Chapter 2

Design Specifications, Loads, Load Combinations and Design Methods

Presentation / Discussion:

Design Specifications
- The adequacy of a structural member is in part determined by a set of design rules,
called specifications, which include formulas that guide the designer in checking
strength, stiffness, proportions and other criteria that may govern the acceptability
of the member.
- There are a variety of specifications that have been developed for both materials
and structures.
- Each is based on years of research and experience gained through actual structural
usage.
- The specifications will be quite often used by the structural steel designer are those
published by the following organizations:
 National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP)
 American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
 American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)
 American Welding Society (AWS)
 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
 American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)
 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
- The seismic response modification factor, R, is defined as the factor by which the
earthquake loads, calculated for fully elastic structures, are reduced for economy
based on the ductility of structure.
- When R is taken less than or equal to 3, the design, fabrication and erection of steel
buildings should satisfy the requirements of AISC Specifications for Structural Steel
Buildings.
- However, when R is taken greater than 3, AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural
Steel Buildings must also be observed in addition to the regular AISC Specifications.

Loads
- The determination of the loads to which structure or structural element will be
subjected is, at best, an estimate.
- Even if the loads are well known at one location in a structure, the distribution of load
from element to element throughout the structure usually requires assumptions and
approximations.
Dead Loads
 Dead load is a fixed-position gravity service load, so called because it acts
continuously toward the earth when the structure is in service.
 The weight of the structure is considered dead load, as are attachments to the
structure such as pipes, electrical conduit, air-conditioning and heating ducts,
lighting fixtures, floor covering, roof covering, and suspended ceilings; that is, all
items that remain throughout the life of the structure.
 Dead loads are usually known accurately but not until the design has been
completed. The weight of the structure or structural element must be estimated,
preliminary section selected, weight recomputed and member selection revised
if necessary.
 The dead load of attachments is usually known with reasonable accuracy prior
to the design.
29
 30

Live Loads
 Gravity loads acting when the structure is in service, but varying in magnitude
and location, are termed live loads.
 Examples of live loads are human occupants, furniture, movable equipment,
vehicles, and stored goods. Some live loads may be practically permanent,
others may be highly transient.
 Because of the unknown nature of the magnitude, location and density of live
load items, realistic magnitudes and the positions of such loads are very difficult
to determine.
 Because of the public concern for adequate safety, live loads to be taken as
service loads in design are usually prescribed by National Structural Code of the
Philippines as local structural code.
31
 32

 These loads are generally empirical and conservative, based on experience and
accepted practice rather than accurately computed values.
 Live load when applied to a structure should be positioned to give the maximum
effect, including partial loading, alternate span loading, or full span loading as
may be necessary.
 The simplified assumption of full uniform loading everywhere should be used only
when it agrees with reality or is an appropriate approximation.

 The design live load determined using the unit live loads as set forth in Table
205-1 for floors and Table 205-3, Method 2, for roofs maybe reduced on any
member supporting more than 15 ! , including flat slabs, except for floors in
places of public assembly and for live loads greater than 4.8 kPa, in accordance
with the following equation:

 The reduction shall not exceed 40 percent for members receiving load from one
level only, 60 percent for other members or R, as determined by the following
equation:

A = area of floor or roof supported by the member, !

D = dead load per square meter of area supported by the
member, kPa
 33

L = unit live load per square meter of area supported by the

member, kPa
R = reduction in percentage
r = rate of reduction equal to 0.08 for floors. See Table 205-
3 for roofs

 As an alternate to Equation 205-1, the unit live loads set for in Table 205-1 may
be reduced in accordance with Equation 205-3 on any member, including flat
slabs, having an influence area of 40 ! or more.

"# = influence area, !

L = reduced design live load per square meter of area

supported by the member
$% = unreduced design live load per square meter of area
supported by the member (Table 205-1 and 205-3)

 The influence area &' is four times the tributary area for a column, two times the
tributary area for a beam, equal to the panel area for a two-way slab, and equal
to the product of the span and the full flange width for a precast T-beam.
 The reduced live load shall not be less than 50 percent of the unit live load ( for
other members.

