Comparison of ASD and LRFD Codes for Wood Members. I: Axial Loading
Publication: Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction
Volume 5, Issue 2
Abstract
A comparison of the economies of the structural design of wood members subjected to axial loads using the allowable stress design (ASD) and reliability-based [load and resistance factor design (LRFD) format] codes is presented. Analyses considered the combinations of dead load only and dead plus live loads due to floor occupancy, snow, wind, and seismic activity. Ratios of live-to-dead loads ranged from zero to 10. The relative economies of the ASD and LRFD codes show the combined influences of the time-related factors assigned to the various load types, load and resistance factor values, and live-to-dead load ratios. The behavioral equations in both codes are now virtually the same. Since the allowable material stresses of the LRFD code are equal to the ASD value multiplied by a constant, the resulting economies are not species- or grade-dependent. For tension and zero-length compression loading, the LRFD format provided the more optimal design for all loading combinations except snow and seismic loadings when the live loads exceed three and four times the dead load, respectively. For columns with the potential for buckling, the LRFD format yielded larger buckling adjustment factors for wind and seismic loadings than did the ASD code. For all other loading arrangements, the ASD format produced larger factors. For floor loading, a 20% average over the LRFD code was observed for very slender columns.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
“Building code requirements for structural concrete.” (1995). ACI 318-95. American Concrete Institute, Detroit.
2.
Ellingwood, B., and Rosowsky, D. (1991). “Duration of load effects in LRFD for wood construction.”J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 117(2), 584–599.
3.
Load and resistance factor design. (1994). American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago.
4.
“Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.” (1993). ASCE 7-95 (revision of standard ANSI/ASCE 7-93). ASCE, New York.
5.
“National design specification for wood construction.” (1997). ANSI/AF&PA NDS-1997, American Forest and Paper Association, Washington, D.C.
6.
“Standard for load and resistance factor design (LRFD) for engineered wood construction.” (1996). AF&PA/ASCE 16-95, American Forest and Paper Association/ASCE, Washington, D.C.
7.
“Standard methods of static tests of timbers in structural sizes.” (1994). ASTM D198-84, ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa.
8.
“Standard specification for computing the reference resistance of wood-based materials and structural connections for load and resistance factor design.” (1994). ASTM D5457-93, ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa.
9.
“Standard test methods for establishing clear wood strength values.” (1994). ASTM D2555-88, ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa.
10.
Salmon, C. G., and Johnson, J. E. (1996). Steel structures: Design and behavior, 4th Ed., HarperCollins, New York.
11.
Uniform building code, Vol. 2: Structural design provisions. (1997). International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Cal.
12.
Wang, C.-K., and Salmon, C. G. (1998). Reinforced concrete design, 6th Ed., Addison-Wesley, New York.
13.
“Wood handbook: Wood as an engineered material.” (1987). Agricultural Handbook 72, Forest Products Lab., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction
Volume 5 • Issue 2 • May 2000
Pages: 54 - 59
History
Received: Oct 28, 1998
Published online: May 1, 2000
Published in print: May 2000
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.