Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
PREPARED BY:
ENGR. TIMOTHY JOHN S. ACOSTA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
DISCUSSION OUTLINE
I. LOAD PATHS
II. TRIBUTARY AREAS
III. CODES AND SPECS FOR LOADS
IV. DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES (LRFD)
I. LOAD PATHS
LOAD PATH
LOAD PATH
LOAD PATH
GRAVITY LATERAL
Roof deck transfers load to
Each joist supports an supporting joists.
area equal to its span
times half the distance to
the joist on either side.
The joists transfer their The pier supports half the area
loads to the supporting supported by the truss girder plus
truss girders. areagirder
from supports
other structural
Each truss an areaelements
equal tothat it supports.
its span times half the
distance to the girder on either side.
The truss girders transfer
their loads to the
supporting piers and
columns.
ONE-WAY LOAD
DISTRIBUTION
Tributary Area
TWO-WAY LOAD
DISTRIBUTION
Tributary Area
Example:
Interior
Girder
Tributary Area
Tributary Area
Tributary Area
Tributary Area
Interior Column
Tributary Area (Column B2)
P = 2 Rbeam + 2 Rgirder
Tributary Area (Column B2)
III. CODES AND SPECS FOR LOADS
Attendance!
TYPES OF LOADS
fixed-position gravity service load, usually known accurately but not until
the design is completed
Superimposed DL~1.78kPa
Dead Loads (Gravity)
Dead Loads (Gravity)
II. Live Loads (Occupancy)
In buildings, ASCE 7-05 requires an increase in the maximum live load by the
following percentages to account for the magnification of imposed loads
due to impact:
V. Wind Loads (Envi Load)
PROCEDURE: REFERENCE:
1. Directional Procedure for buildings of all heights (Section 207B)
2. Envelope Procedure for low-rise buildings (Section 207C)
3. Directional Procedure for Building Appurtenances and Other structures (Section 207D)
4. Wind Tunnel Procedure (Section 207F)
VI. Earthquake Loads (Envi Load)
Earthquakes produce loadings on a structure through its interaction with ground and its
response characteristics. These loadings result from the structure’s distortion caused by the
ground’s motion and lateral resistance of structures. Their magnitude depends on the amount
of ground accelerations and the mass and stiffness of the structure.
SECTION 208.4.8 SELECTION OF LATERAL FORCE PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE: REFERENCE:
1. Simplified Static (Section 208.5.1)
2. Static (Section 208.5)
3. Dynamic (Section 208.5.3)
4. Alternative (Section 208.4.8.4)
Procedures
EQ LOADS NSCP 2015
Vertical
Distribution of
Force
VII. Rain Loads (Envi Load)
Building Codes
Codes and Specs
Building Code
Specifications
Capacity Demand
Resistance Load
R Q
PHILOSOPHIES OF DESIGN
The way in
We
which we
Uncertainty compensate
compensate
exists in for these
is different
everything uncertainties
between
we design. in our design
LRFD and
codes.
ASD.
Additional Uncertainties
• Design errors
• Construction errors
These cannot be incorporated
into the design codes but are
addressed through proper
quality assurance techniques.
Definitions
Limit State
Definition:
2 Categories:
1. Strength Limit State – maximum ductile
strength, buckling, fatigue, fracture,
overturning and sliding
2. Serviceability Limit State – deflection,
vibration, permanent deformation,
cracking
◉ LRFD ◉ ASD
2. Load Factors
○ for uncertainties in variable loads
LRFD vs. ASD
• LRFD • ASD
Rn Ru = i Qi
Rn
Qi
FS
Rn nominal Resistance Rn Nominal Resistance
resistance factor < 1.0 FS Factor of Safety > 1.0
Ru Ultimate Resistance Qi Various load effect
i load factor associated with the
ith load > 1.0
Qi Various load effect
Notice that different factors are used to account for Notice that only one factor is used to account for
uncertainties in resistance and for different types of loads, uncertainties and that the nominal load effects are just added.
i.e., D, L, W, E, etc.
LRFD Statistical Model
b = Reliability index
ln(R/Q) R Q
VR = and VQ =
Rm Qm
Reliability Index
Factors of Safety – ASD and LRFD Compared
LRFD 𝑅𝑛 − Δ𝑅𝑛 = 𝑄 + Δ𝑄
Δ𝑅𝑛 Δ𝑄 Δ𝑄
𝑅𝑛 1− =𝑄 1+ where = overload
𝑅𝑛 𝑄 𝑄
Δ𝑅𝑛
= understrength
𝑅𝑛
Δ𝑄
𝑅𝑛 1+ ൗ𝑄
ASD Factor of Safety =
𝑄
=
Δ𝑅
1 − 𝑛ൗ𝑅
𝑛
Δ𝑄 Δ𝑅n
Assuming = 40% and = 15% Without identifying the factors
𝑄 𝑅𝑛 contributing to either value
1 + 0.4
Factor of Safety = = 1.65 Note: The traditional AISC value
1−0.15 of FS = 1.67 used in the ASD
Reliability Index
Using the factored load combinations given in the code, the 1986 LRFD Specs were
calibrated to agree with past experience. Thus, the resistance factors were set in LRFD
with the objective of obtaining the following values of b:
A similar method was used to determine all the FS values throughout the specifications.
LRFD Resistance Factors
= Resistance factor
Compression Members
c = 0.90
Beams
b = 0.90 for flexure
v = 0.90 for shear
Welds
= same as for the type of action, i.e. tension, shear, etc.
Where:
f1 = 1.0 for floors in places of public assembly, for live loads in excess of 4.8 kPa, and for garage live loads
= 0.5 for other live loads
Why should LRFD be used?
2. Adoption of LRFD is not mandatory but provides a flexibility of options to the designer. The marketplace
will dictate whether or not LRFD will become the sole method.
3. ASD is an approximate way to account for what LRFD does in a more rational way. The use of plastic
design concepts in ASD has made ASD such that it no longer may be called an “elastic design” method.
4. The rationality of LRFD has always been attractive, and becomes an incentive permitting the better and
more economical use of material for some load combinations and structural configurations. It will also
likely produce safer structures in view of the arbitrary practice under ASD of combining dead
and live loads and treating them the same.
7. LRFD will facilitate the input of new information on loads and load variations as such information becomes
available. On the other hand, our knowledge of loads and their variation is much less. Separating the
loading from the resistance allows one to be changed without the other if that should be desired.
8. Changes in overload factors and resistance factors ф are much easier to make than to
change the allowable stress in ASD.
9. LRFD makes design in all materials more compatible. The variability of loads is actually unrelated
to the material used in the design. Future specifications not in the limit states format for any material will put
that material at a disadvantage in design.
Why should LRFD be used?
10. Future adjustments in the calibration of the method can be made without much
complication. Calibration for LRFD was done for an average situation but might be adjusted in the future.
11. Economy is likely to result for low live load to dead load ratios. For high live load to dead
load ratios there will be slightly greater costs.
12. Safer structures may result under LRFD because the method should lead to a better awareness of structural
behavior.
13. Design practice is still at the beginning with regard to serviceability limit states; however, at least LRFD
provides the approach.
REFERENCES
• Salmon, C.G., Johnson, J.E. and Malhas, F.A. (2009). Steel Structures
Design and Behavior, Prentice Hall, 5th edition.
ANY QUESTIONS?