LRFD 1995

AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION
American Wood Council

Engineered and Traditional Wood Products

Load and Resistance Factor Design

for Engineered Wood Construction
A F & P A
Welcome to the Load and Resistance Factor Design seminar!
Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 1

A F & P A
Presentation Outline
> Overview of LRFD

> What stays the same as ASD?
> What changes from ASD?
> ASCE 16-
16-95 Standard
> ASTM D5457-
D5457-93 basis for design values
> AF&PA LRFD Manual Package
> Case Studies: ASD vs. LRFD
This seminar will cover these topics.


Overview of LRFD
A F & P A
Overview of LRFD

A F & P A
Design Process
Demand Capacity
Lets begin with design process. The underlying basic philosophy for
the process of structural design is that whatever demand is expected
from a structural system must be met at least by its capacity.

A F & P A
Design Process
Load
Support Conditions Demand
Geometry
Materials Capacity
Performance
Fire
Economics
Aesthetics
.
The structural design process fundamentally breaks down into five key
components. Others below the line are normally of secondary
importance to safety and serviceability concerns. The demand features
the type, magnitude, and placement of loads on the system and the
resulting actions on interaction with the systems formal geometry. The
capacity of the system is provided in combination by the judicious
choice of materials, section geometry, and an understanding of the way
the system behaves under demand. The subject matter of this seminar
will be dealing with the capacity side of the structural issue - featuring
wood as the material.

A F & P A
LRFD Design Concepts
Two Limit State concerns:
safety against failure or collapse

want statistical protection against failure
serviceability (performance in service)

want real-world measurable behavior
A limit state is the point at which the structure fails to serve its intended
purpose in some way. Two broad limit states can be identified for
structures: safety, and serviceability.

A F & P A
LRFD - Serviceability
Unfactored loads
Mean material strength values
Serviceability limit states appraise the structure in terms of its everyday

usefulness. For this reason, it is important to know how well the
structure is actually performing. A way of seeing this, is to consider
average material strength values in combination with real load
magnitudes in the measure of actual performance.

A F & P A
LRFD - Safety
Factored loads
Material strength values
Safety on the other hand can be thought of in statistical terms -

probability of failure, or conversely, survival. Using statistics, one can
appraise the safety of a structure in terms of measurable probability. In
the LRFD method, the tie to a statistical approach is achieved through
the use of load factors and material reference strengths modified by
reliability factors.

A F & P A
Property Variability
x
x = mean x x
x = standard deviation SCL
x
Relative Frequency
COVx =
x I-Joist
Glulam
Load MSR Lumber
Visually Graded
Lumber
Material Property Values
Lets look first at the capacity of side of the issue, specifically materials.
Here is a representation of the structural property variability among a
variety of wood products. The same statistical form shows up for all
other building products as well. Plotted here is the relative frequency of
occurrence against the actual property values from testing. Structural
testing in specific modes is performed on these products to produce the
data set that makes up these curves. Each curve (normal distributions
shown here) can be described by its statistical measures: mean,
standard deviation (a measure of the spread of the curve).

A F & P A
LRFD - Statistical Model
Normal Distribution Curve for Load or Resistance
Based on actual physical measurements - data sets
The normal distribution curve has the inherent property, that the area
underneath it equals 1.0. This conveniently implies that the probability
of occurrence equals 100%. From this, one can determine for example
the structural property value that is appropriate for 5% of the sample
population. It can also be determined how many standard deviations
(the distance) it is away from the mean. Note that at the 5th%
percentile, 5 percent of the samples fail at this property value, while 95
percent of the samples survive.

A F & P A
Normal Distribution Curves for Load, S , and Resistance, R
failure
Lets take two of these distributions: one for load (S), and one for
resistance (R); and plot them together. Each of the curves has its own
unique statistical description (mean and standard deviation values), and
may or may not have the same distribution type. Normal distribution
types are shown here, but there are many others, chosen to best fit or
model the test sample data points. Note that the resistance curve is to
the right of the load curve, and that curves overlap. The overlap implies
the region where load is greater than resistance, hence failure.

A F & P A
Normal Distribution Curves for Safety Function, Z
fZ = fR - fS
mZ = mR - mS
z = R2 + S2
mz
=
z
The overlap, or failure zone, can be represented in a more useful way.

If the load and resistance distributions respectively are normalized to
the same type, then a performance distribution Z can be created by
subtracting the load distribution from the resistance distribution. The
statistics of Z are determined as seen in the slide, as well as fZ itself. In
this plot, the area under the fZ distribution that falls in the region of
property values less than zero, represents the probability of failure of
the structure in this particular mode of testing. Now a measurable
probability of failure is available. It can be further described in terms of
the number of standard deviations away from the mean of the
performance distribution. The greek letter , known as the safety index,
is used to describe this multiple. Thus, is directly tied to the
probability of failure.

