A Beginner's Guide to the Structural Engineering

Basic Design Concepts

Introduction to Design Theory
This concept of design is not particular to structural steel,
however since this course is often a first exposure to detailed
design, this section outlines the principles and concepts
associated with the design process.
It is of great value for engineers to understand the intricacies of
the design process and its impact on final product and those that
use it to a depth not permitted in this application. There are
several references that are of great value to helping understand
the design process and its impact, however the author's favorite
is a thought provoking text entitled To Engineer is Human, by
Henry Petroski.
The Nature of Design
Design can be described as the process of conceptually creating
something that does not yet exist. To accomplish this, designers
make use of their knowledge of material behavior and/or of
processes coupled with their ability to analyze (i.e. predict) the
future behavior of their design to meet some specified need. The
success of the design is highly dependent on the thoroughness of
the designer's knowledge and a clear understanding of the
expected behavior of the final product.
The nature of design is such that there is normally more than
one feasible design (a design that will "do the job"). A design is
defined by a set of design variablesthat can be used in
analyzing the design. A design is considered to be feasible if it
satisfies the performance criteria (or constraints) defined for the
problem. Out of the available feasible designs, some are "better"
than others. Generally the goal of the designer is to
find optimum design. The optimum design is generally
considered to be the one design that best satisfies the criteria for
the project. Typically there is some kind of objective
function that can be computed from the variables that define a
design. The value of the objective function is used to compare
feasible designs in order to determine the "best" or "optimum"
design.

Another significant feature of design is that it is

an iterative process. When the design process starts, there are
a lot of unknowns. Consequently, the designer must make
assumptions about various components of the design. As the
design progresses, many of the assumptions can be replaced by
known facts when decisions are made about previously unknown
components. As the assumptions are refined and replaced, the
design is reanalyzed repeatedly.
For example, when designing a floor system, the engineer must
know the dead loads in order to proceed with the analysis.
Unfortunately, at the start of the design process the designer
does not know what the system consists and, therefore, cannot
accurately compute the loads on the system. To begin the
process, the engineer makes assumptions about the loads based
on probable loads. Using the assumed loads, the design proceeds
and components are selected. As components are selected, the
load assumptions can be re-evaluated and the analysis performed
again. This process iterates until the final calculations use refined
loads based on the chosen components.
Design Optimization
Since the objective of design is to find the optimum design, the
design problem can be characterized as an optimization problem
stated as:
Minimize or Maximize fobj(dv1,dv2,dv3, ... ,dvn)
subject to:
fconstraint_1(dv1,dv2,dv3, ... ,dvn) compared to allowable
value
fconstraint_2(dv1,dv2,dv3, ... ,dvn) compared to allowable
value
fconstraint_3(dv1,dv2,dv3, ... ,dvn) compared to allowable
value
.....
fconstraint_m(dv1,dv2,dv3, ... ,dvn) compared to allowable
value

Where
fobj = the objective function
dvi = the ith design variable
n = number of design variables
fconstraint_i =the ith constraint function
m = number of constraint functions
A feasible design is one where all the constraint functions are
satisfied. The optimum design is a feasible solution that
represents the design with the best objective function value.
For example, let us say that planet "A" gets a message from
planet "B" that "B"ites need a magic potion that "A"ites have a
soon as possible. If the potion does not arrive in time then all the
"B"ites will all die. With several planets with strong gravity fields
along the way, there are several paths by which a rocket could
reach planet "B" once it is fired from planet "A". The "A"ites must
determine the direction and initial velocity for the rocket that will
get there the quickest.
In this problem, the objective function is the time that it takes for
the rocket to reach planet "B". The only constraint is that the
rocket has to hit planet "B". The two design variables are the
initial direction and initial velocity.
Let's see how that problem breaks down mathematically.
The objective function, in this case, would be the function that
computes the time it takes for a rocket to reach planet "B".
fobj = TimeInTransit(Velocity, Angle)
The actual computation must take into account the gravitational
effect of the other planets in the solar system and is somewhat
complicated.
The constraint function, on the other hand, is fairly simplistic. It
monitors the progress of the rocket and becomes true if the rocket
arrives at planet "B".

