. 1978. Design Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 87,

6. Benjamin, J. R. andC. A. Cornell Probability, Statistics, ST3, March 1961.

and Decision for Civil Engineers McGraw-Hill Book Co., 14. Puglsey, A. The Safety of Structures E. Arnold Pub-

1970 lishers, London, 1966.

7. The Nordic Committee on Building Regulations Recom- 15. Vincent, G. S. Tentative Criteria for Load Factor Design

mendations for Loading and Safety Regulations for Struc- of Steel Highway Bridges AISI Bulletin No. 15, 1969.

tural Design NKB Report No. 36, Nov. 1978. 16. Galambos, T. V. Proposed Criteria for L R F D of Steel

8. Canadian Standards Association Steel Structures for Building Structures AISI Bulletin No. 27, Jan. 1978.

BuildingsLimit States Design CSA Standard S16.1- 17. Wiesner, K. B. LRFD Design Office Study Engineering

1974. Journal, AISC, First Quarter, 1978.

82

- Topic09-SeismicLoadAnalysisNotesUploaded bypranesh9000
- DNV OS-C102Uploaded byAntonios
- Proposal of Polynesian Roof TrussUploaded byayu amaliah
- Trilateral Design and Test Code for Military Bridging and Gap-Crossing EquipmentUploaded bySyazwan Ahmad
- IS-800-2007 Example 002Uploaded bythanzawtun1981
- Jurnal Analisa kegagalan pada rangka trukUploaded byBaskara Surya Widagdo
- Training ManualUploaded bylaxmikant
- Design of Welded Steel Structures - CopyUploaded byyogesh
- VOID 004-ROOF_STRUCTURE_DESIGN 36m_dia.pdfUploaded byUday Udmale
- Calculation Note-Construction Case StructureUploaded byDe Dao Van
- 4Uploaded bypravin
- ASTM A 796 A 796M 2013.pdfUploaded byjoao carlos protz
- SSP Design GuidelinesUploaded byDavid Shutte
- Exclusion Request - Tesla, Inc - Sheet - HTS 7606123090Uploaded byFred Lamert
- Design of Composite Beam V3 AMDUploaded byImran Saikat
- Advanced Design ColumnsUploaded byAnno Al
- EN 3-2005 Example 002Uploaded byAnitha Hassan Kabeer
- Base PlateUploaded bypositron9898
- gr3-Static 1-1Uploaded byMzimasi Mjanyelwa
- gate-ce-2009 (1)Uploaded byapi-279049687
- DEA GuidelinesUploaded byKawsar Alam
- Design Example 2 AUploaded byAdrian
- Some Definition ConstructionUploaded byPhilip John
- 0021531Uploaded byVishakha Patel
- lecture2.pptUploaded byEverth Gaitan
- Norlin Et Al. - 1999 - Shear Behaviour of Laminated Douglas Fir VeneerUploaded byRemyf
- Technical Note SAOS176 v2Uploaded byehsan
- Strength of Materials56Uploaded byPranaya Nahak
- Calcs for 4.0m high concrete retainig wallUploaded byTedd Foo
- IJETR022025Uploaded byerpublication

- Function TablesUploaded bylucho0314
- Ejemplo de Aplicacion Asce Sei 41 13Uploaded byMarvin Douglas
- IUST v4n4p525 EnUploaded byYan Naung Ko
- Tuna and WallaceUploaded byYan Naung Ko
- SPSS Brief Guide 22Uploaded byYan Naung Ko
- Dr.S Assig for Finance Transportation Mega Projects and Risk Reason FoundationUploaded byYan Naung Ko
- Seismic Waves Jun 12Uploaded byYan Naung Ko
- Lecture Presentation 4Uploaded byYan Naung Ko
- Teacher ManualUploaded byYan Naung Ko
- 1QuantitativeIdentificationofNear FaultPulse LikeGroundMotionsBasedonEnergy 2013Uploaded byYan Naung Ko
- P-752_Unit3Uploaded byYan Naung Ko
- ETH Zurich - Mechanics of Building Materials, Elastic TheoryUploaded byYan Naung Ko
- 011753.pdfUploaded byBashart Bashir
- AE4010 Lecture 7aUploaded byYan Naung Ko
- AE4010 Lecture 3bUploaded byYan Naung Ko
- AE4010_Lecture_3a(1).pdfUploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- AE4010 Lecture 2bUploaded byYan Naung Ko
- AE4010 Lecture 2aUploaded byYan Naung Ko
- PCI_Jan02_Seis_design_provi_in_US.pdfUploaded byRajeev Dua
- Eng Econ LectureUploaded bynickhardy_aj
- Punching Shear in Thin FoundationsUploaded byAdam Jones
- FineLIFT_OutputSampleUploaded byparagbhole
- BC3-2013Uploaded byhutuguo
- StressUploaded byYan Naung Ko
- Balance _ FlyeschoolUploaded byYan Naung Ko
- 07-Gueguen_Seismic Vulnerability AssessmentUploaded byYan Naung Ko
- Earthquake Resistance BuildingUploaded bychookwah
- 11 Ch4 5 Pushover AnalysisUploaded byWan Fikri Darmawan
- WeldUploaded byEka Fajar

- TE 2013 question paperUploaded by0505598923
- Structural Systems Over View and Auditoriums Structural SystemUploaded byC'Lman Mhmud
- Tanque Vertical 150m3 Rev.CUploaded byGladys Esther Erbes
- Mechanics of materials (Ch 3 and 4.pptxUploaded byPraveen Kumar R
- CE _GATE-2018_Paper_11-FEB-2018 Morning Session (5)Uploaded bySourabhThakur
- Crank Shaft DesignUploaded byAnonymous QiMB2lBCJL
- Plain and Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Combined MechanicalUploaded byMukhlis Oemar
- Introduction to Structural Analysis-Part 1Uploaded byHiew Ching Yong
- Clipconn Bolt Weld 13Uploaded byJay Galvan
- 05. Deformations and Defects of the Upper and Lower JawsUploaded byCarmen Vizarro Rodriguez
- Advantage of Steel DiagridUploaded byTanya Brefelean
- 2199 Advanced Mechanics of Solids [Design for Manufacturing]Uploaded byPraveen Kumar
- 2007-03-09AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic, Bridge DesignGuideSpecUploaded by김남균
- CTBEST PVM 100 Engineering PrinciplesUploaded byrzepedac
- Structural AnalysisUploaded byTP Parewong
- Bridge CollapsesUploaded byEd B. Lledo
- EXP11_Stress and StrainUploaded bysmj_emami7939
- Course book,,STM,.pdfUploaded bymariwan
- Indices AISIUploaded byLauraMilenaHernándezTorres
- BDA 30803 Notes (Student Version - Printable) Sem 2 2012_2013.pdfUploaded byEla Murugesu
- Curved Prestressed BeamUploaded bya96lhf
- Radial Frame Static 2 1Uploaded byManoj Kumar
- 2011 Bridge Workshop Booklet 0Uploaded byRifqiAdhikara
- UmbrellaUploaded byconair911
- Ansys RecordUploaded byGomathi Sankar
- Unit-17.pdfUploaded byဒုကၡ သစၥာ
- Thesis KCNUploaded byMiitoxD
- mantia_1Uploaded bypmergos
- Design of Rectangular Water Tank (1)Uploaded bymumarbsc7244
- Steel Beams DesignUploaded byisrar khan