×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Strength design versus Allowable stress deisgn in IBC

Strength design versus Allowable stress deisgn in IBC

Strength design versus Allowable stress deisgn in IBC

(OP)
I have received a design from a contractor to review which is for a single storey steel framed warehouse (portal framed building).
He has used the allowable stress design load combinations (IBC section 1605.3.1) for the analysis and member designs. Generally for strength checks I always use the ultimate state combinations (1605.2.1) regardless of the building type, and use the basic load combinations for serviceability checks.

Is there anything in the code that will permit strength checks to be done using the allowable stress design method. Can anyone offer any advice on this?
Thanks

RE: Strength design versus Allowable stress deisgn in IBC

Either ASD or LRFD is perfectly acceptable for all designs. Generally you should not use a mix of both.

RE: Strength design versus Allowable stress deisgn in IBC

Yeah, don't mix both; that's asking for trouble. There's nothing wrong with using ASD with the IBC. If anything using ASD will be slightly more conservative.

About the only thing I'd be clear on is he should be technically using the allowable strength design (not stress). If he's using the 9th edition ASD (allowable stress design) then that wouldn't be acceptable.

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries
https://www.facebook.com/AmericanConcrete/

RE: Strength design versus Allowable stress deisgn in IBC

Quote (TehMightyEngineer)

If he's using the 9th edition ASD (allowable stress design) then that wouldn't be acceptable.

Well that is probably true in most all cases.

But if a city or jurisdiction has not updated their code in many years and the current, applicable code refers to the 9th edition then that is the legal, adopted and required specification to use.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Strength design versus Allowable stress deisgn in IBC

JAE, you're of course correct; I should have said "most likely wouldn't be acceptable".

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries
https://www.facebook.com/AmericanConcrete/

RE: Strength design versus Allowable stress deisgn in IBC

HMM, I still use the 9th edition, but most of my steel is governed by serviceability and I never design to the gnat's ass.
Are the changes significant?

RE: Strength design versus Allowable stress deisgn in IBC

In short; yes. Are your serviceability controlled designs going to fail any time soon; no. Should you switch if your AHJ requires anything beyond 9th edition; definitely.

You do mostly low-rise right XR250? If you're just sizing small beams and posts then you're not going to see much change. It's when you get into the second order effects for large structures and such things that the changes start becoming more critical.

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries
https://www.facebook.com/AmericanConcrete/

RE: Strength design versus Allowable stress deisgn in IBC

Yup, mostly low-rise and residential so I ain't gonna worry about.
Thanks for the info

RE: Strength design versus Allowable stress deisgn in IBC

One item from the original post has not yet been addressed. Even when using LRFD design, my thought is that serviceability (deflection) checks should always use unfactored loads, because ultimately I want to see the "real expected" deflection, and compare that deflection to the "L/___" criteria dictated either by code, by best practice given the circumstances/materials, or by client request, whichever is the most stringent. I don't want that "L/___" number to be based on amplified loads, because that will give me a skewed result.

I do a fair amount of LRFD design, but when laying out my calcs, I simply keep loads in unfactored form and then apply the load factors on the same line where I calculate moment and shear.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources