Basic Design Concepts

2006,2008 T. Bartlett QuimbyIntroduction

to Design Theory Design Objectives Limit State Concepts Searching for the Best Design

ASD vs LRFD

Loads and Their Combinations Example Problems Homework Problems References

Report Errors or Make Suggestions

Make Donation

It is your responsibility as the structural engineer to design safe, serviceable structures. In order to do so, you must predict the magnitudes of the various loads that are likely to be applied to the structure over it's life time. You must also account for the probability of the simultaneous application of the various load types. In order to bring consistency to the prediction of loads, the profession has adopted standards that dictate the loads and their probable combinations that must be used in design. Be aware that these loads and combinations is not necessarily comprehensive. There may come a time when, in your professional judgment and that of your peers, that there will be the need to exceed the values set in standards. The current standard for determining loads on buildings is ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. The 13th Edition of the SCM is based on the 2002 version of ASCE 7 (aka ASCE 7-02). A new version, with some changes to the load combination equations, has been released as ASCE 7-05. The ASCE 7 document is a "must have" document for all structural engineers practicing in the United States. All building related design specifications in the United States reference this document. You will need to see ASCE 7 for specific details on the various types of loads and their detailed application. Fortunately, for this text, you will generally be given loads and told what type they are so you do not need to know the details. For this text we use the latest version of ASCE 7. At this point, if you have ASCE 7, you can look up the discussion regarding the load types. Alternatively, if you have the SCM turn to the section on Loads, Load Factors, and Load Combinations (SCM pg 2-8) to follow along with the following conversation. Load Types The principle load types from ASCE 7 are listed in the referenced section. The following is a brief definition for reach load type along with a short discussion about the natures of the loads. Understanding the natures of the loads will help you to understand the choice of load factors. You are strongly encouraged to study the definitions more fully in ASCE 7 and other relevant references. Dead Load, D The dead load on a structure includes the weight of all items that are attached to the structure and are likely to remain in the as-built location throughout the life of the structure. Beams, columns, floor slabs, exterior walls, roofs, mechanical equipment, and the like are all considered to be dead load on a structure. Inanimate objects that are not physically connected to the structure and/or may be moved around during the life of the structure are not considered to be dead loads. For example: tables, chairs, desks, file cabinets, shelves, and the like are not normally included in dead load estimates. Dead loads can be computed accurately with a relatively high degree of confidence.

Live Load, L Live load includes anything that can possibly be moved in or out of the structure over the course of its life. This includes people, furniture, equipment, and other similar items. Predicting the live load that a structure will see is highly dependent on the use, or that the structure will be put to. The type of use is normally referred to as the "occupancy" of the structure. As the occupancy of the structure may change over its life, reasonable assumptions about its future must be made. If the occupancy of a structure changes to one expected to see heavier loads then modifications may need to be made to accommodate the increased load. Different parts of structure will be assigned different live loads depending on their use. For example, exit corridors (hallways and stairs) need to be designed for higher loads than an office space. Live loads tend to be transient so durations of sustained live load are somewhat less than the life of the structure. The length of duration will vary with occupancy. Accurately predicting the live load that a structure may see over its life time is very difficult. Values listed in ASCE 7 are based on experience, measurements, and probability. There is a chance that the values listed may be exceeded at some time, so caution is justified in accounting for these loads. Another very important characteristic (one that will have a great effect on analysis) of live loads is that live load need not be everywhere present at a given time. The design codes required that it be placed for maximum effect. In continuous structures this generally means that you will need to solve for multiple load cases in order the find the envelope of required strength values needed in order to design a safe structure. Roof Live Load, Lr Roof live load is generally associated with the loads that the roof structure will see during construction and later during maintenance (i.e. during reroofing). These loads are of short duration and generally much smaller than normal live loads since it is not expected that roofs will see the types of loads that floors see. Snow Load, S Snow loads occur in colder climates and are of varying duration. Snow, unlike live load, is considered to everywhere present at a given time. The magnitude of snow load is highly dependent on local weather patterns, terrain, and latitude. Snow drifting must also be considered when snow loads are present.