 Live loads due to vehicular traffic on highway bridges as shown in Figure are
specified by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, which is commonly
referred to as the AASHTO LRFD Specification (The initials LRFD indicate that
this specification is for the Load and Resistance Factor Design of bridges.)
 The design vehicular live loading specified in the AASHTO LRFD Specification
is designated as HL-93 (highway loading adopted in 1993).
 In HL-93, the various types of vehicles and traffic conditions on bridges are
represented by combinations of three types of standardized design loads: the
design truck, the design tandem, and the design lane.
 34

 The HL-93 design truck consists of a two-axle tractor truck with a single-axle
semitrailer.
 The total weight of the truck and cargo is 325 kN.

 The axle loads and axle spacing for the design truck are shown in Figure. Note
that the spacing between the rear axle of the tractor truck and the axle of
the semitrailer should be varied between 4.3 m and 9.0 m, and the spacing
causing the maximum stress should be used for design.
 The HL-93 design tandem represents a two-axle vehicle weighing 220 kN.
 Its axle loads and axle spacing are shown in Figure.
 The wheel spacing for both the design truck and tandem is depicted in Figure.
 It should be recognized explicitly that both the design truck and design tandem
loads do not represent the actual weights of trucks or other vehicles but are
based instead on the envelopes of the load effects that the bridges are subjected
to by heavy vehicles.
 35

 In addition to the aforementioned two series of concentrated loads, HL-93

specifies that the design lane load consisting of a uniformly distributed load of
9.3 kN/m be considered as shown in Figure.
 This lane load represents the effect of a lane of medium-weight vehicles on the
bridge.
 HL-93 further requires that the bridge be analyzed for two load combinations: (1)
the design lane load applied simultaneously with a design truck as shown in
Figures, and (2) the design lane load applied simultaneously with a design
tandem as shown in Figures.
 In each case, the loads are positioned on the bridge to cause the maximum
stress in the member being designed.
 The load combination causing the most severe stress in the member under
consideration is then used for its design.
 Additional information regarding multiple lanes, loadings for continuous spans,
reduction in load intensity, and so on can be found in the AASHTO LRFD
Specification.
 Live loads for railroad bridges are specified by the American Railway Engineering
and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA) in the Manual for Railway
Engineering.
 These loadings, which are commonly known as Cooper E loadings, consist of
two sets of nine concentrated loads, each separated by specified distances,
representing the two locomotives followed by a uniform loading representing the
weight of the freight cars.
 An example of such a loading, called the E80 loading, is depicted in Figure.
 The design loads for heavier or lighter trains can be obtained from this loading
by proportionately increasing or decreasing the magnitudes of the loads while
keeping the same distances between the concentrated loads.
 For example, the E40 loading can be obtained from the E80 loading by simply
dividing the magnitudes of the loads by 2.
 As in the case of highway bridges considered previously, live loads on railroad
bridges must be placed so that they will cause the most unfavorable effect on the
member under consideration.

Impact Loads
 When live loads are applied rapidly to a structure, they cause larger stresses
than those that would be produced if the same loads would have been applied
gradually.
 The dynamic effect of the load that causes this increase in stress in the structure
is referred to as impact.
 To account for the increase in stress due to impact, the live loads expected to
cause such a dynamic effect on structures are increased by certain impact
percentages, or impact factors.
 The impact percentages and factors, which are usually based on past experience
and/or experimental results, are specified in NSCP.
 36

 Highway bridges
 For highway bridges, the AASHTO LRFD Specification uses an impact factor
of 33% for design vehicles (truck and tandem).
 The amount of the impact allowance or increment is expressed as a fraction of
the live load stress, and shall be determined by the formula:

15.24
)=
( + 38
) = impact fraction (maximum 30 percent);
( = length in meter of the portion of the span that is loaded
to produce the maximum stress in the member.

 Elevators
 All elevator loads shall be increased by 100% for impact.
 Machinery
 For the purpose of design, the weight of machinery and moving loads shall be
increased as follows to allow for impact:
1. Elevator machinery 100%
2. Light machinery, shaft-or motor-driven 20%
3. Reciprocating machinery or power 50%
-driven units
4. Hangers for floors and balconies 33%

o All percentages shall be increased where specified by the manufacturer.

 Cranes
 The maximum wheel loads of the crane shall be increased by the percentage
shown below to determine the induced vertical impact or vibration force:
1. Monorail cranes (powered) 25%
2. Cab-operated or remotely operated 25%
bridge cranes (powered)
3. Pendant-operated bridge cranes 10%
(powered)
4. Bridges cranes or monorail cranes 0%
with hand-geared ridge, trolley and
hoist
 Heliport and helistop landing areas
 Dead load plus a single concentrated impact load, I, covering 0.10 ! of 0.75
times the fully loaded weight of the helicopter if it is equipped with hydraulic-
type shock absorbers, or 1.5 times the fully loaded weight of the helicopter if it
is equipped with a rigid or skid type landing gear.