Figure DC.1.1
Acceptable Trajectories

fconstraint_1 = HitPlanet(Velocity, Angle) must equal "True"

The design variables are the independent variables needed to
compute values for both the objective function and the constraint
function. In this case the design variables are:
Velocity = the initial velocity of the rocket leaving planet "A"
Angle = the initial direction of the rocket as it leaves planet "A"
To evaluate the alternatives, a computer program was written to
analyze the performance of the rocket. The design variables are
entered into the program and the computer computes the
trajectory of the rocket to determine if the design variables result
in a feasible design (i.e. does the rocket hit planet "B"). If the
design is feasible, then the objective (time in transit) is computed
and saved to compare against other designs.

The analysis returned three feasible solutions to the rocket

problem. Many other combinations (not shown) were tried, but
rejected because they were not feasible solutions (i.e. they did
not hit the planet). Figure DC.1.1 shows the resulting trajectories.
The Table DC.2.1 summarizes the results.
Table DC.1.1
Rocket Problem Results

Solution #

Design Variables

Objectiv
e

Velocity

Angle

Time

#1

18,000

260

160

#2

18,300

90

21

#3

21,000

300

23

The preferred alternative is solution #2 because it has the best

objective function result.
The preceding example was very simplistic. Most engineering
solutions, particularly in steel design, are much more complicated
having a multitude of design variables and constraints. The
objective function can also get complicated if there are competing
objectives, such as least cost AND least weight.
When we get to designing steel elements, you will get a better
feel for this process.
Design vs. Analysis
Design and analysis are two separate activities and it is useful to
know the difference between the two.
Analysis is the evaluation of a defined problem. There is no
selection of new alternatives or components. Analysis simply
computes performance and returns performance results. For
example, if you have a beam of given size with a load on it, the
analysis may return reactions, shear & moment values/diagrams,
and comparison with allowable performance relative to specified
constraints (such as strength, deflection, clearance, etc.) Another
way to say this is that analysis takes a set of design values,

performs calculations, and returns requested data for use by the

design process.
The process of design uses the results of analysis to make
decisions about the problem description. Based on the results of
the analysis, the design process changes the problem description
(design variables) based on analysis results and then requests
additional analysis. The design process repeats until the best
solution is found.
You will find that most problems that involve design will require
multiple analyses. In structural design, this means that being
proficient using spreadsheets, MathCad, or other computer based
computational tool becomes extremely useful. Computers are
particularly useful in handling repetitive tasks.
The Function of Design Codes and Specifications
Considering the rocket problem, note that the solution is only
hypothetical until the rocket is launched. No one knows for sure if
it will really work. Was there a mistake made in the analysis
routine? Was some constraint not considered? Is there a
constraint that has never been encountered before? You never
know until the design is implemented. In some sense every
design is a theory that is unproven until it is actually
implemented. To minimize the possibility of failures, we
constantly learn from the profession's experience. Failures are
particularly useful if they reveal constraints not previously
known.
Unfortunately, too many failures are just a repeat of mistakes by
someone else on another project. Mistakes in computation and
oversights in design considerations can be minimized by peer
review. Both in-house review and review by building code
enforcement authorities are necessary. Identifying relevant
constraints is the function of the design codes and specifications.
The design codes and specifications are the means that society
and the profession use to help prevent reoccurrence of the
failures of the past. As new constraints are revealed or
weaknesses are detected in existing constraints, the codes and
specifications are updated to correct the problem. All designs are
required to comply with the specification so as to take advantage
of the past experiences. Consequently all structural design

specifications are updated every few years to capture the best

knowledge available.
One state fire marshal was once heard to comment that when a
designer or design team chooses to ignore a code provision they
are making the deaths of many people or the loss of much
property to be in vain. He pointed out that no provision makes it
into the design code without the loss of many lives or substantial
loss of property. Every code provision potentially adds cost to the
development of a project, so there is great pressure to include
only those provisions that are really necessary.