A F & P A
LRFD - Probability of Failure
Pf = one failure expected Pf

for x number of 5.2 1 : 10,000,000
structures designed 4.7 1 : 1,000,000
and built with a 4.2 1 : 100,000
given 3.7 1 : 10,000
3.2 1 : 1,000
2.7 1 : 100
2.2 1 : 10
For large values of , the probability of failure is very small. For small
values, the probability of failure is much larger.

A F & P A
LRFD - Range on
Range for Wood Strength
Low Typical High

2.4 2.6 2.9
Pf 1 : 25 1 : 63 1 : 251
These are the typical values used in structural design in many

materials, not just wood. It is interesting to note the corresponding
probability of failure. These are levels that designers have been
historically been designing buildings for.

A F & P A
LRFD Safety Design Equation
Demand Capacity
n

i=1
Q Rn

How is actually used in design? is actually invisible in the design

process. It is tied to two other factors: the reliability index (used on
the capacity side of the equation), and the load factor (used on the
demand side of the equation). To design for any demand with any
material to a target , it is prudent to fix the value of the load factor
(standardized values for all materials), and derive reliability indices for
various structural properties of various materials. This process is
known as calibrating the reliability index.
Calibration needs to cover all of the relevant factors such as the load
and variability of the member strength based on species, grade, and
type of application. Generally, the 5th percentile of the strength data
test data is used for the resistance side, while the load statistics are
obtained from extensive studies of structures in all climatic zones and
with different occupancies.

A F & P A
LRFD - Reliability Index Calibration
Example:
Bending strength
resistance of 2x8
lumber subjected
to Quebec City
snow load
A calibration example: the bending strength of 2x8 lumber subjected to

Quebec City snow load. What value would be appropriate for a target
of 2.6?

A F & P A
Find range on reliability index such that for fixed factored

loads, a target is achieved.
100 % data
In this - ( fixed) correlation plot, the Quebec City snow load is

modeled with a lognormal distribution, while the bending strength of 2x8
lumber is modeled with four different distributions that are fit as closely
as possible to a complete data set of full-sized test results.
To give a target of 2.6, would range from 0.55 to 1.0 depending on
which mathematical model is used for the resistance. This shows how
sensitive is to the assumed distribution type.

A F & P A
Example:
Bending strength
resistance of 2x8
lumber subjected
to Quebec City
snow load
Here is a cumulative probability plot of 2x8 bending strength. On the

plot is the complete test data set of full-sized specimens (In-Grade) and
two distribution models that are fit as closely as possible to the test
data. The test data comes from the 5th percentile MORs.

A F & P A
Example:
Bending strength
resistance of 2x8
lumber subjected
to Quebec City
snow load
Critical region for

matching distribution
type to test data
Careful inspection of the test strength data reveals that, while the 100%
distribution curve fits the complete data set reasonably well, the model
doesnt represent the lower end of the data set at all.
The lower tail is the most important portion of the test population since
the low strength members are the ones most vulnerable to failure.
Another distribution model can be chosen for use in the calibration to
better represent the lower end of the test data set (the lower 15%).
This will ultimately produce a much narrower range of values.

A F & P A
Find range on reliability index such that for fixed factored

loads, a target is achieved.
15% data
(lower tail)
= 0.85
gives
= 2.6 to 2.8
Re-plotting the - ( fixed) correlation using the lower tail model yields
a more satisfying result. In this case, the value of = 0.85 used for
bending strength is consistent with that found in the design code
equation.
The procedure to calibrate the code values with a probability analysis is

mathematically sophisticated, and is not typically a design issue. It is
useful however to be aware of the background to the design rules to
gain a better understanding of the issues affecting safety and reliability,
and in some cases to make rational decisions where the code does not
provide direction.


What stays the same as ASD?

A F & P A

A F & P A
Allowable Stress Design
Same basic equation

format
GE
AN
Same adjustment
CH
factors T
NO
Same behavioral
ES
DO
equations
s
minor exceptions (e.g.

es
oc
moment gradients)
Pr
formatted for
n
sig
compatibility
De
The engineering procedures for applying Allowable Stress Design

methods to wood structures are published in ANSI/AF&PA NDS-1997.
All model codes have used or referenced the NDS for design of wood
for literally decades, so many designers are already familiar with its
contents.
LRFD does not alter the familiarity. Many of the ASD features that
designers have come to know have remained the same: basic equation
format, adjustment factors, behavioral equations. The LFRD Manual
has been formatted for compatibility with ASD.
In terms of application of LRFD principles, design process does not

change much. The demand side requires unfactored and factored
(new) load calculations. The capacity side remains in the same form.
Procedural steps are essentially the same as ASD for various structural
components.


What changes from ASD?

