BASIC STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS

NSCP Based ASD to LRFD Design of Steel Structures

Engr. Frederick Francis M. Sison

 Introduction
• The update of the National Structural Code (NSCP)
of the Philippines, from 2001 to 2010 introduced
some minor and major changes In structural design.

• A significant change is on Chapter 5 – Steel and

Metal (NSCP 2010).

• The design philosophy was updated from NSCP

2001’s Allowable Stress Design (ASD) to NSCP
2010’s Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
and Allowable STRENGTH Design (ASD)
 LRFD Development
• Early 1900s: Formation of building codes begin,
formalizing design process and requirements.
Principle design philosophy is based on the concept
of allowable stresses (ASD)
• Mid 1950s: the concrete industry pioneers the
strength based design philosophy
• Early 1970s: First strength based design
specifications introduced by the concrete industry
• 1986: AISC introduces the strength based Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) specification.
 LRFD Development
• 1989: AISC releases what was supposed to be the
last ASD specification

• 2005 AISC releases a combined LRFD/ASD design

specification that incorporates a method for using
ASD level loads with the same specification used for
LRFD.

• 2010 National Structural Code of the Philippines

adapts AISC 2005 LRFD/ASD design philosophies
 Limit State Concepts
• Limit States are conditions of potential failure.
• Failure being defined as any state that makes the
design to be infeasible
• Limit states take the general form of:

Demand ≤ Capacity

• Structural limit states tend to fall into two major

categories: strength and serviceability
 Strength Limit State
• Strength based limit states are potential modes of
structural failure.

• For steel members, the failure may be either

yielding (permanent deformation) or rupture (actual
failure).

• The strength based limit state can be written in the

general form:

Required Strength ≤ Nominal Strength

 Serviceability Limit State
• Serviceability limit states are those conditions that
are not strength based but still may make the
structure unsuitable for its intended function.

• The most common are deflection, vibration,

slenderness, and clearance.

• Serviceability limit states can be written in the

general form:

Actual Behavior ≤ Allowable Behavior

• Serviceability limit states tend to be less rigid

requirements than strength based limit states
 LRFD vs. ASD Limit State
Expressions
• General form:
Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

fa ≤ Fa/FS

Allowable Strength Design (ASD)

Ra ≤ Rn/Ω

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

Ru ≤ φRn
LRFD vs. ASD Limit State
Expressions
 LRFD vs. ASD
• There are three major differences between the two
specifications:

1. The comparison of actual stresses to actual

strengths

2. The comparison of loads to either actual or

ultimate strengths

3. A difference in effective factors of safety

 Strength vs. Stress
• The first difference between ASD and LRFD, is that the
old ASD compared actual to allowable stresses while
LRFD compared required strength to actual strengths.

• The difference between looking at strength vs. stresses is

normally just multiplying or dividing both sides of the
limit state inequalities by a section property.

• The NEW Allowable Strength Design (ASD), has now

switched the old stress based terminology to a strength
based terminology, virtually eliminating this difference
between the philosophies.
 Actual vs. Ultimate

Figure illustrates the member strength level

computed by LRFD/ASD on a typical steel load vs.
deformation diagram.
 Actual vs. Ultimate
• The combined force levels (Pa, Ma, Va) for ASD are
typically kept below the yield load for the member
by computing member load capacity, Rn, divided by
a factor of safety, Ω, 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, Rn,
times a resistance factor, φ.

• Consequently, if the LRFD approach is used, then

load factors must be applied to the applied loads
to express them in terms that are safely comparable
to the ultimate strength levels.
Fixed vs. Variable Factors of Safety
• The LRFD specification accounts separately for the
predictability of applied loads through the use of
load factors and material and construction variability
through resistance factors.

• The ASD specification combines the two factors in to

a single factor of safety.

• By breaking the factor of safety apart into the

independent load and resistance factors, a more
consistent effective factor of safety is obtained and
can result in safer or lighter structures.
 Load Combinations
• Typically, each load type is expressed in terms of
their service load levels.

• The individual loads are then combined using load

combination equations considering the probability of
simultaneously occurring loads.