Wind Loads
 Wind loads are produced by the flow of wind around the structure.
 The magnitudes of wind load that may act on a structure depend on the
geographical location of the structure, obstructions in its surrounding terrain
(such as nearby buildings), and the geometry and the vibrational characteristics
of the structure itself.
 Although the procedures described in the various codes for the estimation of
wind loads usually vary in detail, most of them are based on the same basic
relationship between the wind speed V and the dynamic pressure q induced on
a flat surface normal to the wind flow.
 Wind loads analysis based on NSCP 2015 - 7th Edition
 Wind loads – main wind force resisting system
o Enclosed and partially enclosed rigid buildings
 37

 Design wind pressures for the MWFRS of buildings of all heights shall be
determined by the following equation:

o Enclosed and partially enclosed flexible buildings

 Design wind pressures for the MWFRS of flexible buildings shall be
determined from the following equation:

o Open buildings with monoslope, pitched, or troughed free roofs

 The net design pressure for the MWFRS of open buildings with monoslope,
pitched, or troughed roofs shall be determined by the following equation:

o Design wind pressure for low rise buildings

 Design wind pressures for the MWFRS of low-rise buildings shall be
determined by the following equation:

 Minimum design wind loads

The wind load to be used in the design of the MWFRS for an enclosed or
partially enclosed building shall not be less than 0.77 ./ 1 multiplied
0
./
01
by the wall area of the building and 0.38 multiplied by the roof
area of the building projected onto a vertical plane normal to the assumed
wind direction.
 Wind loads – component and cladding system
o Design wind pressures on component and cladding elements of low-rise
buildings and buildings with 2 ≤ 34 0 shall be determined from the following
equation:

o Design wind pressures on component and cladding for all buildings with 2 >
34 0 shall be determined from the following equation:

Earthquake Loads
 An earthquake is a sudden undulation of a portion of the earth’s surface.
 Although the ground surface moves in both horizontal and vertical directions
during an earthquake, the magnitude of the vertical component of ground motion
is usually small and does not have a significant effect on most structures.
 38

 It is the horizontal component of ground motion that causes structural damage

and that must be considered in designs of structures located in earthquake-prone
areas.
 During an earthquake, as the foundation of the structure moves with the ground,
the above-ground portion of the structure, because of the inertia of its mass,
resists the motion, thereby causing the structure to vibrate in the horizontal
direction (Figure).

 These vibrations produce horizontal shear forces in the structure.

 For an accurate prediction of the stresses that may develop in a structure in the
case of an earthquake, a dynamic analysis, considering the mass and stiffness
characteristics of the structure, must be performed.
 However, for low- to medium-height rectangular buildings, most codes employ
equivalent static forces to design for earthquake resistance.
 In this empirical approach, the dynamic effect of the earthquake is approximated
by a set of lateral (horizontal) forces applied to the structure, and static analysis
is performed to evaluate stresses in the structure.
 The ASCE 7 Standard permits the use of this equivalent lateral-force procedure
for earthquake design of buildings.
 Design Base Shear
 The total design base shear in given direction shall be determined from the
following equations:
78 #
6= ;
9:
 The total design base shear need not exceed the following:

1. <7= #
6= ;
9
 The total design base shear shall not be less than the following:

6 = >. 337= #;

 In addition, for Seismic Zone 4, the total base shear shall also not be less than
the following:
>. 4?/8 #
6= ;
9
 39

 Structure Period
 The value of T shall be determined from one of the following methods:

Method A:
For all buildings, the value of T maybe approximated from the following
equation:
B
: = 7@ 2A C

D = 0.0853 for steel moment-resisting frames

D = 0.0731 for reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames
and eccentrically braced frames
D = 0.0488 for all other buildings
D = 0.0743G
E&F
for structures with concrete or masonry
shear walls
L !
&F = H &I J0.2 + K I ℎ N O

PQ
≤ 0.9
RS

Method B:
The fundamental period T may be computed using the following equation:

W∑A 1
Z\3 YZ [Z ]
: = 1UV
^W∑A
Z\3 Y_Z [Z ]

any lateral force distributed approximately in accordance with

the principles of equations 208-15, 208-16, and 208-17 or any
other rational distribution.
` shall be calculated using the applied lateral forces, .