A F & P A

A F & P A
LRFD vs. ASD
Two new notations - and

Design loads (factored) for safety are bigger
Design loads (unfactored) for serviceability
are the same
Material resistance values are bigger
Load Duration factor changes to Time Effect
Factor
These are some of the distinguishing features of LRFD.

A F & P A
LRFD vs. ASD
ASD
applied stress allowable stress
Theoretical safety
margin applied to
material stresses
Estimated
loads
Design
Load Adjusted
Resistance
Tested
material
strength
Design values
The way safety is addressed in the two approaches is fundamentally

different. ASD makes use of a theoretical safety margin that was
applied to material stresses. Controversy often surrounded the
theoretical safety margin its the lack of a rigorous basis of
determination. ASD also features the comparison of stresses in the
demand/capacity relations.

A F & P A
LRFD vs. ASD
LRFD Member performance

factored load factored resistance factor
Load factors to
account for
variations in loads
Estimated
loads
Factored
Design Factored
Design
Tested
member
Load Resistance resistance
Design values
LRFD features a statistical basis for a measurable probability of failure

and thus insures a measurable level of safety. Factored load equations
(with few exceptions) are standardized across all material groups.
Resistance values are only modified by a reliability factor that varies by
material and mode of use. In the demand/capacity relations, loads or
moments are typically compared.

A F & P A
ASCE LRFD Standard
Factored Load Combinations ASCE 7-93

1.4 D
1.2 D + 1.6 L + 0.5 (Lr or S or R)
1.2 D + 1.6 (Lr or S or R) + (0.5 L or 0.8 W)
1.2 D + 1.3 W + 0.5 L + 0.5 (Lr or S or R)
1.2 D + 1.0 E + 0.5 L + 0.2 S
0.9 D - (1.3 W or 1.0 E)
from any direction!
These are the six fundamental factored load combinations used for
safety analysis in LRFD. Reading into the symbology will yield what
kind of environmental event the structure is being exposed to. Many
more additional equations are derived from these when direction is
taken into account.

A F & P A
LRFD Safety Design Equation
Demand Capacity
n

i=1
Q Rn

This is the basic form of the demand / capacity relation for LRFD.

A F & P A
ASCE LRFD Specification
Resistance Factors
Compression 0.90
Flexure 0.85
Tension 0.80
Shear 0.75
Connections 0.65
The LRFD resistance factors (or reliability indices) for wood are shown
here for member properties and connections. The lower the number,
the more vulnerable the material in the respective mode. Since these
indices vary by material, and by mode of use, many designers exploit
the reliability index factors from different materials to get the best from
them.

A F & P A
Time Effect Factor

Dead Load 0.6
Occupancy Live 0.8
Snow Load 0.8
Wind / Earthquake 1.0
Impact 1.25
LRFD introduces a new terminology for time effect, formerly known as

load duration in ASD. The Time Effect factor is associated with
factors for various loads; replacing the ASD load duration factor CD.
LRFD also employs a new baseline of 10 minutes versus 10 years for
= 1.0.

A F & P A
tied to Factored Load Equations:
Load Combination
1.4 D 0.6
1.2 D + 1.6 L + 0.5 (Lr or S or R) *
1.2 D + 1.6 (Lr or S or R) + (0.5 L or 0.8 W) 0.8
1.2 D + 1.3 W + 0.5 L + 0.5 (Lr or S or R) 1.0
1.2 D + 1.0 E + 0.5 L + 0.2 S 1.0
0.9 D - (1.3 W or 1.0 E) 1.0
* Lstorage = 0.7; Loccupancy = 0.8; Limpact = 1.25
Reduced to 3 general factors: 1.0 for lateral, 0.8 for gravity, 0.6 for
permanent; this approach is consistent with international codes. By
prescription, is tied to the LRFD load combination equation used.

A F & P A
Impact of Time Effect Factor
Accurate, but not over-precise

Easier for designers
1.0 lateral
0.8 gravity
0.6 permanent
Consistent with International Codes
This method of dealing with time effect has advantages.

A F & P A
Application - LRFD vs. ASD
Beam Example - UDL Simply Supported

Q
A, S, I
L
DEMAND LOADS LRFD ASD
Safety wf = Q w=Q
Serviceability wL= QL wL= QL
Heres an example comparing the two design processes. Consider a

simple beam under uniform load, with given section properties. We
have a displacement limit state (maximum) of span/360.
Both methods require determination of the safety and serviceability

demand loads. Note the inclusion of the prescribed load factor(s) in the
LRFD demand safety load. The serviceability loads are the same for
both approaches.

