Lecture 1

1. Chapter 1 Introduction to Design of Steel Structures

Lesson 1: Introduction
Lesson 2: Gravity Loads on Structures
Lesson 3: Lateral Loads

2. Chapter 2 Structural Steel Framing Systems

Lesson 1: Bearing Wall and Building Frame System
Lesson 2: Moment-Resisting Frame System and Dual System with Special/Intermediate Moment
Frames
Lesson 3: Cantilevered Column Building Systems

3. Chapter 3 Structural Analysis for Stress Resultants

Lesson 1: Structural Modeling, Load Combinations for ASD and LRFD Methods, and
Application of Code Provisions for Load Combinations
Lesson 2: Computer-Aided Structural Analysis
Lesson 3: Determination of the Design Stress Resultant for the Structural Members
4. Chapter 4 Selection of Structural Members Sizes
Lesson 1: Tension and Compression Members
Lesson 2: Bending, Shear, and Torsion Members
Lesson 3: Combinations of Stress of Members

5. Chapter 5 Design of Steel Members Connections

Lesson 1: Bolted Connections
Lesson 2: Welded Base Plate
INTRODUCTION

The course is concerned with the Designing of Steel Structures through step-by-step procedural solutions.
The design solutions will be based on the standards and codes of the National Structural Code of the
Philippines (NSCP 2015 Volume I, 7th Edition Chapter 5), the National Building Code of the Philippines
(NBCP), ASEP Steel Handbook 2004, AISC Design Manual, ASCE 7, 1997 UBC and other relevant
codes and standards that supports the design of the steel structures.

Designing the steel structures means selecting the proper materials from the ASEP Steel Manual Tables
and AISC Steel Manual. By selecting from the tables, the economic principles of the design will benefit
the designer’s clients. The designer (Structural Engineer by profession) therefore is opting to secure the
applications for loads to be carried by the structures.

The loads to be carried by the structure will define in this course mainly the dead loads, live load, wind
load, and seismic load. These loads will be taken as design criteria to the design of the steel structures.

The design of steel structures in this course is not focusing only on the building but to the other vertical
structures like water tank support, transmission tower, and other non-building structures.

The emphasis in this subject is to apply the structural analysis learned from the lower year. The design
principles will elaborate the use of steel materials.
Lesson 1

Introduction

Structural design may be defined as a mixture of art and science, combining the experienced engineer’s
intuitive feeling for the behavior of a structure with a sound knowledge of the principles of statics,
dynamics, mechanics of materials, and structural analysis, to produce a safe, economical structure that
will serve its intended purpose.

Until about 1850, structural design was largely an art relying on intuition to determine the size and
arrangement of the structural elements. Early man-made structures essentially conformed to those which
could also be observed in nature, such as beams and arches. As the principles governing the behavior of
structures and structural materials have become better understood, design procedures have become more
scientific.

Computation involving scientific principles should serve as a guide to decision making and not be
followed blindly. The art or intuitive ability of the experienced engineer is utilized to make the decisions,
guided by the computational results.

PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN

Design is a process by which an optimum solution is obtained. The design of steel structures must
establish a certain criteria to which the optimum solution must obtain with the following requirements:

a. Minimum cost
b. Minimum weight
c. Minimum construction time
d. Minimum labor
e. Minimum cost of manufacture of owner’s products; and
f. Maximum efficiency of operation to owner.

Usually several criteria are involved, each of which may require weighting. Observing the above possible
critera, it may be apparent that setting clearly measurable criteria (such as weight and cost) for
establishing an optimum frequently will be difficult, and perhaps impossible. In most practical situations
the evaluation must be qualitative.

