Landingin, Jaime M.  4  0   <br/><br/>
Comparison of load and resistance factor design (LRFD) and allowable stress design (ASD) versus actual load testing of built-up section /        6 
       6     
Jaime M. Landingin. 
 -   
 -     
 - xi, 66 pages     28 cm.     
 -   
 -   
 - 
 - 
 -         .
 -     .
 -          0   .
 -         .
 -  0       .
<br/><br/>   Thesis (M.A.) -- Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 2004.;A directed study presented to the faculty of Graduate School of Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Engineering (MEng) with specialization in Structural Engineering. 
<br/><br/>
<br/><br/>      
<br/><br/>   5 
<br/><br/>      
<br/><br/> ABSTRACT:  The study deals on the Actual Load Testing of Built-up Section, A36 Steel Beam, BH 200 x 24. The results were then compared to the theoretical calculations and analysis using the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) and Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method. A total of three (3) pieces built-up sections were tested using the three point loading technique.  The load reading at 6mm mid-span deflection was taken and compared this to the theoretical values using the two steel codes. The study shows that the actual average flexural loads at the 6mm central deflection were 17.02% and 24.32% higher than the theoretical values obtained using the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) and Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). This study reveals that both steel design methods and analysis are very safe based from the actual test results.  Finally, the research reveals that the theoretical values given by Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is closer to the actual load as compared to the Allowable Stress Design, and this is an indication that LRFD deserves a great attention by structural engineers and in the design of steel structures.       
<br/><br/>      
<br/><br/><br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> 
<br/><br/><br/>5     
<br/><br/><br/> <br/>   
<br/><br/><label>ISBN: </label>  
<br/><br/><label>ISSN: </label>2 
 =   
 =   
<br/><br/><label>Standard No.: </label>        
<br/><br/><label>Publisher. No.: </label>  
<br/><br/><label>Source: </label>        
<br/><br/><label>LCCN: </label>
<br/><br/><label>Nat. Bib. No.: </label> 2 
<br/><br/><label>Nat. Bib. Agency Control No.: </label>    
<br/><br/><label>Subjects--Personal Names: </label><br/>     2     --0------
<br/><br/><label>Subjects--Corporate Names: </label><br/>     6 --0-- 2 --------
<br/><br/><label>Subjects--Meeting Names: </label><br/><br/> 0    2 --
<br/><br/><label>Subjects--Uniform Titles: </label><br/>  --20------
<br/><br/><label>Subjects--Chronological Terms: </label><br/> 
<br/><br/><label>Subjects--Topical Terms: </label><br/>    --------20--
<br/><br/><label>Subjects--Geographic Terms: </label><br/>--------20--
<br/><br/><label>Index Terms--Genre/Form: </label><br/>----2
<br/><br/><label>LC Class. No.: </label> / 2 
<br/><br/><label>Dewey Class. No.: </label> / 2 
<br/><br/><label>National Agricultural Library Call No.: </label> /  
<br/><br/><label>National Library of Medicine Call No.: </label> /  
<br/><br/><label>Gov. Doc. Class. No.: </label>