A F & P A

Safety Limit State 1
SHEAR LRFD ASD
wf L 2 v Fv A w L 2 Fv CD A

2 3 2 3
demand capacity demand capacity

Prime denotes inclusion of applicable C factors except CD
Here we consider two safety limit states: shear and flexure. The
demand / capacity relations for shear for this problem are shown.
ASD modifies the capacity with the CD factor for load duration. The
LRFD capacity equation includes the time effect factor and the
reliability factor for shear v. Note that factored LRFD loads are used in
the demand.

A F & P A

Safety Limit State 2
FLEXURE LRFD ASD
wf L2 b Fb S w L2 Fb CD S
8 8
Prime denotes inclusion of applicable C factors except CD
The demand / capacity relations for flexure for this problem reveal much
the same in comparison
ASD modifies the capacity with the CD factor for load duration. The
LRFD capacity equation includes the time effect factor and the
reliability factor for bending b. Note again, that factored LRFD loads
are used in the demand.

A F & P A

Serviceability Limit State
DISPLACEMENT LRFD ASD
L 5 wL L4 L 5 wL L4
360 384 E I 360 384 E I
capacity demand capacity demand
The serviceability limit state considered here is maximum displacement

of span/360 under service load wL.
Note that both approaches use the same equation with very little
difference. The important note here is that LRFD uses unfactored
actual loads, just like ASD because you want a real measure of actual
performance.
In summary, the design process for wood has not changed. LRFD
requires the use of load and resistance factors that designers presently
skilled in steel and concrete design using LRFD already are familiar
with. But as will be seen, there are advantages to be gained with LRFD
in final section determination, especially if the problem is governed by a
safety limit state.


ASCE 16-95 Standard

A F & P A
The Standard for LRFD Design in Wood is ASCE 16-95.

A F & P A
AF&PA / ASCE 16-95: Chapter 2
Design Requirements
Reference conditions
dry use
normal temperature
untreated
Adjustment Factors
multi-part table
cover many products
numerical factors in product supplements
The reference conditions for wood design to this Standard are: dry use,
normal temperature, and untreated. Adjustment factors are applied (as
in ASD) to modify resistances for any conditions other than the
reference conditions. The adjustment factors are contained in a multi-
part table Table 2.6-1 that covers many products. Numerical factors are
also found in the product supplements.

A F & P A
AF&PA / ASCE 16-95: Wet Service
End Use
CM wet service
Ct temperature
C pt preservative treatment
C rt fire-retardant treatment
CM - wet service factor

A F & P A
Wet Service Conditions
30
25
Wood EMC %
20
Temp 30 deg F
15 Temp 70 deg F
Temp 130 deg F
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Relative Humidity %
Dry conditions of service are those in which the equilibrium moisture

content (EMC) of the wood in use will not exceed a maximum of 19%.
The graph, here, shows how wood in the right conditions of
environmental temperature and relative humidity can reach EMCs of
19% or more. This >19% regime is not only problematic for some of the
woods structural properties, but can also lead to early decay or other
durability problems.

A F & P A
Wet Service Conditions
110
%Strength at 12% Moisture Content
100
90
Impact Strength
80 Modulus of Elasticity
70 Modulus of Rupture
Crushing Strength
60
50
40
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Moisture Content of Wood (%)
Here graphically, in somewhat general terms, is what happens to

various structural properties of wood in the region of high EMC.
Decreases in the structural properties are noted, especially for the
crushing strength Fc.

A F & P A
AF&PA / ASCE 16-95: CM Table
Wet Service Factor CM
Fb Ft Fv Fc Fc E
0.85 1.00 0.97 0.67 0.80 0.90
The LRFD values of CM for Wet Service are identical to those in the
NDS.

A F & P A
Wet Service
Bridge applications like this, exposed to moisture, would require CM in

design. The designer needs to be aware of conditions that could
generate high EMCs.

AF&PA / ASCE 16-95: A F & P A
Composite Action
Adjustment Factors for Member Configuration

CC composite action
Cr load sharing
CF size
CL beam stability
CP column stability
Cb bearing area
Cf form
CE - composite action factor

Composite Action
CE composite action
1.00 nailed
1.10 nail-glued
1.15 joint-glued
NDS NDS
1997 2001
The LRFD Composite Action factor is not in the NDS 1997 or 2001
editions.

Load Sharing
Adjustment Factors for Member Configuration

CC composite action
Cr load sharing
CF size
CL beam stability
CP column stability
Cb bearing area
Cf form
Cr for load sharing applies to 3 or more members, spaced 2' o.c or less,
with a load distributing element connecting them.

Load Sharing
Cr load sharing
1.15 lumber
1.05 glulam; SCL
1.15 I-joists w/ VGR flanges
1.07 I-joists w/ MSR flanges
1.04 I-joists w/ SCL flanges
1.15 NDS NDS

only 1997 2001
Cr = 1.15 is found only for visually graded lumber in NDS 1997. The
LRFD Standard, as well as NDS 2001 now lists values of Cr for a
variety of wood products.