Design Procedure

Design procedure may composed of two considerable parts namely:

1. Functional design = ensures that intended results are achieved, such as
a. Adequate working areas and clearances;
b.Proper ventilation and/or air conditioning;
c. Adequate transportation facilities, such as elevators, stairways, and cranes or materials handling
equipment;
d. Adequate lighting; and
e. Aesthetics
2. Structural framework design = selection of the arrangement and sizes of structural elements so that
service loads may be safely carried, and displacements are within acceptable limits.
a. Planning. Establishment of the functions which the structure must serve.
b. Preliminary structural configuration. Arrangement of the elements to serve the functions in step
1.
c. Establishment of the loads to be carried.
d. Preliminary member selection. Based on the decisions of steps 1, 2, and 3, selection of the
member sizes to satisfy an objective criterion, such as least weight or cost.
e. Analysis. Strucutral analysis involving modeling the loads and the structural framework to obtain
internal forcces and any desired deflections.
f. Evaluation. Are all strength and serviceability requiremenst satisfied and is the result optimal?
Compare the result with predetermined criteria.
g. Redesign. Repetition of any part of the sequence 1 through 6 found necessary or desirable as a
result of evaluation. Steps 1 through 6 represent the interactive process. Usually steps 3 through 6
will be subject to iteration, since the structural confguration and external loading will be
prescribed.
h. Final decision. The determination of wheter or not an optimum design has been achieved.

Steel Materials

Steel is one of the most commonly used materials and is manufactured from iron ore which is first
converted to molten pig iron. The impurities are then removed and crefully controlled proportions of
carbon, silicon, manganese, etc., added the amounts depending on the particular steel being
manufactured.

Mild steel is the commonest type of steel and has a low carbon content. It is relatively strong, cheap to
produce and is widely used for the sections shown in Fig. 1.22. It is a ductile material, is easily welded
and because its composition is carefully controlled its properties are known with reasonable accuracy.

High carbon steels posses greater strength than mild steel but are less ductile whereas high yield steel is
stronger than mild steel but has a similar stiffness. High yield steel, as well as mild steel, is used for
reinforcing bars in concrete construction and very high strength steel is used for the wires in prestressed
concrete beams.

Low carbon steels possessing sufficient ductility to be bent cold are used in the manufacture of cold-
formed sections. In this process unheated thin steel strip passes through a series of rolls which gradually
bend it into the required section contour. Simple profiles, such as a channel section, may be produced in
as few as six stages whereas more complex sections may require 15 or more. Cold-formed sections are
used as ligthweight roof purlins, stiffeners for the covers and sides of box beams and so on. Some typical
sections are shown in Fig. 1.1.

Other special purpose steels are produced by adding different elements. For example, chromium is added
to produce stainless steel althrough this is too expensive for general structural use.
Figure 1.1 Standard Rolled Shapes

Figure 1.2 Examples of cold-formed sections.

Built-up Section

Built-up sections are made up by a fabricator from two or more shapes or plates. Examples of common
built-up sections are shown in Fig. 1.2. Built-up members are specified by the designer when the desired
properties or configuration cannot be obtained in a single hot-rolled section. Built-up sections can be
bolted or welded. Welded members, in general are less expensive because much less handling is required
in the shop and because of more efficient utilization of material. The clean lines of welded members are
also produce a better appearance.

Cover-Plated Rolled Beams

Cover-Plated Rolled Beams are used when the required bending capacity is not available in a rolled
standard beam or when depth limitations preclude use of a deeper rolled beam or plate girder. Cover-
plated beams are also used in composite construction to obtain the efficiency of a nonsymmetrical
section.

Figure 1.3

W Shapes

American wide-flange I or H-shaped steel beams are referred to as W shapes and are designated by the
letter W followed by their nominal depth in millimeters, with their mass in kg/m as the last designation.

Example 1.1
W 416 x 85 means that this W shape is 416 mm deep and has a mass of 85 kg/m. this shape consists of
two rectangular-shaped flanges connected by a rectangular plate and symmetrical about the x and y axes.

Typical W shape
d = depth of beam
bf = width of flange
tf = thickness of flange
tw = thickness of web

The AISC units of steel members are express in English System which derived to Metric and SI System
to adapt the present trades.