The value of a from Method B shall not exceed a value 30 percent greater than
the value of a obtained from Method A in Seismic Zone 4, and 40 percent in
Seismic Zone 2.
 Vertical Distribution of Force
 The total force shall be distributed over the height of the structure in
conformance with equations 208-15, 208-16, and 208-17 in the absence of a
more rigorous procedure:
A

6 = b@ + H bZ
Zc3
 The concentrated force dD at the top, which is in addition to d , shall be
determined from the equation:

b@ = >. >e:6 if : > >. e fghf

b@ = >. >e:6 < >. 1<6
b@ = >. > if : < >. e fghf

 The remaining portion of the base shear shall be distributed over the height of
the structure, including level j, according to the following equations:

6 − b@ Yk 2k
bk =
∑AZm3 YZ 2Z
 40

 Earthquake Loads
 Structures shall be designed for ground motion producing structural response
and seismic forces in any horizontal direction.
 The following earthquake loads shall be sued in the load combinations set forth
in section 203:

n = on2 + n8

n0 = p> n2

= earthquake load on an element of the structure resulting from the

combination of the horizontal component, R , and the vertical
component, q .
R = the earthquake loads due to the base shear, , as set forth in
section 208.5.2 or the design lateral force, dr , as set forth in
section 208.9.
s = estimated maximum earthquake force that can be developed in
the structure as set forth in section 208.6.1 and used in the design
of specific elements of the structure, as specifically identified in
this section.
q = the load effect resulting from the vertical component of the
earthquake ground motion and is equal to an addition of >. <7= #t
to the dead load effect, L, for Strength Design, and may be taken
as zero for Allowable Stress Design.
Ω = the seismic force amplification factor that is required to account
for structural overstrength, as set forth in section 208.4.10.1.
v= Reliability/Redundancy Factor as given by the following equation:

w.3
o=1−
x0=k E"y
zs{| = the maximum element storey shear ratio.
For a given direction of loading, the
element-storey shear in the most heavily
loaded single element divided by the total
design storey shear.

Load Combinations
- The individual structural loads acting on a building structure do not act in isolation
but may act simultaneously with other loads on the structure.
- Load combinations are the possible permutations and intensity of different types of
loads that can occur together on a structure at the same time.
- The structural codes recognize that all structural loads may not act on the structure
or structural member at the same time and, the maximum magnitude of the multiple
load types acting on a structure may not occur at the same time.
- The load combinations or critical combination of loads to be used for design are
prescribed in the NSCP 2015 and ASCE 7 Load Standard and in Section 1605 of
the International Building Code.
- These load combinations include the overload factors for the LRFD method, which
are usually greater than 1.0, and account for the possibility of overload of the
structure.

LRFD Load Combinations

- The basic load combinations for LRFD (excluding the loads }, d, and a which will
be zero for most building structures) are as follows:
1. 3. Ct
2. 3. 1t + 3. w$ + >. < $x %x 9
3. 3. 1t + 3. w $x %x 9 + _3 $ %x >. <;
 41

4. 3. 1t + 3. >; + _3 $ + >. < $x %x 9

5. 3. 1t + 3. >n + _3 $
6. >. ~t + 3. >;
7. >. ~t + 3. >n
_3 = 3. > for floors in places of public assembly, for live loads in excess of
4.8 kPa, and for garage live load, or
= >. < for other live loads

ASD Load Combinations

- When designing for strength under service load conditions, the ASD load
combinations as given in the following equations should be used:
1. t
2. t + $
3. t + $x %x 9
4. t + >. e<$
n
5. t + K>. w; %x N
3.C

Special Seismic Load Combinations

1. 3. 1t + _3 $ + 3. >n0
2. >. ~t ± 3. >n0
_3 = 3. > for floors in places of public assembly, for live loads in excess of
4.8 kPa, and for garage live load, or
= >. < for other live loads