A F & P A
Load Sharing Example
This example of a 3-story Marriott is framed with numerous load sharing

members.

A F & P A
Compression & Bearing
Pu c P
c = 0.90
Compression & bearing: compression resistance must exceed axial

compression stress due to factored loads. Note that the highest wood
reliability factor c = 0.90 is based on relative confidence in
compression design values over other modes.

Column Design
1997 NDS
The 1991 NDS uses one equation for column capacity. Note the c
values for solid sawn lumber, poles, and glulam.

Column Design
Column Stability Equation Cp
1+c 1+c 2
c
Cp =
2c
- [ 2c ] -
c
same form as NDS 1997 and 2001!
The LRFD version takes the same form as NDS column stability
equation.

A F & P A
Column Example Axial Load only

Safety Limit State
COMPRESSION LRFD ASD
Pu c P P P
No CD !
Heres a column example comparing the two design processes. Both

ASD and LRFD methods require determination of the safety demand
loads. Note the inclusion of the prescribed load factor(s) in the LRFD
safety demand load.
ASD modifies the compression capacity with the CD factor for load
duration. The LRFD capacity equation includes the time effect factor
and the reliability factor for compression c. Note that factored LRFD
loads are used in the demand.

A F & P A
Column Example
Dead Load = 5500 lbs P
Live Load = 31500 lbs
L = 16 ft (each direction) L A, S, I
Ends pinned
Consider a pinned column under axial load, with given section

properties. This 16 foot unbraced column has applied dead and live
loads.

A F & P A
Column Example
DEMAND LOADS LRFD ASD
Safety Pu = Q P=Q
= 1.2 D + 1.6 L =D+L
= 1.2 (5500) + 1.6 (31500) = 5500 + 31500
= 57000 lbs = 37000 lbs
First we compute the demand loads for design for safety. LRFD uses
load factors applicable to the load type and typically results in a larger
numerical result that ASD.

A F & P A
Column Example Try 6 3/4 x 9 Glulam visually graded western

species, combination symbol #1
GEOMETRY
Section X-X Y-Y

Pinned end Pinned end
d = 9 in
Ked = 1.0 Keb = 1.0
b = 6.75 in
Ld = 16 ft Lb = 16 ft
A = 61 in2
Led = Ked Ld Leb = Keb Lb
L eb L ed
X-X Slenderness = max ,
b d
= 28
Y-Y
For this design, we try a 6 x 9 glulam (combination symbol 1).

From the section geometry, the cross-sectional area is found. The
column can buckle through the X-X or Y-Y directions depending upon
bracing present in each direction. It is important to check bracing
geometry and its relationship to section dimension. Here, the column is
unbraced over its entire height, so the column could buckle in the
direction of least section dimension (in the X-X plane here). Checking
the slenderness ratio gives us an appreciation for this. We want to use
the larger of the slenderness ratio with respect to the b and d section
dimensions. In this case, the least dimension direction, b, governs,
with a slenderness ratio of 28. This value is in line with what has been
called a long or skinny column.

A F & P A

SERVICE CONDITIONS LRFD ASD
Adjustment Factors
Load duration (normal) ? = 0.8 CD = 1.0
Use (dry) CM 1.0 1.0
Treatment (none) Ct 1.0 1.0
Size (glulam) CF 1.0 1.0
Incising (none) Ci 1.0 1.0
Next, we consider the columns environment. Any changes from the

base environment for the wood must be reflected in the adjustment
factors. Note the adjustment factors for load duration are different
numerically for LRFD and ASD; the LRFD version being prescribed by
the load combination equation used.

A F & P A

MATERIALS LRFD ASD
Fc 3720 psi 1550 psi

E E05 = 1,300,000 psi 1,500,000 psi
KCE (Glulam) - 0.418
c (Glulam) 0.9 0.9
f c (compression) 0.90
f s (stability) 0.85
For material design values, we can go to the Structural Glued

Laminated Timber Supplement for ASD, or the same title for LRFD (first
entry on page 14, Table 3.2) and extract the design values for
compression and MOE. For LRFD, we want the buckling, or
stability, or strength E (it has been called any of these) that is found
in the 5th percentile E column, E05. For ASD, we need the KCE
conversion factor for glulam (which part of a combination produces a 5th
percentile E value from a mean E). It is convenient now to also pull the
LRFD resistance factors for column compression and stability.

A F & P A
Column Example
CAPACITY LRFD ASD
Crushing Fc* = Fc Cm Ct Cf Ci Fc* = Fc CD Cm Ct Cf Ci

= (3720)(1.0 all) = (1550)(1.0 all)
= 3720 psi = 1550 psi
P0 = A Fc* A Fc*
= (61)(3720) = (61)(1550)
= 225990 lbs = 94162 lbs
The first limit state for columns is crushing: characteristic of short stocky
geometries. We compute the crushing strength in stress form as Fc*.
Note that the ASD formulation includes the load duration factor CD,
while LRFD does not. The crushing load is also computed as shown.