Just like the problem in Example 1, the W 416 x 85 is derived from English System of what Steel
Section?

Derivation:
The note W is refers to section type and the number 416 refers to the depth of the steel section in mm,
while the last number 85 refers to weight in kilogram/meter:

Depth: 416 mm = 416/25.4 = 16.38” ≈ 16”

Weight: 85 kg/m = 85 kg/m x 2.204 lbs/kg x 0.3048 m/ft = 57.1 lbs/ft
Therefore, the designation of W 416 x 85 = W 16 x 57

Flange Web
Designation Theoretical Area Depth
Thickness
mass A d Width bf Thickness tw
(kg/m) (mm2) (mm) (mm) tf (mm) (mm)
W 416 x 85 85 10800 410 181 18.2 10.9

S Shapes

These shapes were formerly called I-beams and American Standard Beams. The difference between W
and S-shapes are.

1. The flange width of the S-shape is narrower than W-shape.

2. The inner face of the flange of the S-shape has a slope of about 16.7°.

Example 1.2

S 610 x 134
Deep of beam = 610 mm
Theoretical mass = 134 kg/m
 AISC Flange Web
Theoretical Depth
Designation Area (mm2) Width Thickness Thickness
mass (kg/m) (mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm)
S 610 x 134 134.4 17100 610 181 22.1 15.9

M Shapes (also called HP Shapes)

These are doubly symmetrical shapes which are not classified as W or S-shapes. They are symmetrical
both x and y-axes.

Example 1.3

M 356 x 25.6
Deep of beam = 356 mm
Theoretical mass = 25.6 kg/m

Flange Web
Designation Theoretical Area Depth
Width Thickness Thickness
mass (kg/m) (mm2) (mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm)
M 356 x 25.6 25.6 3258 356 101.6 6.9 5.33

C Shapes

These are channel shapes formerly called American Standard Channels. The inner face of the flange has
the same slope as S-shapes.

Example 1.4

C 380 x 74

Flange
Designation Theoretical Area Depth Web Thickness
mass (kg/m) (mm2) (mm) Thickness (mm)
Width (mm)
(mm)
 C 380 x 74 74.4 9480 381 94 16.5 18.2

MC Shapes

These were formerly called ship building or Miscellaneous Channels and are not classified as C shapes.

Example 1.5

MC 458 x 86

Designation Flange Web

Theoretical Area Depth
Thickness
mass (kg/m) (mm2) (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) (mm)
MC 458 x 86 86 11032 457.2 106.68 15.88 17.78

∟ Shapes

These are either equal or unequal leg angles. All angles have parallel flange faces.

Example 1.6

Equal Angle Section ∟ 200 x 200 x 30

Size and Thickness Theoretical mass (kg/m) Area (mm2)

200x 200 x 30 87.1 11100

Example 1.7
Unequal Angle Section ∟ 200 x 150 x 25

Size and Thickness Theoretical mass (kg/m) Area (mm2)

200x 150 x 25 63.8 8120

WT 300 x 119.3 (Structural Tee or Split Tee)

Structural tees are obtained by splitting W, S or M shapes such that each split section has one half the
area of the original shape. Nominal depth is 300 mm and a mass of 119.3 kg/m obtained by splitting W
600 x 238.6 kg/m

Example 1.8

WT 300 x 119.3

Identification of Steel Structures

Structures may be divided into three general categories:

a. Framed structures, where elements may consist of tension members, columns, beams, and members
under combined bending and axial load;

Most typical building construction is in this category. The multistory building usually consists of
beams and columns, either rigidly connected or having simple end connections along with diagonal
bracing to provide stability. Even though a multistory building is three-dimensional, it usually is
designed to be much stiffer in one direction than the other; thus it may reasonably be treated as a
series of plane frames. However, if the framing is such that the behavior of the members in one plane
 substantially influences the behavior in another plane, the frame must be treated as a three-
dimensional space frame.

b. Shell-type structures, where axial forces predominate;

In this type of structure, the shell serves as a

use function in addition to participation in
carrying load. One common type where the
main stress is tension is the containment
vessel used to store liquids (for both high and
low temperature), of which the elevated water
tank is a notable example. Storage bins, tanks,
and the hull of ships are other example. On
many shell-type structures, a framed structure
may be used in conjunction with the shell.