The nature of snow load it is as predictable as mother nature! Where there are extensive records, the design snow load can be statistically determined, however, it is not uncommon to have unusual snow events in cold regions that may exceed the design values. In cold regions, snow load values may be in excess of roof live loads, making roof live loads irrelevant as a design consideration. Rain and Ice, R Rain and/or ice loads are similar to snow loads in their predictability. As noted in ASCE 7 and the SCM, R is exclusive of ponding. Ponding loads are more predictable and are treated separately. Wind Load, W Wind load is a very dynamic event for which static approximations can be made. The approximate methods for determining wind load ASCE 7 are generally considered to be conservative for a given predicted wind speed, however wind speed is a difficult thing to predict. The probability of exceedance is relatively high. Earthquake (or Seismic) Load, E Earthquake forces are generated by very dynamic events. For certain types of structures a static equivalent method may be used to estimate the forces applied to the structure. For more complex structures numerical methods that solve the dynamic problem must be used. Earthquake loads are unique in that they are the only load that we compute at ultimate strength levels. All others are computed as service (or actual) strength levels. The actual forces generated in structures by earthquakes are so large that it is not normally financially feasible to design building structures to elastically withstand them. As a result, there are detailed requirements to ensure structures are ductile enough that they are not likely to collapse during an earthquake, thus allowing the occupants to escape. Since ductile behavior is expected, the loads computed are computed at the strength level of the structure. Combining the Loads Many structures will see most, if not all, the loads listed above sometime in their life. The next challenge becomes how to combine the loads reasonably. A direct combination of all the loads at their maximum is not considered to be probable. For example, it would not be reasonable to expect a full live load to occur simultaneously with a full snow load during a design level wind storm. ASCE 7 provides load combination equations for both LRFD and ASD loads. Your choice will be based on the design philosophy that you are using.

When using the 13th edition of the SCM, notice that it lists (pg 2-8) a subset of the load combinations found in ASCE 7-02. As is the nature of the industry, ASCE 7 has subsequently been updated and released as ASCE 7-05. There are some changes to the load combination equations in the latest ASCE 7. We will be using these. You need to visit A Beginner's Guide to ASCE 7-05, Chapter 2 for the full discussion on load combinations. We will be using the load combination definitions presented there. There is also an example problem in the BGASCE7 chapter that illustrates the application of the load combination equations. Load and Resistance Factor Design If you chose to use LRFD for your design philosophy, then you are to make sure that your structure is capable of supporting the seven ASCE 7-05 basic load combination equations. Loads computed using the LRFD load combinations will have the subscript "u" in these notes and in the SCM. For example: Pu, Mu, Vu, and Ru. Allowable Strength Design For ASD there are seven basic load combination equations. Loads computed using the ASD load combinations will have the subscript "a" in these notes and in the SCM. For example: Pa, Ma, Va, and Ra. Comparing ASD vs. LRFD A Beginner's Guide to ASCE 7-05, section 2.4 has an example that illustrates the variability of the LRFD factor of safety in relation to the ASD fixed factor of safety.

Section 2.3

Comparing LRFD & ASD Results

Last Revised:

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. In order to determine which design philosophy is more or less demanding (i.e. results in larger members), it is necessary to "unfactor" the load combinations using the material specific strength and allowable stress requirements.

Also, there are times when you will know the capacity of a member relative to a limit state and want to know what actual loads you can put on it. In order to accomplish this task you need to "turn around" the load combination equations and compute D, L, etc. To accomplish this task, you will need to know the relative magnitudes of the service load (i.e. actual applied magnitudes) components. This tends to get extraordinarily difficult if your member has multiple load sources (i.e. a uniform load, a point load, etc.), however if you have a single load source the task is manageable. This text uses a service level equivalent load, Ps,equiv (or Ps,eq), for comparison of LRFD and ASD loads. The equivalent service load is taken to be the sum of all service level load components extracted from a particular load combination equation. The next section illustrates this concept using the requirements of the 13th edition of the AISC Steel Construction Manual. Converting Load Combinations to a Comparable Equivalent Load The typical strength based limit state statement takes the form: LRFD Pu < Pn ASD Pa < Pn/

Where Pu and Pa are values of design loads that have been computed using the load combination equations and the terms on the right side of each equation represent the capacity of the member. For example, let us assume that we know the axial force capacity of a tension member and that the applied dead load equals the live load and the seismic load is twice the dead load. In other words, the load consists of one part dead load, one part live load, and two parts seismic load For this situation, we introduce the quantity Ps,equiv which is the sum of the service level load components. For our example: Ps,equiv = D + L + E Where