A F & P A
Column Example simplification for

rectangular sections
CAPACITY LRFD ASD

p 2E05Iy 2E 05 A K cEE
Buckling Pe = = FcE =
(K eL )
2
12 (Slendernes s)2 (Slendernes s)2
p 2 (1300000)(61) (0.418)(150 0000)

= =
12(28)2 (28)2
= 772 psi
= 80281 lbs
A Fc* = (61)(772)
= 47078 lbs
The second limit state is buckling: characteristic of slender geometries.

The column buckling equation is derived from the familiar Euler
formulation that is reflected in the LRFD expression for columns of all
geometries, but simplified further here for rectangular sections. Also,
the LRFD expression is formulated as a load through the multiplication
of the area term, A. Traditionally, the ASD expression for rectangular
cross sections is shown here computed as a stress. Note how KcE
wraps up the 12, pi, and E05 conversion terms of the LRFD expression.
The forms of both ASD and LRFD expressions are basically the same
for rectangular cross sections. Also note that the buckling load is
dramatically higher for LRFD than for ASD.

A F & P A
Column Example
CAPACITY LRFD ASD
sPe FcE
Cp c = c =
cP0 Fc*
(0.85)(8028 1) (772)
= =
(0.80)(0.9 0)(225990) (1550)
= 0.42 = 0.50
The slenderness of our column lies somewhere between the crushing

and buckling limit states. To find out where, we compute the Cp ratio.
Cp factors down the crushing strength based on the slenderness of our
column. Again, the forms of the buckling-crushing ratio ac are basically
the same for both ASD and LRFD. The values of Cp we come up with
are reasonable for and slender column a little on the fat side. Super-
skinny columns would produce very low values of Cp.

A F & P A
Column Example
CAPACITY LRFD ASD
1 + ac 1 + a c ac
Cp =
Cp 2c 2c c
= 0.39 = 0.46
c P = c P0 Cp P = A Fc* Cp
= (0.80)(0.90)(225990)(0.39) = (94162)(0.46)
= 64076 lbs = 43374 lbs
And the expression of the Cp equation is exactly the same for both ASD
and LRFD. Setting in the ac values gives the corresponding numerical
results. Finally we compute the capacity of our column using the
expressions in P at the bottom. Note again, the LRFD capacity value is
higher.

A F & P A
Column Example Axial Load only

Safety Limit State
COMPRESSION LRFD ASD

Pu c P P P
57000 lbs 64076 lbs 37000 lbs 43374 lbs
demand
0.89 0.85
capacity
Now we compare the load demands to the column capacities for each
method. Our trial column works for this design for both methods. No
doubt, LRFD has higher numbers, but we can see the approximate
equivalence in the two methods through the demand/capacity ratio.
The two ratios are close within the accuracy of design, with LRFD
suggesting that slightly more of the column is being utilized than ASD.
In extreme cases, this may lead to slightly larger columns sooner with
LRFD, which is conservative. Overall, the design process for LRFD has
not changed from ASD, but in fact is remarkably similar.

A F & P A
Mechanical Connections
Zu Z Z
Z = 0.65
Connection resistance must exceed factored loads. Note that z = 0.65

which represents the lowest relative confidence in design capacities in
wood. However, this reliability index is comparable to steel.

A F & P A
AF&PA / ASCE 16-95: Mode IIIs
NDS
k3 D t s F em
Z =
1.6 ( 2 + R e ) K
LRFD
2.08 k 3 D ts F em
Z =
( 2 + R e ) K
The LRFD yield equations also take the same form as NDS. Example:
Mode IIIs - Localized side member crushing, single hinge at each shear
plane in main member.

A F & P A
AF&PA / ASCE 16-95: Mode IIIs
In fact, the theory matched the test data.

A F & P A
Structural Use Panels
describes special reference conditions

provides basic panel definitions
Design values provided separately
in supplement
NDS NDS
1997 2001
The LRFD Standard and NDS 2001 is expanded from NDS 1997
coverage, describing special reference conditions as well as basic panel
definitions. Design values are found in the LRFD and ASD 2001 Panels
Supplement.

A F & P A
Shear Walls and Diaphragms
describes general design principles
Design values provided separately

in supplement
NDS NDS
1997 2001
Shearwalls and diaphragms, not covered in NDS 1997, are presented in

the LRFD as well as NDS 2001. Design values are found in the LRFD
and ASD 2001 Panels Supplement.

A F & P A
Serviceability Considerations
Provided as a home for future updating

Maintains current philosophy:
Controlling code conditions apply
In terms of serviceability, ASCE 16-95 maintains the current philosophy

of applicable code provisions to provide a home for future updating.
There are many unique cases where serviceability is the governing limit
state which require special treatment or conformance to limiting criteria
that the designer must consider.

A F & P A
Serviceability considerations for a roller coaster differ significantly from

a kitchen floor.

A F & P A
AF&PA / ASCE 16-95: Appendix A3
Ponding
additional guidance for design of flat

or near-flat roofs
not in NDS 1997 or 2001!
NDS NDS
1997 2001
Guidance is provided in Appendix A3 for the design of flat wood roofs to

avoid ponding. Ponding is not covered in the current NDS.

A F & P A
AF&PA / ASCE 16-95: Appendix A3
Example: 1 million square foot roof system for GE plant; good case for
ponding design.


ASTM D5457-93 Basis for Design Values

A F & P A
ASTM D5457-93 Basis for Design Values

A F & P A
ASTM Standard: D5457
Computing the
Reference Resistance
Values for Wood-
Based Materials and
Structural
Connections for
LRFD
ASTM D5457-93 Standard Procedure for Computing Reference

Resistance Values for Wood and Wood-Based Connections for LRFD is
beyond the scope of AF&PA or ASCE. This is the standard used to
determine and compile all the reference strength material data used by
the AF&PA / ASCE LRFD Standard.

A F & P A
ASTM LRFD Standard
Format conversion
ASD Values LRFD Values
To arrive at the appropriate LRFD material resistance values, there are

2 approaches: first is soft conversion from ASD.

A F & P A
ASTM LRFD Standard
Format conversion
2.16
KF =
s
Rn = KF f
Assuming a 3:1 live to dead load ratio gives the conversion factor of
2.16/f (where f is the ASD allowable stress). This relation allows soft
conversion of ASD allowable stress values such as those from NDS
Supplement.

A F & P A
Conversion Factor Comparison
Conversion Factor (Kc)
Roof Live
Snow
Conversion factor chosen = 2.16
Floor
Load Ratio
= Load ratios common for these applications
This Live/Dead load ratio was chosen to minimize impact on current

design practice. Under LRFD, roof strength capacities for snow will stay
about the same. Floor strength capacities will increase, which is OK
since they are typically deflection controlled. Roof strength capacities
will decrease for construction loads, which is probably OK since those
are being designed to the extreme limit in sun load areas like Arizona

A F & P A
ASTM LRFD Data Conversion
Format conversion
ASD Values LRFD Values
Reliability-based conversion
Data Sets LRFD Values
The second method (hard conversion) in the ASTM standard allows

calculation of design values using actual material test data sets.

A F & P A
ASTM LRFD Data Conversion
x
x = mean x x
x = standard deviation SCL
x
Relative Frequency
COVx =
x I-Joist
Glulam
Load MSR Lumber
Visually Graded
Lumber
Material Property Values
LRFD through the second approach will allow materials with lower
material property variability to take advantage of this characteristic in
the design process. This second approach moves toward true
reliability-based design (RBD).


AF&PA LRFD Manual Package

A F & P A
AF&PA LRFD Design Resource Package

A F & P A
LRFD Manual Package
This package is a landmark for the industry bringing together all design
information for wood products in one manual.

A F & P A
LRFD Supplements
Design Values
Lumber
Glulam
Panels
Poles / Piles
Connections
Supplements provide LRFD resistance values and information for a

variety of wood products.

A F & P A
LRFD Guidelines
Proprietary
I-joist
SCL
Trusses
Hangers
No Design Values
LRFD Guidelines provide information only on proprietary products and

systems.

A F & P A
LRFD Guide Makeup
I-joist
20 details
design / construction
applicable beyond
LRFD
For example, the I-joist guideline provides graphical information and

details on how these products are assembled into a system. The
guidelines are applicable to both LRFD and NDS.

A F & P A
LRFD Manual
Manual
6 case studies
20 design examples
40 connection details
AF&PA / ASCE 16-95
Industry Landmark
design information for all
structural wood products
The LRFD Manual is an all-inclusive document containing the ASCE

Standard as well as other useful background, example, and technical
information.

A F & P A
Los Angeles Reservoir Cover
Project profiles and case studies of projects designed with LRFD, as

well details on how designers met the challenges of these designing
these projects in wood are presented. The Los Angeles reservoir cover
is one project profile described.

A F & P A
Building Codes
Approval
SBCCI
ICBO
BOCA
ICC
The AF&PA / ASCE LRFD Standard is referenced by all model building

codes.


Case Studies: ASD vs. LRFD

A F & P A

A F & P A
ASD vs. LRFD
When we talk about ASD, we are referring to the NDS.