Design Objectives
Design objectives will change from problem to problem. As a
designer, the engineer must be able to identify the objectives
pertinent to the problem at hand so that alternatives may be
compared. The problem objective can then be expressed as
an objective statement. In structural engineering, the objective
statement can also be put in the form of an objective function.
Objective statements are generally expressed as "maximize" or
"minimize" statements. Objective functions return a single value
that can be used to compare alternatives. Some typical objective
statements, and their associated objective functions, are:
Objective Statement
Select the least cost member
Select the least weight member

Objective Function
minimize(cost)
minimize(weight)

Some objective statements contain multiple (and often

competing) objectives. An example of such a statement is:
Select the structural system that has the least cost while
minimizing deflections.
In multi-objective statements, the objective function must have
weighting factors to combine the various sub objectives into an
single factor. The weighting factors may have units to convert
each of the terms to a common set of units before adding them

together. For the example previously stated, the objective

function may take the form:
(Cost Weighting Factor)*(Structure Cost) + (Deflection
Weighting Factor)*(Deflections)
Changing the relative values of the weighting factors will have a
substantial impact on the final result, so they must be chosen
carefully and with professional judgment. It is common to refine
these weighting factors as the design progresses, taking into
account professional judgment and experience with the design at
hand.

Limit State Concepts

In structural design, design constraints are frequently referred to as LIMIT STATES. Limit
States are conditions of potential failure. Failure being defined as any state that makes the
design to be infeasible (i.e. it will not work for its intended purpose).
Limit states take the general form of:
Demand < Capacity
Structural limit states tend to fall into two major categories: strength and serviceability.
Strength Limit States
Strength based limit states are potential modes of structural failure. For steel members, the
failure may be either yielding (permanent deformation) or rupture (actual fracture). The
strength based limit state can be written in the general form:
Required Strength < Nominal Strength
The required strength is the internal force that you derive from your analysis of the structure
being designed. For example, when designing a beam, the required strength may be the
maximum moment, M, computed for the beam. The nominal strength is the predicted
capacity of the beam, for example in bending, it is the maximum moment, Mn, that the beam
is capable of supporting (a function of the stress capacity of the material and the section
properties of the member)
Typically the structural design specifications use the following variables to denote the
different strengths:
P = Axial Force
M = Bending Moment
V = Shear Force
R = Reaction Force

Serviceability Limit States

Serviceability limit states are those conditions that are not strength based but still may make
the structure unsuitable for its intended use. The most common serviceability limit states in
structural design are deflection, vibration, slenderness, and clearance. Serviceability limit
states can be written in the general form:
Actual Behavior < Allowable Behavior
An example of this is deflection. A loaded cantilever beam will have a deflection at the free
end (actual behavior) that must be kept less that an allowable deflection (allowable behavior).
Serviceability limit states tend to be less rigid requirements than strength based limit states
since the safety of the structure is not in question. Serviceability limit states don't tend to put
people's lives at risk nor do they risk property damage.
General Comments
Note that there uncertainties and variability associated with both sides of the limit state
inequalities. How these uncertainties and variabilities are handled depends on which design
philosophy you chose to use. There are two major design philosophies present in the current
structural engineering practice: Load & Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) and Allowable
Strength (or Stress) Design (ASD). These to philosophies are discussed in a following
section.
It is worth noting that some engineers find it useful to divide the left side of the limit state
inequalities by the right in the form:
(Required Strength/Nominal Strength) < 1.00
(Actual Behavior)/(Allowable Behavior) < 1.00
This form is useful for two reasons. It makes comparison easier (the resulting value must
be < 1.00) and the resulting number tells you the percent of capacity used. Knowing the
percent of capacity used will help you decide which limit states are critical as you work on
optimizing a complex design problem.