• LRFD looks at the strength of members wherein the

applied loads are increased by a load factor so that
they can be safely compared with the ultimate
strengths of the members (which are generally
inelastic) while maintaining the actual (service)
loads in the elastic region
 Load Combinations
• These load factors are applied in the load
combination equations and vary in magnitude
according to the load type and depending on the
predictability of the loads

• The magnitude of the LRFD load factors reflects the

predictability of the loads.
 Load Combinations (LRFD)
1. 1.4(D + F)

2. 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5(Lr or R)

3. 1.2D + 1.6(Lr or R) + ((0.5 or 1.0)*L or 0.8W)

4. 1.2D + 1.6W + (0.5 or 1.0)*L + 0.5(Lr or R)

5. 1.2D +1.0E + (0.5 or 1.0)*L

6. 0.9D + 1.6W +1.6H

7. 0.9D + 1.0E + 1.6H

 Load Combinations (ASD)

1. D + F

2. D + H + F + L + T

3. D + H + F + (Lr or R)

4. D + H + F + 0.75[L + T + (Lr or R)]

5. D + H + F (W or E/1.4)
 Load Combinations
• You will notice that the large load factor found in the
LRFD load combinations are absent from the ASD
load combination equations.
• Also, the predictability of the loads is not
considered. For example both dead load and live
load have the same load factor in equations where
there are both likely to occur at full value
simultaneously.
• The probability associated with accurate load
determination is not considered at all in the ASD
method.
 Comparing LRFD and ASD Load
Combinations
• LRFD and ASD loads are not directly comparable
because they are used differently by the design
codes.
• LRFD loads are generally compared to member or
component STRENGTH whereas ASD loads are
compared to member or component allowable
values that are less than the full strength of the
member or component.
• We can compare them at service levels by
computing an equivalent service load from each
combination.
 Comparing LRFD and ASD Load
Combinations
• Consider a steel tension member that has a nominal
axial capacity, Pn, and is subjected to a combination
of dead and live loads. We will use φ = 0.90 and Ω
=1.67

• Let Ps,equiv equals the algebraic sum of D and L:

Ps,equiv = D + L

• The controlling ASD load combination equation in

this case is:

Pn = 1.0*D + 1.0*L = 1.0*(D+L) = 1.0*Ps,equiv

 Comparing LRFD and ASD Load
Combinations
• We can now determine the equivalent total load
allowed by ASD by using the design inequality:

Ps,equiv ≤ Pn / Ω

Ps,equiv ≤ Pn / 1.67 = 0.60Pn

Ps,equiv / Pn ≤ 0.60
 Comparing LRFD and ASD Load
Combinations
• The controlling LRFD load combination equation in
this case is:
Pu = 1.2D + 1.6L

• We make the following definitions:

D = (X%)Ps,equiv and L = (1-X%)Ps.equiv
• Where X is the percentage of Ps,equiv that is dead
load. Substituting into the load combination:
Pu = 1.2(X)Ps,equiv + 1.6(1-X)Ps,equiv = [1.6 – 0.4X]Ps,equiv

Ps,equiv = Pu / [1.6-0.4X]
 Comparing LRFD and ASD Load
Combinations
• Substituting the above expression into the LRFD
version of the design inequality, we get:

Pu ≤ Pn

[1.6 = 0,4X]Ps,equiv ≤ φPn

Ps,equiv / Pn ≤ 0.90 / [1.6 – 0.4X]

Comparing LRFD and ASD Load
Combinations
 Comparing LRFD and ASD Load
Combinations
• For this example, whenever the total service load is 25%
dead load, ASD gives greater capacity

• ASD allows more actual load on the structure. Otherwise,

LRFD is more advantageous.

• The variable factor of safety associated with LRFD is

considered to be more consistent with probability

• A structure that is subjected to predominantly live loads

required greater factor of safety that is provided by ASD
 LRFD of Tension Members
• General Form:
Tu ≤ φtTn
Where: Tu = LRFD factored loads
Tn = nominal tensile yielding strength of the member
= FyAg or FuAe
φt = reduction factor for tensile yielding
• Limit States to consider:
1. Slenderness
2. Tensile yielding
3. Tensile Rupture
• Slenderness Limitations (serviceability limit state)
L/r should not exceed 300
 Design of Tension Members
• For tensile yielding in the gross section