A F & P A
LRFD Benefits
Case Study
Glulam beams / columns
15% benefit
wind / crane / snow
ASD
D+L+W+S
LRFD
1.2 D + 1.3 W + 0.5 L + 0.5 S
The University of Maine Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Lab

was built with 30' glulam columns and 70' glulam beams. Refer to ASAE
Paper #984006 for details.

A F & P A
LRFD Benefits
Glulam Column
ASD
10 1/2 x 17 7/8
CRANE BEAM
30'-0"
22"
LRFD
10 1/2 x 15 1/8 25'-6"
LRFD resulted in columns for this project 15% smaller than ASD.

A F & P A
LRFD Benefits
Multi-Story Design
load combinations
headers / studs
up to 30% benefit
ASD
D+L+S
LRFD
1.2 D + 1.6 L + 0.5 S
Compare headers for this 2 story structure with roof and floor loads.
Multiple transient loads are treated with weighted factoring in LRFD, but
directly summed in ASD. This results in 30% smaller cross-sections.
Again, refer to ASAE Paper #984006 for details.

A F & P A
LRFD Benefits
Lumber SPF #2 30+10 (psf)

ASD 2 - 2x12
LRFD 2 - 2x10
40+10 (psf)
24'
In this typical 2-story building example, LRFD indicates 2-2x10 vs. 2-

2x12 #2 southern pine for ASD.

A F & P A
LRFD Benefits
Glulam 16F 30+10 (psf)

ASD 3 1/8 x 8 1/4
LRFD 3 1/8 x 6 7/8
40+10 (psf)
24'
Same example, but using glulam: LRFD indicates 3 1/8 x 6 7/8 vs. 3
1/8 x 8 1/4.

A F & P A
LRFD Benefits
LVL 1.8E 30+10 (psf)

ASD 2 - 1 3/4 x 7 1/4
LRFD 2 - 1 3/4 x 5 1/2
40+10 (psf)
24'
Same example, but using LVL 1.8E: LRFD indicates two 1-3/4"x7-1/4"
vs. two 1-3/4"x5-1/2" for ASD.

A F & P A
LRFD Benefits
Fire Design - Heavy Timber

ASD DCA #2, TR10
LRFD TR10
ASCE 7 - 95
1.2 D + Ak + (0.5L or 0.2S)
extraordinary event load
combinations
ASCE 7 - 95 permits load factoring for extraordinary event load

combinations based on probability of occurrence of live loads during a
fire.

A F & P A
LRFD Problem / Solutions Manual
40 examples
prepared by:
Dr. Steve Cramer, P.E.
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Dr. Dan Wheat, P.E.
University of Texas - Austin
To aid the designer, a Worked Problems Manual for LRFD has been
produced to guide the designer through 40 typical design problems.
The manual is formatted for ease of use, filled with graphics,
explanatory notes, and arranged in an easy-to-follow approach to
process.

Visit the American Wood Council A F & P A
@ Home
www.awc.org
Consult the AWC web site at www.awc.org for your first source for
wood information.
Or call the Help Desk at 1 800 AWC AFPA.

LRFD 1995

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

LRFD 1995

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION

American Wood Council

American Wood Council

Load and Resistance Factor Design

Welcome to the Load and Resistance Factor Design seminar!

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 1

> Overview of LRFD

This seminar will cover these topics.

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 2

American Wood Council

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 3

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 4

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 5

LRFD Design Concepts

Two Limit State concerns:

safety against failure or collapse

serviceability (performance in service)

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 6

Serviceability limit states appraise the structure in terms of its everyday

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 7

Safety on the other hand can be thought of in statistical terms -

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 8

Material Property Values

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 9

LRFD - Statistical Model

Normal Distribution Curve for Load or Resistance

Based on actual physical measurements - data sets

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 10

LRFD - Statistical Model

Normal Distribution Curves for Load, S , and Resistance, R

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 11

LRFD - Statistical Model

Normal Distribution Curves for Safety Function, Z

The overlap, or failure zone, can be represented in a more useful way.

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 12

LRFD - Probability of Failure

Pf = one failure expected Pf

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 13

Range for Wood Strength

Low Typical High

These are the typical values used in structural design in many

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 14

LRFD Safety Design Equation

How is actually used in design? is actually invisible in the design

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 15

LRFD - Reliability Index Calibration

A calibration example: the bending strength of 2x8 lumber subjected to

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 16

LRFD - Reliability Index Calibration

Find range on reliability index such that for fixed factored

In this - ( fixed) correlation plot, the Quebec City snow load is

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 17

LRFD - Reliability Index Calibration

Here is a cumulative probability plot of 2x8 bending strength. On the

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 18

LRFD - Reliability Index Calibration

Critical region for

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 19

LRFD - Reliability Index Calibration

Find range on reliability index such that for fixed factored

The procedure to calibrate the code values with a probability analysis is

Copyright 2001 American Forest & Paper Association 20

American Wood Council

What stays the same as ASD?