D = 1/4 Ps,equiv = 0.25 Ps,equiv L = 1/4 Ps,equiv = 0.25 Ps,equiv E = 2/4 Ps,equiv = 0.50 Ps,equiv

The quantities Pu and Pa can be related to Ps,equiv by a composite load factor (CLF) that is derived from the load combination equations and the relative values of the individual load components. LRFD Pu = CLFLRFD*Ps,equiv ASD Pa = CLFASD*Ps,equiv

The composite load factor is then computed for each load case. The largest CLF will be from the controlling load case. For our example, using the LRFD load cases: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Pu = 1.4(0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.35 Ps,equiv Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.6(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.70 Ps,equiv Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.425 Ps,equiv Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.425 Ps,equiv Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.0(0.50 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.925 Ps,equiv Pu = 0.9(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.0(0.50 Ps,equiv)= 0.725 Ps,equiv

The controlling CLFLRFD in this case is from LRFD LC5 and is 0.925. With the CLFLRFD we can now find the allowable magnitudes of D, L, and E. Maximum Pu = 0.925 Ps,equiv < Pn Ps,equiv < (Pn)/0.925 From this we can compute the service level magnitudes for D, L, and E, by substituting [(Pn)/0.925] in for Ps,equiv. D < 0.25 [(Pn)/0.925] L < 0.25 [(Pn)/0.925] E < 0.50 [(Pn)/0.925] Doing same thing for the eight ASD load combinations equations listed in the SCM we get: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.25 Ps,equiv Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + (0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.50 Ps,equiv Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.25 Ps,equiv Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.4375 Ps,equiv Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.70(0.50 Ps,equiv) = 0.60 Ps,equiv Pa = 0.90(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.50 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.70 Ps,equiv Pa = 0.60(0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.60 Ps,equiv Pa = 0.60(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.70(0.50 Ps,equiv) = 0.50 Ps,equiv

The controlling CLFASD in this case is from ASD LC6 and is 0.70. With the CLFASD we can now find the allowable magnitudes of D, L, and E. 0.70 Ps,equiv < Pn/ Ps,equiv < (Pn/ )/0.70 From this we can compute the service level magnitudes for D, L, and E:

D < 0.25 (Pn/ )/0.70 L < 0.25 (Pn/ )/0.70 E < 0.50 (Pn/ )/0.70 The controlling composite load factor, CLFASD, can be easily computed using the same spreadsheet you would use for computing all the load combinations simply by putting in the coefficients for the various load types in a single load source column. Comparing ASD vs. LRFD Loads 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 = 0.9 and = 1.67 for now. The LRFD and ASD factored loads are not directly comparable as the combination equations use different load factors in each case. We can compare them at service levels by computing an equivalent service load from each combination. For this problem, Ps,equiv equals the algebraic sum of D and L: Ps,equiv = D + L ASD The controlling ASD load combination equation in this case is ASD-LC2: Pa = 1.0*D +1.0*L = 1.0*(D+L) = 1.0*Ps,equiv We can now determine the equivalent total load allowed by ASD by using the design inequality: Ps,equiv < Pn/ Ps,equiv < Pn/1.67 = 0.60 Pn Ps,equiv / Pn < 0.60 LRFD The controlling LRFD load combination equation in this case is LRFD-LC2: Pu = 1.2D +1.6L We make the following definitions: D = (X%)Ps,equiv L = (1-X%)Ps,equiv Where X is the percentage of Ps,equiv that is dead load. Substituting these definitions into the load combination equation you get:

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] The term, [1.6 - 0.4X] is a composite load factor that is dependent on the proportion of dead load that makes up the service load. Similar "composite load factors" can be developed for other load combination equations. Substituting the above expression into the LRFD version of the design inequality, we get Pu < Pn [1.6 - 0.4X]Ps,equiv < Pn Ps,equiv < Pn / [1.6 - 0.4X] Ps,equiv < 0.90 Pn / [1.6 - 0.4X] Ps,equiv / Pn < 0.90 / [1.6 - 0.4X] Comparison We can now compare the results by graphing the resulting equations for Ps,equiv/ Pn. Figure 2.3.1

Figure 2.3.1 Comparison of LRFD & ASD Results shows the compared load limits based on percentage dead load.