Searching for the Best Design

After defining the problem with an objective function and
constraints, the problem now becomes to find the set of design
variables that result in the best objective function value while still
satisfying the constraints.
There has been and will be a lot of research done on optimization
theory. It is not the intent of this text to give a thorough review of
the available techniques. The effort here is focused on strategies

that an entry level engineer can use to find the best solution to
structural component design.
In most civil engineering structures, members are selected from a
set of available shapes. This is certainly true for steel, timber,
and masonry structures. To a less extent, it is true for concrete
structures as standard multiples of dimensions are frequently
used. This fixed set of available choices is convenient because it
limits the extent of the search for the best solution.
It appears that search strategies used by practicing engineers fall
into several broad categories.
Brute Force Method
This method involves applying the constraints to all available
sections. Spreadsheets and a database of available shapes make
this relatively easy. The method can get tedious of member
connections are considered in the selection as often a different
connector arrangement must be considered for each choice.
Random Initial Selection Method
In this method, you randomly select a member, design the end
connection and compute the constraints. From examining the
results of the constraints, you choose a new member that has
hope of satisfying the constraints and resulting in a section that is
better than the last. You never consider a section that would
result in a worse objective than your current best feasible choice,
thus paring down the list of possible selections.
One variation on this method is to pick a subset of the available
shapes then determine the best section in that category. You then
examine other subsets in turn to see if there is a better choice in
those subsets.
The best solution is the one that returns the section with the best
objective function value.
Rational Use of Constraints
This is generally the best method to use for hand solutions. It this
case, you guess which constraint is likely to control then solve
that constraint for a section property that you can use to search
the section tables.

For example, with a tension member you could solve either the
limit state of tensile strength for a required Ag or slenderness for a
required r (or both):
Tensile Yielding: Ag > Force/(Allowable Stress)
Slenderness: least r > L/(Max slenderness ratio value)
Using these two section properties the section database can be
searched for sections that satisfy these criteria.
Once you select a section that satisfies these criteria, if you have
a bolted end connection then:
determine the connection type and fasteners required to
connect the member to rest of the structure
determine a layout or arrangement of fasteners to satisfy
any limitations imposed by fasteners.
If you cannot determine a layout that satisfies fastener based
limitations then you may need to select another section (one that
still satisfies tensile strength and slenderness) using the random
selection method and try again.
In selecting design variables it is helpful to look at the limiting
equations that use the variables to decided which variables are
the most sensitive and focus on changing those.

ASD vs LRFD
When designing in steel and timber, there is choice of design philosophies that needs to be
made. In concrete the only design philosophy in extensive use is strength based (LRFD).
Steel
Before getting too deep into this section, it would be wise for your to read the AISC Steel
Construction Manual (SCM) sections describing the Load and Resistance Factor Design and
Allowable Strength Design philosophies as well as the section on Design Fundamentals.
These are found on pages of 2-6 and 2-7 of the SCM.
Until AISC introduced the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) specification in 1986,
the design of steel structures was based solely on Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
methodologies. The shift to LRFD has not been readily embraced by the profession even
though almost all universities shifted to teaching the LRFD specification within ten years of
its introduction. Its seems that there was not a perceived need by the profession to change

methodologies even though there was ample evidence that LRFD produced structures with a
more consistent factor of safety.
Timber
LRFD is relatively new to timber. It was explicitly included with ASD in the National
Design Specification with the latest edition of the specification.
Concrete
Because of the complexities of analyzing composite sections using working stress method,
the much simpler strength approach was easily adopted with it was first introduced. The
strength based (LRFD) method has been in use in the concrete specification ACI 318 since
the 1970s.
There were two major differences between the two specifications:
1. The comparison of loads to either actual or ultimate strengths and
2. a difference in effective factors of safety.
Actual vs. Ultimate Strength

Figure DC.5.1
Comparison of LRFD/ASD Capacities
On a Load vs. Displacement Diagram

