×
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

Steel Design - LRFD

Steel Design - LRFD

Steel Design - LRFD

(OP)

Anybody aware of any limitations on application of LRFD method in steel design?
I am not aware of any cases or situations that in steel design we are not allowed or prohibited of using LRFD method.
I appreciate if you know anything sharing.

Thank you
Skj

RE: Steel Design - LRFD

"steel design" is a fairly broad category, I'm sure there are many instances of steel design where LRFD would not be appropriate/applicable. First example that comes to mind is if you're designing lugs or lifting gear with ASME BTH-1.

RE: Steel Design - LRFD

(OP)
CANPRO (Structural), Thanks for response. May I ask has ASME BTH-1 clearly banded use of LRFD method for lifting gears or lugs design?

RE: Steel Design - LRFD

The ASME BTH-1 is based off of ASD checks, and therefore that is why you would not use LRFD to design stuff to that standard.

RE: Steel Design - LRFD

LRFD is only going to be applicable to the design of building structures or structures similar to buildings. Lifting lugs, pressure vessels, vehicle chassis, and other distinctly non-building structures would be an inappropriate application of Load and Resistance Factor Design. At least as spelled out in AISC 360. I imagine the general principles could be applied to other areas, but you would have to take a long hard look at the statistics used to derive the various factors, the level of reliability required, applicable failure modes, etc.

RE: Steel Design - LRFD

The pressure vessel and tank industries, possibly the piping industries, are allowable-stress, generally.

RE: Steel Design - LRFD

I'd say that anything that is a "serviceability" issue tends to be better dealt with using ASD..... deflection, vibration, etc. But, I don't think there is anything that prohibits the use of LRFD for the basic design and then service level loading for the serviceability limits.

RE: Steel Design - LRFD

As boiled down as I can think of: LRFD (in a sense) puts more emphasis on the 'uncertainty' of the applied loads, and more trust in the strength of materials and quality of workmanship, etc (as we would like to imagine in modern construction). ASD generally says that we know, more or less, what the applied loads are going to be, and discounts the strength of materials and quality of workmanship. For example, LRFD puts more 'safety factor' on live loads than it does for dead loads. This is generally applicable when designing buildings as there are both dead and live loads. When designing a lifting lug or something, there is pretty much just 'a load' being applied. So the LRFD load factors are not quite applicable to such a system as they would be in a larger structure - "is my lifting lug carrying a live load or a dead load", vs. "I have this load I need to support, lets take some capacity off the material side of this (i.e., safety factor). Hopefully that gives a better idea of why LRFD might not be appropriate for that type of component based design.

RE: Steel Design - LRFD

I suspect over time, LRFD will be used for lifting lugs, pressure vessels, etc. It has a more overall uniform treatment of stresses and forces. For specialised items, serviceabilty issues will be included, and this can be reflected in stresses, etc. In Canada, we've 'messed things up a bit'. LRFD is used with the same load factors for Concrete and Steel. They've fudged with the material property factors to give similar results that the old reinforced concrete load factors of LL=1.7 and DL=1.5 had, rather than deal with the serviceability. This is an added level of complexity that has been 'fudged' away by modifying the mpf. With the old ultimate strength design for concrete, you were pretty certain that the calculated ultimate strength was pretty close to test results... not so sure anymore.

Dik

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 - Addressing Tooling and Casting Requirements at the Design Stage
Several of the tooling and casting requirements of a part can be addressed at the design stage. If these requirements are not addressed at the design stage, lot of time is spent in design iteration when the design reaches the die caster. These design issues lead to increase in time and cost of production leading to delay in time to market and reduced profits for the organization. Download Now
White Paper - The Other Side of Design for Assembly
Assembly level constraints need to be satisfied before the design can move downstream. This white paper will go through the various assembly level issues, which need to be tackled by various organizations on a regular basis. Know more about DFMPro, a design for assembly software. 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