From Figure 2.3.1 you can see that, for this case, whenever the total service load is 25% dead load or less that the AISC ASD method gives greater capacity (i.e. it allows more actual load on the structure). Otherwise the AISC LRFD method is advantageous. The variable factor of safety associated with the LRFD method is considered to be more consistent with probability since structures that have highly predictable loads (i.e. a large portion of the total load is dead load in this case) don't require the same factor of safety as structures subjected to loads that are not very predictable (such as live load in this case). So, in the given case, a structure that is subjected to predominately live loads (D < 25% of total load) requires a greater factor of safety than is provided by the ASD method. Note that the use of other load combination equations will yield different results.

Section 2.2

The Load Combination Equations

Last Revised:

ASCE 7-05 provides load combination equations for both LRFD and ASD. The ones that you will use will depend on which of the two design philosophies that have been chosen for your project. You will note that several of the load combination equations have multiple permeations due to use of "or" or "+" in the equations (both wind, W, and seismic, E, are considered to be + loads). This is true of both the LRFD and ASD combinations. Load and Resistance Factor Design If you chose to use LRFD for your design philosophy, then you are to make sure that your structure is capable of supporting the loads resulting from the seven ASCE 7-05 basic load combination equations. LRFD applies load factors to service level loads so that they are safely comparable to member strengths (which are generally inelastic) while maintaining the actual (service) loads in the elastic region. Member strength (the maximum load that the member will support) is generally between 1.3 to 1.4 times the force that will cause yielding in a member. These load factors are applied in the load combination equations and vary in magnitude according to the load type. The magnitude of the LRFD load factors reflect the predictability of the loads. For example, the load factor for D is generally lower than the load factor for L in any given equation where there is equal probability of simultaneous occurrence of the full value of each load type. This is because dead loads are much more predictable than live loads and, hence, do not require as great of a factor of safety. Example: Analysis of a structure shows that a particular member supports 5 kips dead load and 6 kips live load. Using LRFD LC-2, the combined design load equals 1.2 times the dead load plus 1.6 times the live load, or 15.6 kips. The factor for dead load (1.2) is lower than the factor for live load (1.6) because dead load is more predictable than live load. The load factors are all greater than 1.0 since we want to compare the result to the ultimate strength of the member instead of the yielding strength of the member yet we don't want yielding to occur. The ultimate strength is generally about 1.3-1.4 times the yield strength of the member. Allowable Strength Design For ASD there are eight basic load combination equations. You will notice that the large load factors found in the LRFD load combinations are absent from the ASD version of the ASCE 705 load combination equations. Also, the predictability of the loads is not considered. For example both D and L have the same load factor in equations where they 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. Hence the major difference between LRFD and ASD. Example: Analysis of a structure shows that a particular member supports 5 kips dead load and 6 kips live load. Using ASD LC-2, the combined design load equals the dead load plus the live load, or 11.0 kips. The factor for dead load (1.0) is the same as the factor for live load (1.0), hence not accounting for the fact that the dead load is more predictable than the live load. The result of the load combination equation is then generally compared against the yielding strength of the member to ensure elastic behavior. The Load Combination Equations The published load combination equations are: LRFD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1.4(D + F) 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5(Lr or S or R) 1.2D + 1.6(Lr or S or R) + ((0.5 or 1.0)*L or 0.8W) 1.2D + 1.6W + (0.5 or 1.0)*L + 0.5(Lr or S or R) 1.2D + 1.0E + (0.5 or 1.0)*L + 0.2S 0.9D + 1.6W + 1.6H 0.9D + 1.0E + 1.6H

When atmospheric ice is included, ASCE 7-05 requires modifications to equations (2), (4), and (6), effectively resulting in three new equations which are listed here: 2ice. 1.2(D + F + 4ice. 1.2D + (0.5 6ice. 0.9D + Di + Wi + 1.6H
*

T) + 1.6(L or 1.0)*L

+ +

H) Di

+ +

0.2Di Wi

+ +

0.5S 0.5S

Note that the load factor for L in equations (3), (4), and (5) is permitted to equal 0.5 for occupancies in which the unit live load is less than or equal to 100 psf, except for garages or areas occupied as places of public assembly. ASD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. D+F D+H+F+L+T D + H + F + (Lr or S or R) D + H + F + 0.75(L + T) + 0.75(Lr or S or R) D + H + F + (W or 0.7E) D + H + F + 0.75(W or 0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75(Lr or S or R) 0.6D + W + H 0.6D + 0.7E + H