Rn/ = ASD Capacity

Rn = LRFD Capacity
Rn = Nominal Capacity
The first difference between ASD and LRFD, historically, has been that the old Allowable
Stress Design compared actual and allowable stresses while LRFD compares required
strength to actual strengths. The difference between looking at strengths vs. stresses does not
present much of a problem since the difference is normally just multiplying or dividing both
sides of the limit state inequalities by a section property, depending on which way you are
going. In fact, the new AISCAllowable Strength Design (ASD), which replaces the old
allowable stress design, has now switched the old stress based terminology to a strength
based terminology, virtually eliminating this difference between the philosophies.
Figure DC.5.1 illustrates the member strength levels computed by the two methods on a
typical mild steel load vs. deformation diagram. The combined force levels (Pa, Ma, Va) for
ASD are typically kept below the yield load for the member by computing member load
capacity as the nominal strength, Rn, divided by a factor of safety, , that reduces the
capacity to a point below yielding. For LRFD, the combined force levels (Pu, Mu, Vu) are
kept below a computed member load capacity that is the product of the nominal strength, Rn,
times a resistance factor, .
When considering member strengths, we always want to keep our final design's actual loads
below yielding so as to prevent permanent deformations in our structure. Consequently, if the
LRFD approach is used, then load factors greater than 1.0 must be applied to the applied
loads to express them in terms that are safely comparable to the ultimate strength levels. This
is accomplished in the load combination equations that consider the probabilities associated
with simultaneous occurrence of different types of loads.
Fixed vs. Variable Factors of Safety

The second major difference between the two methods is the manner in which the
relationship between applied loads and member capacities are handled. The LRFD
specification accounts separately for the predictability of applied loads through the use of
load factors applied to the required strength side of the limit state inequalities and for material
and construction variabilities through resistance factors on the nominal strength side of the
limit state inequality. The ASD specification combines the two factors into a single factor of
safety. By breaking the factor of safety apart into the independent load and resistance factors
(as done in the LRFD approach) a more consistent effective factor of safety is obtained and
can result in safer or lighter structures, depending on the predictability of the load types being
used.
Load Combination Computations
The basis for structural load computations in the United States is a document known as ASCE
7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings & Other Structures. (See A Beginner's Guide to
ASCE 7-05 for detailed discussion about this document.) Typically, each load type (i.e. dead,
live, snow, wind, etc) are expressed in terms of their service load levels. The one exception
to this is earthquake loads, which are expressed at strength levels. The individual loads are
then combined using load combination equations that consider the probability of
simultaneously occurring loads. The resulting combined loads and load effects from LRFD
combinations equations are given subscript of "u". A subscript of "a" is used to indicate a
load result from an ASD load combination. Particular to this text, a subscript of "s,equiv" is
used to represent the result of a load combination that is the simple algebraic sum of all the
individual load components.
Load factors are applied as coefficients in the load combination equations for both ASD and
LRFD. The resistance factor is denoted with the symbol , and the factors of safety with the
symbol . We'll see how they are applied below.
The other issue that seems to be conceptually challenging for many engineers is that, since
LRFD looks at the strength of members (i.e. the loads that cause failure) the "applied" loads
are "fictitiously" increased by a load factors so that they can be safely compared with the
ultimate strengths of the members. Throughout these notes and the specification loads that
have had LRFD load factors applied (and are higher than they will actually be) are
called ULTIMATE or FACTORED loads. ASD loads that are the result of ASD load
combination equations are also FACTORED loads. Loads at their actual levels are referred to
as SERVICE loads.
Comparing LRFD and ASD Loads
Ultimate or factored loads CANNOT be directly compared with service loads. Either the
service loads must be factored or the ultimate loads must be unfactored if they are to be
compared. This gets even more complicated when you consider the effect on load
combination equations. One method for comparing loads is to compute a composite load
factor (CLF) that is the ratio of load combination result (Pu or Pa) to the algebraic sum of the
individual load components (Ps,equiv or Ps,eq). The load combination with the lowest CLF is
the critical load combination. The computation of CLF is shown in Table DC.5.1.
Table DC.5.1

Composite Load Factors

LRFD

ASD

Pu = Ps,equiv * CLFLRFD

Pa = Ps,equiv * CLFASD

CLFLRFD = Pu / Ps,equiv

CLFASD = Pu / Ps,equiv

Where:

Ps,equiv is the algebraic sum of all the service load components (i.e. Ps,equiv = D + L +....)
and

CLF is the Composite Load Factor for each case.