φt = 0.90 (LRFD); Ωt = 1.67 (ASD)

• For tensile rupture in the net section

φt = 0.75 (LRFD); Ωt = 2.00 (ASD)

• Example:
Select an 8 in. W-shape, ASTM A992, section
Dead load = 30 kips
Live load = 90 kips
length of member = 25 ft.
 Design of Tension Members

• Calculate the required tensile strength

LRFD ASD
Tu = 1.2(30 kips) + 1.6(90 kips) Ta = 30 kips + 90 kips)
Tu = 180 kips Ta = 120 kips
 Design for Tension Members
• Check tensile yield limit state
LRFD
φtTn = (0.9)(50 ksi)(6.16 in2)
277 kips > 180 kips
ASD
Tn /Ω= (50 ksi)(6.16 in2)/1.67
184 kips > 120 kips

• Check tensile rupture strength

LRFD ASD
φtTn = (0.75)(65 ksi)(4.32 in2) Tn /Ω= (65 ksi)(4.32 in2)/2.00
211 kips > 180 kips 141 kips > 120 kips

• Check slenderness limit

L/r = (25.0 ft/1.26 in)(12.0 in/ft) = 238 < 300

 Design of Compression Members
• General Form:
Pu ≤ φcPn
Where: Pu = LRFD factored loads
Pn = nominal compressive strength of the member
= FcrAg ; Fcr = flexural buckling stress
φc = reduction factor for compressive strength = 0.90
• Limit States to consider:
1. Slenderness
2. Flexural buckling
• Slenderness Limitations (serviceability limit state)
KL/r should not exceed 200
 Design of Compression Members
• Flexural Buckling Limitations

Then:

Else:

Where:
Fe = π2E/(KL/r)2 = Euler Critical Buckling Stress
Q = 1 for compact and non-compact sections
Q = QsQa for slender sections
KL = effective length
 Design for Compression Members
Example:
Calculate the strength of W14x90

Solution:

Governing = 58.6

Calculate elastic critcial buckling stress

 Design of Compression Members
Calculate flexural buckling stress:

Since ;

LRFD ASD
 Design of Flexural Members
• General Form:
Mu ≤ φbMn
Where: Mu = LRFD factored loads
Mn = nominal flexural strength of the member
φb = reduction factor for flexural strength = 0.90

• Limit States to consider:

1. Flexural yielding
2. Lateral-Torsional Buckling
3. Live Load Deflection

• Live Load Deflection Criterion (serviceability limit state)

maximum deflection should be less than L/360
 Design of Flexural Members
Nominal flexural strength
1. Compact section (depends on width-thickness ratio)
Mn = Mp = FyZ

2. Lateral-Torsional Buckling (limiting lengths Lp and Lr)

- Lb ≤ Lp; no lateral-torsional buckling

- Lp < Lb ≤ Lr ;

- Lb > Lr ;
 Design of Flexural Members
Lateral-torsional buckling modification factor

Example:
 Design of Flexural Members
Verify the strength of the W18x50 beam, ASTM A992.

Solution:

Calculate the required flexural strength

LRFD ASD
 Design of Flexural Members
Calculate the nominal flexural strength, Mn

* moments are expressed as percentages of Mmax

* Rm = 1.0 for doubly-symmetric members

Check for Lateral-torsional buckling

Lp = 5.83 ft < Lb = 11.7 ft < Lr = 17.0 ft

 Design of Flexural Members
For Lp < Lb < Lr ;

= 339 kip-ft

Calculate the available flexural strength

LRFD ASD
 Conclusion
LRFD is becoming the predominant design philosophy

• Using multiple load factors, should generally lead to

some economy, particularly for low ratios of Live to
Dead loads. A slight increase in cost is expected for
higher ratios.

• Basis for the margin of safety provided is more

rational.

• In ASD, concentration is shifted to limiting the

maximum stresses rather than on the actual capacity
of the member
 Conclusion

• LRFD provides a framework for handling unusual

loading. Increase uncertainties in loading may be
treated by modifying the load factors

• On the other hand, if there are increased

uncertainties in the resistance of the structure, a
modified strength reduction factor may be used.

• Change due to the loadings may be studied

separately from those of the resistance
THANK YOU