n0 = the maximum effect of horizontal and vertical forces as set forth

in section 208.6.1

Design Methods
Introduction to Design Methods
- The intent of structural design is to select structural systems, member sizes, and
connections whose strength or capacity is greater than or equal to the effect of the
applied loads (the demand), and whose vertical and lateral deflections, floor
vibrations, and lateral accelerations are within the allowable limits.
- There are two main methods prescribed in the AISC Specification for the design of
steel structures: Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method and Allowable
Strength Design (ASD) method; however, the specification also allows the use of
inelastic method of design such as the plastic design (PLD) method.
- The current AISC specification, the design provisions for both the ASD and LRFD
methods are based on limit state or strength design principles.
- In both methods, the design should be such that no applicable strength or
serviceability limit states are exceeded.
- For the strength limit state (e.g., yielding, rupture, buckling, etc.) in the LRFD
method, the goal is to not exceed the ultimate load capacity of the structural member
or structural system under the factored design loads; for the ASD method, the goal
is not to exceed the allowable load under the service design loads.
- For the serviceability limit state (e.g., deflections, lateral drift, vibrations, lateral
acceleration, crack widths), the goal is for the structural member or structural system
to remain functional and to serve its intended purpose under the service or
unfactored loads.
- Both the ASD and LRFD methods as presented in the AISC Specifications (and
indeed other specification-based prescriptive codes) provide a sense of whether an
individual structural member or element is safe or not, but it does not provide any
information on the expected level of damage in the structural member nor does it
provide any information on the system-level structural behavior or performance
under a given hazard or hazard level.
- These prescriptive codes are based on performance measures that emphasizes life
safety (i.e., no loss of life), though the structure may be damaged beyond repair.
 42

- The prescriptive codes provide defined quantitative values of load capacity and/or
member size depending on the occupancy of the building and the type of structural
system.
- These codes provide the minimum requirements to ensure life safety, but the owner
of a structure may request a higher level of safety than provided in the prescriptive
codes, though this would result in higher costs to the owner.
- The current Steel Construction Manual (AISCM) presents a dual side-by-side
approach—ASD and LRFD—for all the design aids and tables, with the nominal or
theoretical strength of the member (i.e., € , , , ‚ƒ„ being the same for both
design methods.
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Method
- The LRFD method is a reliability or probabilistic-based limit state design approach
that takes into account the uncertainties or statistical variations in the strength of a
structural member and the loads acting on the member, and the type of failure (e.g.,
ductile versus brittle failure) using different load and resistance or strength reduction
factors; in contrast, the ASD method is a deterministic design approach that
accounts for uncertainties in the loads and strength, and the type of failure using
only one uniform empirical factor of safety.
- The factor of safety in the ASD method does not account for the different statistical
variabilities of the different loadings acting on the structural member.
- The uncertainties in structural design arise from the variability in material properties
and member dimensions; the variability in the loads acting on the structure; and the
variability in the strength or capacity of the structure or member; and the limitations
of the structural model and methods of analyses.
- In the LRFD method, the safety margin is realized by using load factors (that are
usually greater than 1.0) and resistance or strength reduction factors (usually less
than 1.0); these factors are determined from probabilistic analysis, based on a
survey of the reliability indices inherent in existing buildings, and a preselected
reliability index that accounts for the risks, the consequences, and the modes of
failure of the structural member.
- The load factors vary depending on the type of load because of the different degrees
of uncertainty in predicting each load type; the strength reduction factors prescribed
in the AISC specification also vary depending on the load effects, again to account
for the varying uncertainties in predicting the strengths for the different load effects.
- For example, dead loads are more easily predicted than live or wind loads; therefore,
the maximum load factor for dead load is generally less than that for live load or wind
load.
- The load factors account for the possibility of overload in the structure.
- In the ASD method, the safety margin for a structural member is realized by reducing
the nominal resistance by a single factor of safety which is independent of the type
of applied loads, but dependent on the mode of failure of the structural member.
- The fundamental difference between the ASD and the LRFD methods is that the
ASD method uses only one safety factor to account for all the uncertainties in the
loads on the structural member and the strength of the structural member, whereas
the LRFD method uses different factors (i.e., the load factors) for the different load
types and another factor (the resistance factor) for the structural strength.
- Thus, the LRFD method provides more uniform reliability and level of safety for all
members in the structure, even for different loading conditions.
- In the case of the ASD method, the level of safety is not uniform throughout the
structure.
Probabilistic Framework of the Limit State Design Method
- The intent of any structural design philosophy is to provide an acceptable level of
safety.
- In the limit state design philosophy, due to the unpredictability of the loads acting on
structures, the variability of material and section properties, and the uncertainties in
our structural analysis and design methods coupled with the consequences of failure
(e.g., failure of a building used for public assembly versus a farm shed) and the
modes of failure (e.g., whether ductile or brittle failure), both the loads or load effect,
 43

…, and the resistances or strength, †, are treated as independent random

parameters.
- A frequency distribution of the load effect, …, and the resistance, †, is depicted in
Figure 2-1.
- Whenever † > …, there is a margin of safety against collapse or failure of the
structure, and the structural behavior is satisfactory.