On walls and flat roofs, the “skin” elements

may be in compression while they act together
with a framework. The aircraft body is
another such example.

Shell-type structures are usually designed by a

specialist and are not in the scope of this
course.

c. Suspension-type structures, where axial tension predominates the principal support system. In the
suspension-type structure, tension cables are major supporting elements. A roof may be cable-
supported. Probably the most common structure of this type is the suspension bridge. Usually a
subsystem of the structure consists of a framed structure, as in the stiffening truss for the suspension
bridge. Since the tension element is the most efficient way of carrying load, structures utilizing this
concept are increasingly being used.
 Many unusual structures utilizing various combinations of framed, shell-type, and suspension-type
structures have been built. However, the typical designer must principally understand the design and
behavior of framed structures.

Specifications and Building Codes

Structural steel design of buildings in the United States is principally based on the specification of the
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). AISC is composed of steel fabricator and
manufacturing companies, as well as individuals’ interest in steel design and research. The AISC
Specification is the result of the combined judgment of researchers and practicing engineers. The research
efforts have been synthesized into practical design procedures to provide a safe, economical structure.
The advent of the digital computer in design practice has made feasible more elaborate design rules. The
current specification which is referred throughout this module is the 2015 Volume I, 7th Edition of the
NSCP (National Structural Code of the Philippines) which derived from the AISC Steel Construction
Manual, 15th Edition.

A specification containing a set of rules is intended to ensure safety; however, the designer must
understand the behavior for which the rule applies. Otherwise, an absurd design may result, either unsafe
or grossly conservative. Behavioral understanding must come first; application of rules then follows. No
matter what set of rules is applicable; the designer has the ultimate responsibility for a safe structure.

A specification when adopted by AISC is actually a set of recommendations put forth by a highly
respected group of experts in the field of steel research and design, then incorporate a specification of
AISC Steel Design Specifications (ANSI/AISC 360-05, now ANSI/AISC 360-16) into the building codes.

The design of steel bridges is generally in accordance with specifications of the American Association of
State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Railroad bridges are designed in accordance with the specifications adopted by the American Railway
Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA).
The term building code is sometimes used synonymously with specifications. More correctly a building
code is a broadly based document, either a legal document such as a state or local building code, or a
document widely recognized even though not legal which covers the same wide range of topics as the
state or local building code.

PHILOSOPHIES OF DESIGN

The two philosophies of design that are in current use are:

1. Working Stress Design, referred as Allowable Stress Design (ASD) by AISC
2. Limit States Design, referred as Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) by AISC

The 2005 AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings provides an integrated treatment of
Allowable Strength Design (previously referred to by AISC as the Allowable Stress Method) and Load
and Resistance Factor Design. The new specification combines the two design methods and replaces
earlier specifications that treated the two design methods separately. Allowable Stress Design has been
the principal philosophy used during the past 100 years. During the past 20 years or so, structural design
has been moving toward a more rational and probability-based design procedure referred to as “limit
states” design. Limit states design includes the methods commonly referred to as “ultimate strength
design,” “strength design,” plastic design,” “load factor design,” limit design,” and the more recent “load
and resistance factor design (LRFD).”

Design must provide some reserve strength needed to carry the service loads, meaning the structure must
provide for the possibility of overload. Overloads can arise from changing the use for which the particular
structure was designed, from underestimations in construction procedures. In addition, there must be a
provision of understrength.

The selected materials (steel members, bolts, and welds) in design may have less strength used in the
design calculations. A steel section may occasionally have a yield stress below the minimum specified
value, but still within the statistically acceptable limits.

