×
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

LRFD (or LSD in canada) versus Allowable STRESS design.

LRFD (or LSD in canada) versus Allowable STRESS design.

LRFD (or LSD in canada) versus Allowable STRESS design.

(OP)
Hello, I'm having a problem converting myself between methodologies. Let me explain:

I'm a mechanical engineer who recently finished my studies, which were all in Allowable Stress Design (everything based on yield strength and safety factors). For different parts we would resolve force components into stresses and then apply some a criteria of Von Mises depending on what is required. (+ some safety factor). Now I'm working in seismic restraint design industry for equipements (such as chillers, exchangers, pumps, etc.) and the seismic force is LRFD or LSD force. My question is, can I take the LRFD/LSD force, use my university methodology to combine stresses (ex. T+V+Moment stresses) and then instead of using Yield Strength, use Ultimate strength, but Apply the reduction factor Phi listed in the code for a given type of the system?

So, am I doomed to only use all new formulas from CSA-S16 or AISC steel manual or there is some reasonably easy way of converting between the two methodologies? And also when I get to catalogs of small/thin channels or angles (12GA cantrusses, or 1/8" to 1/4") Do I simply take their maximum allowable buckling/shear/tension load and compare it with my LRFD/LSD force? Cause most of catalogs seem to specify allowable loads (or allowable design loads). It seems like im missing some step or conversion.

Thanks for your help!

RE: LRFD (or LSD in canada) versus Allowable STRESS design.

Using the AISC Manual it is straight-forward in that all of the equations for capacities are given in a nominal (or ultimate) capacity mode. Simply adjust by either the safety factor (ASD) or the resistance factor (LRFD) to get the actual capacity for the methodology you are using. LSD is effectively the same way although you will see the resistance factor in the body of the equation since there is only one choice. In general combined interaction equations are effectively unchanged regardless of methodology. You just need to be sure that the applied load and the capacity are expressed in the same methodology, i.e., don't use ASD load combinations to calculate applied load and LRFD level capacities. It used to be easy because you simply though of "without load factors" for ASD and "with load factors" for LRFD/LSD. Now that in the US both seismic and wind loads are defined as ultimate and you need a load factor to get back to ASD both methodologies use load factors in some fashion. Be sure you work with the proper sets of equations. While AISC equations are very similar to S16 equations there will be subtle differences on some. Your EOR or code official will be looking for the equations they expect to find, not necessarily the ones that you use the most frequently.

RE: LRFD (or LSD in canada) versus Allowable STRESS design.

I think if you take ajh1's suggestions above, but translate AISC's Allowable Strength Design to stresses, you might have a rationale basis for design.

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

RE: LRFD (or LSD in canada) versus Allowable STRESS design.

(OP)
Thanks.
So, just to confirm; Say I'm using LRFD or LSD and my factored load = phi(factored resistance). Does it mean that at this point my member is in the state of plastic deformation? Or it is in the elastic region? I find different answers, on some site someone said its in plastic, on other sites they say factors bring you back into elastic.

RE: LRFD (or LSD in canada) versus Allowable STRESS design.

I would say, No, you are not at plastic levels. The effect of ASD (without load factors) and LRFD/LSD (with load factors) should give the same basic stress levels in reality in your members. ASD uses a factor of safety, say 1.67, to cover all contingencies over working loads. This is generally viewed as something like 1.50 for excessive load application with the remaining 0.17 covering things like design errors, fabrication errors, and erection errors. LRFD takes an approach where the load factors in the combinations are blended based upon the likelihood of excessive loading (1.2 DL vs. 1.6 LL/SL) to give values similar to the 1.50 portion of the ASD safety factor. The remaining portion is the equivalent to the resistance factor and covers the error types noted above. The net result to the physical structure is exactly the same.
If in fact all of the loads actually existed on the structure including all of the overloads implied by the load factors, then you would be in the plastic area, but there is no more likelihood that those overloads would exist than that the 1.50 portion of the ASD safety factor would be taken up by overloading.

RE: LRFD (or LSD in canada) versus Allowable STRESS design.

Alexey,

The LRFD (and AISC's ASD) methods take quite a bit more into account than just von Mises stresses. Von Mises is just the failure criterion for yielding. There are also buckling (local & global), localized rupture, and other failure modes to be concerned about, especially in the seismic realm where you have to consider low cycle fatigue. Many of the AISC seismic requirements for slenderness ratios & plastic loads are there to minimize local stresses to prevent low cycle fatigue and to create plastic fuses.

As far as cold formed framing (if that's what you're using for light channels & angles) there's a completely different code for that in the USA. I'm not sure if Canada has a different code or not. The cold formed code considers more localized effects.

So, yes, I think you're doomed to a whole new set of equations.

RE: LRFD (or LSD in canada) versus Allowable STRESS design.

As far as I am concerned, you must be on LSD to use LRFD. But that has already been discussed before... bow

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: LRFD (or LSD in canada) versus Allowable STRESS design.

Canada uses the same cold-formed steel design specification as the US, AISI / CSA S136, with slightly different resistance factors. The specification cites safety factors for ASD and resistance factors individually for LRFD and LSD. The only option in Canada is LSD design, and yes, I chuckle at that same joke every time I work with the Canadian side of things.

RE: LRFD (or LSD in canada) versus Allowable STRESS design.

Canada uses the same cold-formed steel design specification as the US. In the US it is referred to as AISI, in Canada S136. The specification is written to cover ASD, LRFD, and LSD and provides safety factors for ASD and separate sets of resistance factors for LRFD and LSD. There are a few country specific requirements but for the most part it is exactly the same for both in terms of requirements.

RE: LRFD (or LSD in canada) versus Allowable STRESS design.

Excuse the duplicates. When I was typing this in this morning it didn't seem to be registering, so I had tried again, then gave up.

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! Already a Member? Login


Resources

White Paper - The Criticality of the E/E Architecture
Modern vehicles are highly sophisticated systems incorporating electrical, electronic, software and mechanical components. Mechanical systems are giving way to advanced software and electronic devices, driving automakers to innovate and differentiate their vehicles via the electric and electronic (E/E) architecture. As the pace of change accelerates, automotive companies need to evolve their development processes to deliver and maximize the value of these architectures. Download Now
White Paper - Model Based Engineering for Wire Harness Manufacturing
Modern cars, trucks, and other vehicles feature an ever-increasing number of sophisticated electrical and electronic features, placing a larger burden on the wiring harness that enables these new features. As complexity rises, current harness manufacturing methods are struggling to keep pace due to manual data exchanges and the inability to capture tribal knowledge. A model-based wire harness manufacturing engineering flow automates data exchange and captures tribal knowledge through design rules to help harness manufacturers improve harness quality and boost efficiency. Download Now
White Paper - Modeling and Optimizing Wire Harness Costs for Variation Complexity
This paper will focus on the quantification of the complexity related costs in harness variations in order to model them, allowing automated algorithms to optimize for these costs. A number of real world examples will be provided as well. Since no two businesses are alike, it is the aim of this paper to provide the foundational knowledge and methodology so the reader can assess their own business to model how variation complexity costs affect their business. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close