Libro Diseño Estructural en Acero LuísF.

Zapata Baglietto Lima 1997

AISC-Design by Load and Resistance Factors

During the last decade, the adoption of this design philosophy has gained ground in the USA.
(in Canada since 1974), especially for the case of steel structures, since the
disclosure of the AISC-86(5) specifications corresponding and that are based on
the following criteria:
a) A model based on probabilities.
b) Calibration of the results obtained using the ASD method, with the
Object that the structures are not very different between both methods.
The LRFD method has as its background, for the load factors of the
loads, the values given in 1982 by the ANSI Standards. These factors are
related to the type of load and especially with the load combination to be considered.
Below is a table showing the various combinations with the
respective AISC numbering. A comment is added to indicate, in the combination
corresponding, the possible occurrence of the expected load type, in the lifespan of the
structure.

Formula Load Combination Maximum loading capacity

AISC-LRFD in a useful life of 50 years
(A4.1) 1.4D Dead load D during the
construction.
(A4.2) 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5(S o Lró R) Live load L.

(A4.3) 1.2D + 1.6(Lr(S or R) + (0.8W or 0.5L) Load on the roof.

(A4.4) 1.2D + 1.3W + 0.5L + 0.5(Lró S ó R) Wind load W additive to the

dead load.
(A4.5) 1.2D + 1.5E + (0.5L or 0.2S) Additional seismic load to the
dead load.
(A4.6) 0.9D - (1.3W or 1.5E) In the opposite direction to the load

dead.

S = Carga de nieve; Lr Live load on the roof;

R = Initial rainfall load on flat roofs when the drainage fails.

D, L, LrS, W, E are the service charges established by the regulations.

After applying the previous combinations, the final maximum effects Q are obtained.
that intervene in the limit states.

It is necessary to consider, for the purposes of structural design, the combination of loads that
origin the greatest results, that is, the combination of loads that generates the greatest
results, that is to say the combination that produces the greatest demand on the structure in
general or to the particular member. The envelope of internal forces must be found,
whether due to bending, shear, normal tensile or compressive actions, as well as the
combined efforts. When mentioning efforts in the LRFD method, it is noted that not
to confuse with the so-called unit efforts that occur in the ASD method. Efforts are
the internal actions that are generated in the members and that require a defined type of
resistance.

Resistance Factor

In the inequality that serves as the basis for asserting that the factored effects on the
structure are less than the reliable resistance of its members, the nominal resistance
for a type of effort of a structural element can have a statistical dispersion
from its behavior proven by theoretical and laboratory studies, which is taken in
counted by the called Resistance Factor. is less than one and its values for
the determined type of request will be defined by the knowledge that one has of the
real behavior of the member or the connection considered. The following are given
some values of for members or connectors.

Value of Member or Connector

0.90 Total cross-section in traction.
0.75 Net section of traction connection.
0.90 Members in flexion.
0.85 Members in axial compression.
0.75 Tension bolts.

¿Por qué usar el método AISC-LRFD?

Here are some of its advantages:

It is an additional tool for the designer so that they do not differ in their solution concept.
that is used in reinforced concrete design, for example.

2. LRFD appears more rational and therefore comes closer to the reality of what happens in
the lifespan of the structure.

3. The use of various combinations of loads leads to cost savings of the solution, because it
about more accurately what will happen.

4. It facilitates the entry of design bases as more information becomes available.

It is possible to introduce some changes in the factors io when it is known more

accuracy the nature of the charges. This is important when there are non-charges.
usual, or better knowledge of the resistance.

Future adjustments and calibrations will be easier to make.

This publication will adopt the use of AISC-LFRD specifications(5).
it is recommended to use for better tracking, the manual of Steel Construction, version
1986(5) and the work titled 'AISC Specifications in Flow Diagrams'(6)

EXAMPLE
Determine the Factorized Load (Increased Load, Ultimate Load) axial on the column of
a building subjected to the following service loads: D = 100t; L = 150t; Lro S
ó R =30t; W = 60t; E = 50t (t = toneladas)

SOLUTION:

Load Combination Factored Axial Load

A4. 1.4(100) =140t
A4.2 1.2(100)+1.6(150)+0.5(30) =375
A4.3a 1.2(100)+1.6(30)+0.5(150) =243
A4.3b 1.2(100)+1.6(30)+0.8(60) 216
A4.4 1.2(100)+1.3(60)+0.5(150)+0.5(30) 288
A4.5a 1.2(100)+1.5(50)+0.5(150) =270
A4.5b 1.2(100)+1.5(50)+0.2(30) =201
A4.6a 0.9(100)-1.3(60) =12
A4.6b 0.9(100)-1.5(50) 15

Result: The ultimate load is 375t. In the graph, the large variation is observed.
It can occur in the possible loads of the building column.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

To determine the internal actions in the members of the structures, it is necessary to

analyze them for the effects of the load and its combinations. Every structure must
to behave by obeying the Laws of Mechanics. In Structural Engineering, it is known
two methods of analysis: Elastic and Inelastic. The first of these assumes that the
deformations are proportional to the applied loads. In the inelastic method, you
it is considered that the deformations are not proportional to the applied loads which forces
a follow-up, step by step, to define the behavior of the structure in
a given moment. In order to explain the mentioned analysis methods,
let's look at the case of a very simple example, the behavior of a steel beam
embedded at both ends and with a uniformly distributed load that increases
continuously.
Figure 1.14 shows the behavior of a section of the beam subjected to a
growing increase of the bending moment.
Due to the ductility of steel, it is observed that the section has an initial behavior
elastic and then plastic, what happens when the maximum moment that it can reach has been reached
support the beam, which is the plastic moment Mp, with a large rotation. It has formed
a plastic hinge.
When a uniformly distributed load is applied to the beam in an increasing manner, it
observe, in the following graph, first an elastic behavior, then a
inelastic behavior (when two plastic hinges have already formed at the supports) and
finally, when the last plastic joint is formed, in the center of the section, it can be said
that beam reaches its failure mechanism, to its ultimate load. (See Fig. 1.15)

This behavior explained here for a special case is typical for all the
steel structures, as long as some problems such as buckling, fatigue, or
fragile failures. The theories of the behavior of structures in the states are known.
typical mentioned that allow for the analyses referred to
Elastic, Inelastic and Plastic.
The Elastic Analysis is the most commonly used, perhaps because it is the oldest. This analysis has been
greatly facilitated with the application of matrix analysis developed in programs of
Computing allows for quick and reliable results.

The Plastic Analysis is about 30 years old and is definitely the most
rational, because it allows to establish with certainty the ultimate load that it will be capable of
resist the structure and thus select the structural elements according to a factor of
security. However, it is not widely used for two reasons. Growth is assumed
proportional and simultaneous of all the loads (which in the case of earthquakes is far from the
reality) and regulations require the formation of plastic labels in certain
sections (preferred in beams than in columns, for example) which means that no longer
know exactly the true ultimate loads.

The Inelastic Analysis is quite recent and is under continuous development in the
current events. Requires monitoring of behavior.

This publication will give preference to First Order Elastic Analysis (considers
the initial geometry of the structure for the determination of internal stresses)
poder determinar los efectos de las cargas sobre las estructuras que se presentaran para la
explanation of the different behaviors. The programs 'PORTICO' and will be used.
“ARMADURA” así como sus generadores de datos”[Link]” y “[Link]”
respective, when deemed necessary. These programs were developed in the
UNI(7)

The LRFD method as it will be applied in this publication will present the elastic analysis of
the structures whether these be trusses or frames (also simple or continuous beams),
increasing the loads according to the LRFD load combinations and comparing
with the Design Resistance Limit States of the members and their connections for
define if it is fulfilled that these last ones are not exceeded.
Below is an example that allows us to illustrate the analysis and the ultimate loads (loads
Factored.
EXAMPLE
Carry out the analysis for the shown structure and determine the factored forces.
using the LRFD-AISC method.

To do this, it is requested to find the maximum stress using the Load Factors for the
members: U4-U5, U5-L5, U4-L5, L4-L5, considering that a member may be subject
to tensile or compressive forces and using the following load combinations:

CASE 1 1.4D (A4-1) – AISC-LRFD

CASE 2 1.2D + 1.6L (A4-2) – AISC-LRFD
CASE 3 0.9D + 1.6L supposed by the designer

The service charges are:

Live load, assume 18 cars @4000 lb/car/ (20’*72’) =50psf

D: dead load:
Concrete weight (150lb/ft)3), thickness 6" =75psf
2. Assume the weight of beams and trusses =10psf

psf = lb/pie2 Total dead load =85psf

SOLUTION:

For the calculation of the applied loads at the joints of the truss, the following is considered:

Tax area of U1 and U9 = 20' x 4.5' =90pie2

Tax area of U2 and U8 = 20' x 9' =180π2
Load Combination Knot Last applied load
1.4D U1 and U9 10.71 Kips
1.4D U2 to U8 21.42
1.2D + 1.6L U1 and U9 16.38
1.2D + 1.6L U2 to U8 32.76
0.9D + 1.6L U1 and U9 14.09
0.9D + 1.6L U2 to U8 28.17
The analysis of the truss is carried out for each load combination and the results are obtained.
following efforts, for the bars U4-U5, U5-L5, U4-L5:

Bar CASE 1 CASE2 CASE3

U4-U5 -128.52 Kips -196.56 Kips -169.02 kips
U5-L5 -21.42 -32.76 -28.17
L4-L5 120.49 184.28 158.46

(+) Traction (-) compression

For the U4-L5 beam, it is necessary to analyze it using influence lines, as shown.
in the figure.

Finally, the factored maximum efforts in each bar are as follows:

ELEMENT LAST LOAD COMBINATION
U4-U5 -196.56 Kips CASE 2
U5-L5 -32.76 CASE 2
U4-L5 33.98 CASE 2
-4.90 CASE3
L4-L5 184.28 CASO 2

Observe that the U4-L5 bar transitions from tension to compression.