Structural design must provide for adequate safety no matter what philosophy of design is used. Provision
must be made for both overload and strength.
“Limit state” may rather use term for “failure”. Limit states means “those conditions of a structure at
which it ceases to fulfill its intended function”.

Two categories of Limit States: strength and serviceability

1. Strength (or safety) limit states are such behavioral phenomena as achieving ductile maximum
strength (or plastic strength), buckling, fatigue, overturning, and sliding.
2. Serviceability limit states are those concerned with occupancy of a building, such as deflection,
vibration, permanent deformation, and cracking.

Both the loads acting on the structure and its resistance (strength) to loads are variables that must be
considered.

The current approach to a simplified method for obtaining a probability-based assessment of structural
safety uses first-order second-moment reliability methods. Such methods assume that the load (or load
effect) Q and the resistance R are random variables. Typical frequency distributions of these random
variables are shown in the figure 1. When the resistance R exceeds the load (or load effect) Q there will
be a margin of safety. Unless R exceeds Q by a large amount, there will be some probability that R may
be less than Q.

Structural “failure” (achievement of a limit state) may then be examined by comparing R with Q, or in
logarithmic form observing ln(R/Q), as shown in figure 2. The distance between the failure line and the
mean value of the function [ln(R/Q)] is defined as a multiple β of the standard deviation σ of the function.
The multiplier β is called the reliability index. The larger β the greater is the margin of safety.

Pinkham summarized the usefulness of the reliability index β in several ways:

1. It can give an indication of the consistency of safety for various components and systems using
traditional design methods.
2. It can be used to established new methods which will have consistent margins of safety.

3. It can be used to vary in a rational manner the margins of safety for those components and systems
having a greater or lesser need for safety than that required in ordinary situations.

In general, the expression for the structural safety requirements may be written as

𝑹𝒖 ≤ ∅𝑹𝒏 (502.3 − 1)
Where
Ru = required strength (LRFD)
Rn = nominal strength, specified in Sections 502 through 511
ø = resistance factor, specified in Sections 502 through 511
øRn = design strength

AISC – Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

During the past 25 years, the general “limit states design” approach has continued to gain acceptance,
particularly for steel design in the United States with the adoption in 1986 of a Load and Resistance
Factor Design Specification by AISC. The latest version of that Specification is 2010. The AISC
Specification LRFD Method was developed under the leadership of T. V. Galambos.
The safety requirement of the LRFD Method is given by Equation 1.8.1. This means the design strength
øRn provided by the resulting design must at least equal the sum ∑γiQi of the applied factored service
loads. The subscript i indicates that there are terms for each type of load Qi acting, such as dead load D,
live load L, wind load W, snow load S, and earthquake load E. the γi may be different for each type of
load.

The AISC LRFD Method is based on the following:

1. A probability-based model
2. Calibration with the 1978 AISC Allowable Stress Design (ASD) Specification.
3. Evaluation using judgment and past experience, along with studies of representative structures
conducted by design offices.

The development of probability-based criteria by Galambos, Ellingwood, MacGregor, and Cornell led to
the factored load combinations of the 1982 ANSI Standard, which has become ASCE 7. The ANSI
Standard was developed for use in design with all structural materials. It is reasonable that the probability
of overload with certain types of loads should be unrelated to the material of which a structure is built.
With this concept in mind, the AISC LRFD Method adopted the ASCE 7-10 factored load combinations
as follows:

1.4D (1.8.1)
1.2D+ 1.6L + 0.5(Lr or S or R) (1.8.2)
1.2D + 1.6(Lr or S or R) +(L or 0.5W) (1.8.3)
1.2D + 1.0W + 0.5(Lr or S or R) (1.8.4)
1.2D+ 1.0E + L + 0.2S (1.8.5)
0.9D+1.0W (1.8.6)
0.9D + 1.0E (1.8.7)

Where the nominal service loads indicated by Eqs. 1.8.2 through 1.8.7 are:

