31/7/2015 ASD vs LRFD
A Beginner's Guide to the Structural Engineering
Basic Design Concepts
© 2006,2008 T. Bartlett Quimby
Introduction
to Design Section DC.5
Theory
Design
ASD vs LRFD
Objectives Last Revised: 11/04/2014
Limit State When designing in steel and timber, there is choice of design philosophies that needs to be made. In
Concepts concrete the only design philosophy in extensive use is strength based (LRFD).
Searching for Steel
the Best
Design Before getting too deep into this section, it would be wise for your to read the AISC Steel
Construction Manual (SCM) sections describing the Load and Resistance Factor Design and
Allowable Strength Design philosophies as well as the section on Design Fundamentals. These
ASD vs LRFD are found on pages of 26 and 27 of the SCM.
Until AISC introduced the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) specification in 1986, the
Loads and
design of steel structures was based solely on Allowable Stress Design (ASD) methodologies. The
Their
shift to LRFD has not been readily embraced by the profession even though almost all universities
Combinations
shifted to teaching the LRFD specification within ten years of its introduction. Its seems that
Example there was not a perceived need by the profession to change methodologies even though there
Problems was ample evidence that LRFD produced structures with a more consistent factor of safety.
Homework Timber
Problems
References LRFD is relatively new to timber. It was explicitly included with ASD in the National Design
Specification with the latest edition of the specification.
Report Errors Concrete
or Make
[Link] 1/6
31/7/2015 ASD vs LRFD
Suggestions Because of the complexities of analyzing composite sections using working stress method, the
much simpler strength approach was easily adopted with it was first introduced. The strength
Make based (LRFD) method has been in use in the concrete specification ACI 318 since the 1970s.
Donation
There were two major differences between the two specifications:
1. The comparison of loads to either actual or ultimate strengths and
2. a difference in effective factors of safety.
Actual vs. Ultimate Strength
The first difference between ASD and Figure DC.5.1
LRFD, historically, has been that the old Comparison of LRFD/ASD Capacities
Allowable Stress Design compared On a Load vs. Displacement Diagram
actual and allowable stresses while LRFD
compares required strength to actual
strengths. The difference between
looking at strengths vs. stresses does not
present much of a problem since the
difference is normally just multiplying or
dividing both sides of the limit state
inequalities by a section property,
depending on which way you are going.
In fact, the new AISC Allowable
Strength Design (ASD), which replaces
the old allowable stress design, has now
switched the old stress based terminology
to a strength based terminology, virtually
eliminating this difference between the
philosophies.
Figure DC.5.1 illustrates the member
strength levels computed by the two
methods on a typical mild steel load vs.
Rn/ = ASD Capacity
deformation diagram. The combined
force levels (Pa, Ma, Va) for ASD are Rn = LRFD Capacity
typically kept below the yield load for the Rn = Nominal Capacity
[Link] 2/6
31/7/2015 ASD vs LRFD
member by computing member load capacity as the nominal strength, Rn, divided by a factor of safety, ,
that reduces the capacity to a point below yielding. For LRFD, the combined force levels (Pu, Mu, Vu) are
kept below a computed member load capacity that is the product of the nominal strength, Rn, times a
resistance factor, .
When considering member strengths, we always want to keep our final design's actual loads below yielding
so as to prevent permanent deformations in our structure. Consequently, if the LRFD approach is used, then
load factors greater than 1.0 must be applied to the applied loads to express them in terms that are safely
comparable to the ultimate strength levels. This is accomplished in the load combination equations that
consider the probabilities associated with simultaneous occurrence of different types of loads.
Fixed vs. Variable Factors of Safety
The second major difference between the two methods is the manner in which the relationship between
applied loads and member capacities are handled. The LRFD specification accounts separately for the
predictability of applied loads through the use of load factors applied to the required strength side of the limit
state inequalities and for material and construction variabilities through resistance factors on the nominal
strength side of the limit state inequality. The ASD specification combines the two factors into a single factor
of safety. By breaking the factor of safety apart into the independent load and resistance factors (as done in
the LRFD approach) a more consistent effective factor of safety is obtained and can result in safer or lighter
structures, depending on the predictability of the load types being used.
Load Combination Computations
The basis for structural load computations in the United States is a document known as ASCE 7: Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings & Other Structures. (See A Beginner's Guide to ASCE 705 for detailed discussion
about this document.) Typically, each load type (i.e. dead, live, snow, wind, etc) are expressed in terms of
their service load levels. The one exception to this is earthquake loads, which are expressed at strength
levels. The individual loads are then combined using load combination equations that consider the probability
of simultaneously occurring loads. The resulting combined loads and load effects from LRFD combinations
equations are given subscript of "u". A subscript of "a" is used to indicate a load result from an ASD load
combination. Particular to this text, a subscript of "s,equiv" is used to represent the result of a load
combination that is the simple algebraic sum of all the individual load components.