- However, since † and … are random variables, there is a possibility that in certain
situations, the resistance, †, may be less than the load effect, …, in which case, the
structural behavior will be unsatisfactory, and the structure will have reached a limit
state where its performance is no longer satisfactory.
- The shaded area in Figure 2-1 represents the conditions when † < …, and the area
of this overlap represents the probability of failure.
- For any structure, we cannot be 100% certain that … will never be less than †.
- The goal is to make the overlap area as a small as possible so that the probability
of failure of the structure is at an acceptably low, but finite, level.
- Since † and … are random variables, it is possible to estimate the means
†s ‡jˆ …s and the standard deviations or coefficient of variations, ‰ and Š , of
the variables that make up † and … for typical structural elements and structural
loadings.
- Figure 2-1 is replotted in Figure 2-2 with the horizontal axis as the natural logarithm
of K† … N or ln K† … N.
 44

- In Figure 2-1, when † − … < 0 •z † … < 1, the structure is deemed unsafe; similarly,
in Figure 2-2, when ln K† … N < ln 1 (i.e., ln K† … N < 0), the structure is deemed
unsafe.
- Therefore, the shaded area in Figure 2-2 is the probability that failure will occur.
- In deriving the LRFD method, a simple formula for the reliability index – which is a
function of the mean values of † and …, but independent of their actual distributions
is given as follows:

- A higher value of Ž indicates a higher margin of safety.

- There is variation in the Ž values obtained for different live load-to-dead load W( L ]
ratios and for different tributary areas, and for the different structural elements in a
structure.
- The higher the ( L ratio, the lower the safety or reliability index, Ž, since live load is
more unpredictable or more variable than dead load.
- Conversely, the lower the ( L ratio, the higher the safety or reliability index.
- Also, ductile structural elements do not fail suddenly and therefore, they have a lower
target reliability index while structural elements that are susceptible to sudden
failures (e.g., brittle fracture) would require a higher target reliability index.
- The target Ž value selected for bolted or welded connections in the LRFD method
varied between 4 to 5; on the other hand, a target Ž value of 2.4 to 3.1, depending
on the live load-to-dead load ratio, is selected for adequately braced compact rolled
beams and tension members failing in yielding, both of which have a strength
reduction factor, ∅ of 0.9.
- The higher Ž value selected for connections reflect the complexity in modeling their
structural behavior, their mode of failure, and the relatively greater difficulty in
installing connections.
- In the LRFD approach, though the probability of failure is not directly computed for
a given structure, the load and resistance factors were derived based on an
acceptably low probability of failure or an acceptably high target reliability index, Ž.
- Therefore, structures that are designed to meet all the applicable code criteria for
loads, strength and serviceability have an acceptably low risk or low probability of
failure, which means that no structure is designed to be 100% failure proof or
perfectly safe; some reasonable level of risk is assumed in the design of any
structure.
- ASCE 7 Table 1.3-1 gives the target annual probability of failure and the target
reliability indices as a function of the modes of failure of the structural element and
the four risk categories for all load conditions, except earthquake, tsunami or
extraordinary events.
 45

- It should be noted that design and construction errors or carelessness and other
human errors are not accounted for in the load and resistance factors or in the safety
factor.
- Design and construction errors must be minimized through quality control processes
by the engineer of record and the contractor.
- The LRFD method uses a limit states design method; a limit state is the point at
which a structure or structural member reaches its limit of usefulness.
- The basic LRFD limit state design equation requires that the design strength, ∅† ,
be greater than or equal to the sum of the factored loads or load effects (i.e., the
demand). Mathematically, this can be written as

Note that the service load (i.e., the unfactored or working load), … , is the
load applied to the structure or member during normal service conditions,
while the factored or ultimate load, … , is the load applied on the structure
at the point of failure or at the ultimate limit state.

Allowable Strength Design (ASD) Method

- In the ASD method, a member is selected so that the allowable strength is greater
than or equal to the applied service load or load effect, or the required strength, †{ .
- The allowable strength is the nominal or theoretical strength divided by a safety
factor that is only dependent on the limit state being considered; that is,

Note that the theoretical or nominal strength, † , is the same for both the
LRFD and ASD methods. The safety factor is dependent on the mode of
failure of the structural member or the limit state under consideration. The
allowable strength design method uses a single factor of safety to
account for the uncertainties in the strength of the member and the
applied loads on the member.