For the purposes of this text, we will identify the equations and their permutations by the labels defined as defined in Table 2.1. When atmospheric ice is included, ASCE 7-05 requires modifications to equations (2), (3), and (7), effectively resulting in three new equations which are listed here: 2ice. D + H + 3ice. D + H + 6ice. 0.6D + 0.7Di + 0.7Wi + H F F + + L 0.7Di + + T + 0.7Wi + 0.7Di S

Table ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Equation Permutations LRFD

LRFD-LC1 LRFD-LC2a LRFD-LC2b LRFD-LC2c LRFD-LC2i LRFD-LC3a LRFD-LC3b LRFD-LC3c LRFD-LC3d LRFD-LC3e LRFD-LC3f LRFD-LC4a LRFD-LC4b LRFD-LC4c LRFD-LC4i LRFD-LC5a LRFD-LC5b LRFD-LC6a LRFD-LC6b LRFD-LC6i 1.4(D+F) 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5Lr 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5S 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5R

2.1

ASD
ASD-LC1 ASD-LC2 ASD-LC2i ASD-LC3a D+F D+H+F+L+T D + H + F + L + T + 0.7Di D + H + F + Lr D+H+F+S D+H+F+R D + H + F + 0.7Di + 0.7W i + S D + H + F + 0.75(L + T) + 0.75Lr D + H + F + 0.75(L + T) + 0.75S D + H + F + 0.75(L + T) + 0.75R D+H+F+W D+H+F-W D + H + F + 0.7E D + H + F - 0.7E D + H + F + 0.75W + 0.75L + 0.75Lr D + H + F + 0.75W + 0.75L + 0.75S D + H + F + 0.75W + 0.75L + 0.75R D + H + F - 0.75W + 0.75L + 0.75Lr D + H + F - 0.75W + 0.75L + 0.75S D + H + F - 0.75W + 0.75L + 0.75R D + H + F + 0.75(0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75Lr

1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.2Di + ASD-LC3b 0.5S * ASD-LC3c 1.2D + 1.6L + (0.5 or 1) L

r

1.2D + 1.6Lr + 0.8W 1.2D + 1.6S + (0.5 or 1) L 1.2D + 1.6S + 0.8W 1.2D + 1.6R + (0.5 or 1) L 1.2D + 1.6R + 0.8W 1.2D + 1.6W + (0.5 or 1) L + .5Lr 1.2D + 1.6W + (0.5 or 1) L + .5S 1.2D + 1.6W + (0.5 or 1) L + .5R 1.2D + (0.5 or 1.0)*L + Di + W i + 0.5S 1.2D + E + (0.5 or 1) L + 0.2S 1.2D - E + (0.5 or 1) L + 0.2S 0.9D + 1.6W + 1.6H 0.9D - 1.6W + 1.6H 0.9D + Di + W i + 1.6H
* * * * * * *

ASD-LC3i ASD-LC4a ASD-LC4b ASD-LC4c ASD-LC5a ASD-LC5b ASD-LC5c ASD-LC5d ASD-LC6a ASD-LC6b ASD-LC6c ASD-LC6d ASD-LC6e ASD-LC6f ASD-LC6g

LRFD-LC7a LRFD-LC7b

0.9D + E + 1.6H 0.9D - E + 1.6H

ASD-LC6h ASD-LC6i ASD-LC6j ASD-LC6k ASD-LC6l ASD-LC6m ASD-LC7a ASD-LC7b ASD-LC8a ASD-LC8b

D + H + F + 0.75(0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75S D + H + F + 0.75(0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75R D + H + F - 0.75(0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75Lr D + H + F - 0.75(0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75S D + H + F - 0.75(0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75R 0.6D + 0.7Di + 0.7W i + H 0.6D + W + H 0.6D - W + H 0.6D + 0.7E + H 0.6D - 0.7E + H

* Note that the load factor for L in LRFD equations (3), (4), and (5) is permitted to equal 0.5 for occupancies in which the unit live load is less than or equal to 100 psf, except for garages or areas occupied as places of public assembly. Otherwise the load factor for L equals 1.0.