D= dead load (gravity load from the weight of structural elements and permanent attachments)
E = earthquake load
L = live load (gravity occupancy and movable equipment load)
Lr = roof live load
W= wind load
R = rain load or ice load

AISC – Allowable Strength Design (ASD)

The AISC ASD Method has been included in the 2005 AISC Specification as an alternative to the LFRD
Method. The term “allowable strength” is used to signify that the same strength limit states are the basis
for both the ASD Method and the LFRD Method. In the past ASD was based on the concept that the
maximum stress due to service load shall not exceed a specified allowable stress, and the method was
called “allowable stress design.” The safety factors in traditional ASD were primarily based on
experience and workmanship, and had remained the same for the past 75 years. While the actual level of
safety provided by traditional ASD has always been variable and unknown, structures design by ASD
performed satisfactorily. The ASD Method in the current AISC Specification (2005) uses the following
Formula (B3-2)

𝑅𝑎 ≤ 𝑅𝑛 ⁄Ω (502.3 − 2)

Where
Ra = required strength (ASD)
Rn = nominal strength, specified in Sections 502 through 511
Ω = safety factor, specified in Sections 502 through 511
Rn/Ω = allowable strength
FACTORS OF SAFETY – ASD AND LRFD COMPARED

Allowable Strength Design (ASD)

The “safety factor” Ω used in Eq. 1.8.8 was not determined consciously by using probabilistic methods.
The values used in the AISC ASD Specifications have been in use for many years and are the result of
experience and judgment. It is clear that the safety required must be a combination of economics and
statistics. Obviously, it is not economically feasible to design a structure so that the probability of failure
is zero. Prior to the development of the 1986 AISC LRFD Specification, the AISC Specifications from
1924 through 1978 did not give a rationale for the allowable stresses prescribed.

One may state that the minimum resistance must exceed the maximum applied load by some prescribed
amount. Suppose the actual load exceeds the service load by an amount ΔQ, and the actual resistance is
less than the computed resistance by an amount ΔR. A structure that is just adequate would have
𝑅𝑛 − Δ𝑅𝑛 = 𝑄 + ΔQ
𝑅𝑛 (1 − Δ𝑅𝑛 ⁄𝑅𝑛 ) = 𝑄(1 + Δ𝑄⁄𝑄 )(1.9.1)

The margin of safety, or “safety factor,” would be the ratio of the nominal strength Rn to nominal service
load Q; or

𝑅𝑛 1 + Δ𝑄⁄𝑄
Ω= = (1.9.2)
𝑄 1 − Δ𝑅𝑛 ⁄𝑅𝑛

Equation 1.9.2 illustrates the effect of overload (ΔQ/Q) and understrength (ΔRn/Rn);
However it does not identify the factors contributing to either. If one assumes that occasional overload
(ΔQ/Q) may be 40% greater than its normal value, and that an occasional understrength (ΔRn/Rn) may be
15% less than its nominal value, then

1 + 0.4
Ω= = 1.65
1 − 0.15

The above is an oversimplification but it shows a possible scenario for obtaining the traditional AISC
value of FS = 1.67 used as the basic value in Allowable Stress Design.

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

The factor for overload are variable depending upon the type of load, and the factored load combinations
that must be considered are those given by the ASCE 7 Standard and presented as Eqs. 1.8.1 through
1.8.7. The other part of the safety-related provisions is the ø factor, known as the resistance factor. The
resistance factor ø varies with the type of member and with the limit state being considered. Some
representative resistance factors ø are as follows.

Tension Members (AISC-D2)

Ø𝑡 = 0.90 for 𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 limit state

Ø𝑡 = 0.75 for 𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 limit state

Compression Members (AISC-E1)

𝜙𝑐 = 0.90
Beams (AISC-F1 and E1)
𝜙𝑏 = 0.90 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑟𝑒
𝜙𝑣 = 0.90 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟
Welds (AISC-Table J2.5)
Ø = same as for type of action; i.e., tension, shear etc.