Relationship Between Safety Factor, p, $ t ratio, and Strength Reduction

Factor, •
- For a structural member supporting a dead load, L, and a live load, (, the
relationship between the factor of safety, the live load-to-dead load ratio W( L ] and
the resistance factor, ‘, can be derived as follows and noting that the factored load,
… = 1.2L + 1.6(:
 46

- Multiplying the ASD equation above by ‘ and rearranging, we obtain, in the limit,

- Substituting this equation into the LRFD equation, we obtain

- The factor of safety, Ω, can then be written as,

- The factor of safety for different ( L ratios are shown in Table 2-1.

- Note that as the ( L ratio increases, the variability of the load increases because of
the greater uncertainty inherent in live loads compared to dead loads, and hence the
required factor of safety also increases.
- This means that when the variability of the load is low, a lower factor of safety can
be tolerated.
- Also, the factor of safety, Ω, is inversely proportional to the strength reduction factor,
‘.
- The higher the strength reduction factor, the lower the required factor of safety.
- For instance, from the factor of safety equation, we find that a structural member
with an ( L ratio of 3 and a strength reduction factor of 0.9 results in a required
factor of safety of 1.67, whereas a member with an ( L ratio of 3 and a strength
reduction factor of 0.75 results in a required factor of safety of 2.0.
- The original LRFD Specification was calibrated to the 1978 ASD Specification at a
( ratio of 3; this yields factors of safety, Ω, of 1.67 and 2.0 for ‘ = 0.9 and ‘ =
L
0.75, respectively.
 47

- The probabilistic-based design methods such as the LRFD method produce more
reliable and potentially more economical designs that have an “acceptably low
probability of failure” compared to the ASD method.
- Other examples of reliability or probabilistic-based prescriptive codes include the
American Concrete Institute Code (ACI 318), the AASHTO Bridge Code, and the
LRFD method for structural wood design in the National Design Specification (NDS)
for Wood Structures.

Plastic Design (PLD) Method

- Plastic design is an optional method in Appendix 1 of the AISC Specifications that
can be used for the design of continuous steel beams and girders. In the plastic
design method, the structure is assumed to fail after formation of a plastic collapse
mechanism due to the presence of plastic hinges.
- The load at which a collapse mechanism forms in a structure is called the collapse
or ultimate load; the load and resistance factors used for plastic design are the same
as those used in the LRFD method.

Performance-based Design (PBD) Method

- The prescriptive methods previously discussed are meant to satisfy the life safety
goals by achieving a low probability of failure (see ASCE 7 Table 1-3.1), and the
serviceability requirements.
- However, these methods do not specify or indicate the expected damage levels or
the specific performance levels.
- That is, the extent of the damage that might be incurred by a structure or structural
member after a hazard event is not specified or indicated in the prescriptive codes.
- A design method that is increasingly being used for the seismic design of tall
buildings, and is now permitted in the International Building Code (IBC) as an
alternative design method, is Performance-based Design (PBD).
- PBD is a design approach that focus on goals beyond life safety.
- It is based on defined performance objectives; these performance objectives and
corresponding damage levels are jointly determined by the project stakeholders, and
they are dependent on the specific hazard and its intensity, as well as the occupancy
and therefore the risk category of the structure.
- Other factors include the importance of the structure to the resilience and recovery
of the community after a hazard event, and the acceptable risk of casualties and
financial loss that the owner of the structure and the community is willing to bear.
- From the performance objectives, the design strategy to achieve each objective is
developed.
- These performance objectives are intended to result in an economical structure with
better performance than the minimum design options specified in the prescriptive
life-safety codes (e.g., ACI 318, AISC 360, NDS, AASHTO, etc.).
- The PBD method can also result in more design creativity and innovation - attributes
that are thought by some to be hampered by the prescriptive or specifications-based
codes.
- In PBD, the engineer of record (EOR) for the structure must prove to a peer review
committee and the Code official either through analysis or testing that the PBD
method will result in a structural system that meets the performance objectives and
that is of equal or better performance than the prescriptive code-designed structure.
- PBD is currently mostly used in the seismic engineering of tall buildings, but its
extension to other hazard events is only a matter of time.
- The typical performance or expected damage levels in PBD are categorized as
follows:
 Level 1 or Mild Damage Level: After the hazard event, there is no structural
damage and the structure is safe to occupy and is functional (i.e., immediate
occupancy – IO). Injury levels are minor and damage to the building contents is
minimal.
 Level 2 or Moderate Damage Level: The structure has some structural and non-
structural damage, but it can be repaired, and can be occupied and operational
 48