Load factors are applied as coefficients in the load combination equations for both ASD and LRFD. The
resistance factor is denoted with the symbol , and the factors of safety with the symbol . We'll see how
[Link] 3/6
31/7/2015 ASD vs LRFD
they are applied below.
The other issue that seems to be conceptually challenging for many engineers is that, since LRFD looks at the
strength of members (i.e. the loads that cause failure) the "applied" loads are "fictitiously" increased by a
load factors so that they can be safely compared with the ultimate strengths of the members. Throughout
these notes and the specification loads that have had LRFD load factors applied (and are higher than they
will actually be) are called ULTIMATE or FACTORED loads. ASD loads that are the result of ASD load
combination equations are also FACTORED loads. Loads at their actual levels are referred to as SERVICE
loads.
Comparing LRFD and ASD Loads
Ultimate or factored loads CANNOT be directly compared with service loads. Either the service loads must be
factored or the ultimate loads must be unfactored if they are to be compared. This gets even more
complicated when you consider the effect on load combination equations. One method for comparing loads
is to compute a composite load factor (CLF) that is the ratio of load combination result (Pu or Pa) to the
algebraic sum of the individual load components (Ps,equiv or Ps,eq). The load combination with the lowest
CLF is the critical load combination. The computation of CLF is shown in Table DC.5.1.
Table DC.5.1
Composite Load Factors
LRFD ASD
Pu = Ps,equiv * CLFLRFD Pa = Ps,equiv * CLFASD
CLFLRFD = Pu / Ps,equiv CLFASD = Pu / Ps,equiv
Where:
Ps,equiv is the algebraic sum of all the service load components (i.e. Ps,equiv = D + L +....) and
CLF is the Composite Load Factor for each case.
Examples of this are given in the next section on load combinations since it is in the load combination
equations where the load factors are applied.
[Link] 4/6
31/7/2015 ASD vs LRFD
Putting it all together, the general form of the limit state inequalities can each be expressed three ways.
Table DC.5.2 shows how this is done for LRFD and ASD for four common strength limit states. Note that
each equation is equivalent.
Table DC.5.2
Limit State Expressions
LRFD ASD
Pu < Pn Pa < Pn/
Axial Force Req'd Pn = Pu / < Pn Req'd Pn = Pa < Pn
Pu / Pn < 1.00 Pa Pn < 1.00
Mu < Mn Ma < Mn/
Bending Moment Req'd Mn = Mu / < Mn Req'd Mn = Ma < Mn
Mu / Mn < 1.00 Ma Mn < 1.00
Vu < Vn Va < Vn/
Shear Force Req'd Vn = Vu / < Vn Req'd Vn = Va < Vn
Vu / Vn < 1.00 Va Vn < 1.00
Ru < Rn Ra < Rn/
Reaction/Resistance Req'd Rn = Ru / < Rn Req'd Rn = Ra < Rn
Ru / Rn < 1.00 Ra Rn < 1.00
The choice of form is dependent on what you are trying to do. This will become evident as the limit states
are explained and demonstrated throughout this text. In general, the second form (Req'd nominal effect <
actual nominal strength) is useful when you are selecting (or designing) member for a particular application.
The other two forms are useful when analyzing the capacity of a particular member.
LRFD Effective Factor of Safety
Another approach to comparing the two methods is to compute an effective factor of safety for the LRFD
method that can be compared with the ASD factors of safety. This involves combining the load and
resistance factors.
[Link] 5/6
31/7/2015 ASD vs LRFD
Let us take the axial force limit state to conduct a comparative example between ASD and LRFD. You can
divide through by the load factors to get an equivalent factor of safety:
LRFD : Ps,equiv < Pn ( / CLFLRFD) = Pn/ eff
Where the LRFD equivalent factor of safety is the term eff = ( / CLFLRFD). is a constant. The composite
load factor, CLF = Pu/( Ps,equiv), varies with the relative magnitudes of the different types of loads. The
result is a variable factor of safety for LRFD. In ASD this factor of safety is taken as a constant.
It can be argued that the variable LRFD eff is more consistent with the probabilities associated with design.
The result is that structures with highly predictable loadings (i.e. predominately dead load) the LRFD eff is
lower than the ASD which results in a potentially lighter structure. For structures subjected to highly
unpredictable loads (live, wind, and seismic loads for example) the LRFD eff is higher than the ASD
which results in stronger structures. The LRFD argument is that ASD is overly conservative for structures
with predicable loads and non conservative for those subject to less predictable loads.
Use of ASD and LRFD
Finally, you should be aware that you must select one or the other of the design philosophies when you
design a structure. You cannot switch between the two philosophies in a given project! In this text
we use both ASD and LRFD so that you can be conversant in both but this is not the standard in
practice.
[Link] 6/6