Examples of this are given in the next section on load combinations since it is in the load
combination equations where the load factors are applied.
Putting it all together, the general form of the limit state inequalities can each be expressed
three ways. Table DC.5.2 shows how this is done for LRFD and ASD for four common
strength limit states. Note that each equation is equivalent.
Table DC.5.2
Limit State Expressions

LRFD

ASD

Axial Force

Pu < Pn
Req'd Pn = Pu / < Pn
Pu / Pn < 1.00

Pa < Pn/
Req'd Pn = Pa < Pn
Pa Pn < 1.00

Bending Moment

Mu < Mn
Req'd Mn = Mu / < Mn
Mu / Mn < 1.00

Ma < Mn/
Req'd Mn = Ma < Mn
Ma Mn < 1.00

Shear Force

Vu < Vn
Req'd Vn = Vu / < Vn
Vu / Vn < 1.00

Va < Vn/
Req'd Vn = Va < Vn
Va Vn < 1.00

Reaction/Resistance

Ru < Rn
Req'd Rn = Ru / < Rn
Ru / Rn < 1.00

Ra < Rn/
Req'd Rn = Ra < Rn
Ra Rn < 1.00

The choice of form is dependent on what you are trying to do. This will become evident as
the limit states are explained and demonstrated throughout this text. In general, the second
form (Req'd nominal effect < actual nominal strength) is useful when you are selecting (or

designing) member for a particular application. The other two forms are useful
when analyzing the capacity of a particular member.
LRFD Effective Factor of Safety
Another approach to comparing the two methods is to compute an effective factor of safety
for the LRFD method that can be compared with the ASD factors of safety. This involves
combining the load and resistance factors.
Let us take the axial force limit state to conduct a comparative example between ASD and
LRFD. You can divide through by the load factors to get an equivalent factor of safety:
LRFD : Ps,equiv < Pn ( / CLFLRFD) = Pn/ eff
Where the LRFD equivalent factor of safety is the term eff = ( / CLFLRFD). is a constant.
The composite load factor, CLF = Pu/( Ps,equiv), varies with the relative magnitudes of the
different types of loads. The result is a variable factor of safety for LRFD. In ASD this
factor of safety is taken as a constant.
It can be argued that the variable LRFD eff is more consistent with the probabilities
associated with design. The result is that structures with highly predictable loadings (i.e.
predominately dead load) the LRFD eff is lower than the ASD which results in a
potentially lighter structure. For structures subjected to highly unpredictable loads (live,
wind, and seismic loads for example) the LRFD eff is higher than the ASD which results
in stronger structures. The LRFD argument is that ASD is overly conservative for structures
with predicable loads and non conservative for those subject to less predictable loads.
Use of ASD and LRFD
Finally, you should be aware that you must select one or the other of the design philosophies
when you design a structure. You cannot switch between the two philosophies in a given
project! In this text we use both ASD and LRFD so that you can be conversant in both
but this is not the standard in practice.

Loads and Their Combinations

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 asbuilt 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 28) 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.

Comparing LRFD & ASD Results

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

ASD

Pu < Pn

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

ASD

Pu = CLFLRFD*Ps,equiv

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. Pu = 1.4(0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.35 Ps,equiv
2. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.6(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.70 Ps,equiv
3. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.425 Ps,equiv
4. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.425 Ps,equiv
5. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.0(0.50 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)=
0.925 Ps,equiv
6. 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. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.25 Ps,equiv
2. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + (0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.50 Ps,equiv
3. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.25 Ps,equiv
4. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.4375 Ps,equiv
5. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.70(0.50 Ps,equiv) = 0.60 Ps,equiv

6. Pa = 0.90(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.50 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.25