while the repairs are being carried out. Injury levels are moderate, and the
likelihood of mass casualties is very low.
 Level 3 or High Damage Level or Life Safety Level: There are both significant
structural and non-structural damage and repair is possible but will take some time
and result in delays in the re-occupancy of the structure. There might be moderate
levels of injuries; the likelihood of mass casualties is low. This performance level
is closest to the life-safety level, the same minimum level provided in the
prescriptive or specification-based codes, such as the AISC Specifications. For
instance, this performance level for seismic hazard corresponds to the earthquake
resistant design of structures subjected to the design earthquake equal to two-
thirds of the maximum considered earthquake ground motion.
 Level 4 or Severe Damage Level or Collapse Prevention Level: There is severe
and substantial structural and non-structural damage though there is no structural
collapse, but the structure is not repairable and will have to be demolished; and
there are occupancy injuries and likelihood of death due to injuries from this “near
collapse level.” Note that the building may collapse due to seismic aftershocks.
This performance level is the basis for the earthquake resistant design of
structures subjected to the maximum considered earthquake ground motion.
- Depending on the risk category of a building and the intensity of a hazard event, a
performance or damage level may be specified.
- The designer would then relate the selected performance level to the analysis and
design of the structural systems.
- For example, a moderate damage level (Level 2) could be specified for a risk
category IV building under a very large or very rare earthquake event (2500-year
mean return period (MRI) earthquake), or a “severe damage level” (level 4) might
be specified for a risk category II building.
- The structure is then analyzed under this seismic hazard level using sophisticated
non-linear analytical techniques like the finite element method to obtain the damage
levels in the structural members.
- The goal is to ensure that the damage levels in the structural members do not
exceed the specified damage level.

Strength Reduction or Resistance Factors

- The strength reduction or resistance factors (‘) account for the variability of the
material and section properties and are, in general, usually less than 1.0.
- These factors are specified for various limit states in the AISC specification and are
shown in Table 2-2.
 49

Assignment:

Midterm Assignment No. 2 (MA-02)

1. Define the term “limit state”. What is the difference between the ASD method and
the LRFD method?

2. What are the reasons for using resistance factors in the LRFD method? List the
resistance factors for shear, bending, tension yielding, and tension fracture.

3. a. Determine the factored axial load or the required axial strength, € , of a column
in an office building with a regular roof configuration. The service axial loads
on the column are as follows:
€P = 890 kN (dead load)
€’ = 1334 kN (floor live load)
€“ = ±267 kN (wind load)
€” = ±178 kN (seismic load)

b. Calculate the required nominal axial compression strength, € , of the column.

4. a. Determine the ultimate or factored load for a roof beam subjected to the
following service loads:

Dead load = 1.39 kPa (dead load)

Roof live load = 0.96 kPa (roof live load)
Wind load = 1.20 kPa upward (wind load)
= 0.72 kPa downward (wind load)

b. Assuming a roof beam span of 9 m. and a tributary width of 1.85 m., determine
the factored moment and shear.

5. List the floor live loads for the following occupancies:

• Library stack rooms,
• Classrooms,
• Heavy storage,
• Light manufacturing, and
• Offices.

References:

1. Steel Design, 6th Edition, by William T. Segui, 2018

2. Structural Steel Design, 3rd Edition, by Abi Aghayere, Jason Vigil, 2020

3. Steel Structures Design and Behavior, 5th Edition, Charles G. Salmon, John E.
Johnson, Faris A. Malhas, 2009

4. Unified Design Steel Structures, 3rd Editon, by Louis F. Geeschwindner, Judy

Liu Charles J. Carter, 2017

5. Structural Steel Design, 5th Edition by Jack C. McCormac, Stephen F.

Csernak, Manojkumar V. Chitawadagi, 2012

6. Steel Structures, 4th Edition, by Zahid Amad Siddiqi, 2017

7. Structural Steel Design and its Applications, 1st Edition, by Ahmed Mohamed
Sayed Elngaoy, 2020