Fasteners intension and Shear (AISC-J3.6 and J3.7)

Ø = 0.75
Standard deviation may be approximated as

𝜎𝑙𝑛(𝑅⁄𝑄) ≈ √𝑉 2 𝑅 + 𝑉 2 𝑄 (1.9.3)
Where
𝑉𝑅 = 𝜎𝑅 ⁄𝑅𝑚
𝑉𝑄 = 𝜎𝑄 ⁄𝑄𝑚
The distance representing the margin of safety may be approximated as

𝛽𝜎ln(𝑅⁄𝑄) ≈ 𝛽√𝑉 2 𝑅 + 𝑉 2 𝑄 = ln(𝑅𝑚 ⁄𝑄𝑚 )(1.9.4)

Thus, the larger the distance the smaller the probability of reaching the limit state. The multiplier β is
called the reliability index. The expression for βfro Eq. 1.9.4 becomes

ln(𝑅𝑚 ⁄𝑄𝑚 )
𝛽= (1.9.5)
√𝑉 2 𝑅 + 𝑉 2 𝑄

Using the factored load combinations given by the ASCE 7 Standard, the AISC Task Force and
Specification Committee calibrated the 1986 LRFD Specification based on past experience. Thus, the
resistance factors ø were set in LFRD with the objective of obtaining the following values of β b:

Load combinations Objective reliability index β

Dead load + live load (or snow load) 3.0 for members
4.5 for connections
Dead load + live load + wind load 2.5 for members
Dead load + live load + earthquake load 1.75 for members

Because of a lower probability of wind or earthquake occurring with full gravity load, the reliability
index β was made lower for those cases. The β values for connections stronger than members.

ASCE 7-10 uses seven factored load combinations, given as Eqs. 1.8.1 through 1.8.7. This was necessary
to account for each of the separate loads (dead, live, roof, wind additive to gravity, wind opposite to
gravity, and earthquake) acting at its maximum lifetime value. Loads other than dead load and the load
being maximized will act at an “arbitrary point-in-time” value.

Each factored load combination and its corresponding load occurring at its 50-year maximum are as
follows:

Load combinations Load at its lifetime (50 year) maximum

1.4D Dead load D during construction; other load not present
1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5S Live load L
1.2D + 1.6S + (0.8W or 0.5L) Roof load; i.e., snow load S or rain R other than ponding
effect
1.2D + 1.3W + 0.5L + 0.5S Wind load W additive to dead load
1.2D ± 1.0E + 0.5L + 0.2S* Earthquake load E additive to dead load
0.9D ± (1.3W or 1.0E)* Wind load W or earthquake load E opposite to dead load
* The sign following 1.2D or 0.9D is to taken + or – so as to provide the ore severe effect.
Comparison of LFRD with ASD for Tension Members

The original LRFD Specification values were calibrated to the 1978 ASD Specification at a live load to
dead load ratio of 3. To determine the relationship between ø and Ω, the nominal strengths from ASD and
LFRD are equated. Using the live load and dead load combinations, with L = 3D, the required nominal
strength can be expressed as follows:

𝑅𝑛
From ASD: = 𝐷 + 𝐿 = 𝐷 + 3𝐷 = 4𝐷
Ω
𝑅𝑛 = 4𝐷Ω
From LRFD: 𝜙𝑅𝑛 = 1.2𝐷 + 1.6𝐿 = 1.2𝐷 + 1.6𝑥3𝐷 = 6𝐷
6𝐷
𝑅𝑛 =
𝜙
6𝐷 1 1.5
Equating and solving for Ω: Ω= 𝑥 =
𝜙 4𝐷 𝜙
Therefore, for ø = 0.9, the value Ω = 1.67 and for ø = 0.75, Ω = 2.00

Ref:
1. Williams, A. Design of Steel Structures
2. NSCP 2015, 7th Edition