Ps,equiv)= 0.70 Ps,equiv
7. Pa = 0.60(0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.60 Ps,equiv
8. 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]

Figure 2.3.1
Comparison of LRFD & ASD Results

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 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 resul

How is Working Stress Method (ASD) different

from Limit state method (LRFD or LFD)?
Assumptions, Advantages and Comparisons
Limit state method (LRFD or LFD)
A limit state is a condition beyond which a structural system or a structural component
ceases to fulfill the function for which it is designed

Various limit states are

Strength limit states: With respect to strength in shear, flexure, torsion, fatigue, bearing,
settlement, bond or combined effects.
Serviceability limit states: With respect to deflection & cracking. The appearance, durability
and performance of the structure must not be affected by deflection & cracking, buckling, stability
Special limit states: Damage or collapse in extreme earthquakes. Structural effects of fire,
explosions, or vehicular collisions.

Design Assumptions and advantages of Limit state method

1.

Partial safety factor for material (m) for yield and ultimate stress.

2.

Working loads are factored (increased) as per partial safely factor ( f) causing Limit State
of strength.

3.

The design strength is calculated dividing the characteristic strength further by the partial
safety factor for the material (m), where m depends on the material and the limit state being
considered.

4.

Post buckling and post yielding plays important role in estimating capacity of structural
elements at Limit State.

5.
6.

7.

Deformations are evaluated at working loads.

This is based on the behavior of structure at different limit states ensuring adequate
safety against each limitation.
Tensile strength carried by of concrete is zero.

8.

9.

The stress block represents in a more realistic manner when the structure is at the
collapsing stage (limit state of collapse) subjected to design loads.
Does not obey Hook`s law

10.

It consider the variability not only in resistance but also in the effects of load. Concept of
separate partial safety factors of loads of different combinations in the two limit state
methods.

11.

Concept of separate partial safety factors of materials depending on their quality control
during preparation. Thus, mfor concrete is 1.5 and the same for steel is 1.15. This is more
logical than one arbitrary value in the name of safety factor.

12.

A structure designed by employing limit state method of collapse and checked for other
limit states will ensure the strength and stability requirements at the collapse under the
design loads and also deflection and cracking at the limit state of serviceability. This will help
to achieve the structure with acceptable probabilities that the structure will not become unfit
for the use for which it is intended.

Working stress method

1.

Since the specifications set limit on the stresses, it became working stress method

2.

Factor of safely for yield stress, allowable stresses are less than fy.

3.

Pure elastic approach for analysis of structures under working loads.

4.

Yielding or buckling never occurs at working loads

5.

This method is based on the condition that the stresses caused by service loads without
load factors are not to exceed the allowable stresses which are taken as a fraction of the
ultimate stresses of the materials, fc for concrete and fy for steel.

6.

It deals only with elastic behavior of member perfectly elastic at all stages of loading;
Stress-strain relations obeyHooks law (linear)

working stress method

1.

Tensile stresses are taken by steel only.

2.

The Modular ratio is well defined value independent of time which is not true

3.

Results in larger compression steel percentage

4.

Working stress method does not give reasonable measure of strength, which is more
fundamental measure of resistance than is allowable stress.

5.

Another drawback in working stress method is that safety is applied only to stress level.
Loads are considered to be deterministic (without variation). For example, Permissible
bending & direct compression are as fraction of crushing strength.

Best Answer: Limit state design is the procedure of designing structure with the limiting value of
structure's strength. all the calculation is done considering design strength of structuree .
design strength = characteristic strength/FOS
FOS( factor is safety) of 1.5 to 3 is a value which is divisible for characteristic strength and for
characteristic loading on the structure it is multiplied.
for design, limit state of flexure or bending, limit state of collapse in shear,limit state of torsion, limit
state of collapse in compression, limit state of serviceability is considered.
limit state design is based on principle that material strength and load magnitude are random
variables and there is no minimum strength of structure or maximum load on structure. so you may
assume limit state method is the probabilistic approach where structure is tested at design strength of
material.