ASD vs LRFD

Last Revised: 11/04/2014

When designing in steel and timber, there is choice of design

philosophies that needs to be made. In concrete the only design
philosophy in extensive use is strength based (LRFD).
Steel
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 are
found on pages of 2-6 and 2-7 of the SCM.
Until AISC introduced the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
specification in 1986, the design of steel structures was based solely on
Allowable Stress Design (ASD) methodologies. The shift to LRFD has
not been readily embraced by the profession even though almost all
universities shifted to teaching the LRFD specification within ten years
of its introduction. Its seems that there was not a perceived need by
the profession to change methodologies even though there was ample
evidence that LRFD produced structures with a more consistent factor
of safety.
Timber
LRFD is relatively new to timber. It was explicitly included with ASD in
the National Design Specification with the latest edition of the
specification.
Concrete
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 based (LRFD)
method has been in use in the concrete specification ACI 318 since the
1970s.
There were two major differences between the two specifications:
1. The comparison of loads to either actual or ultimate strengths and

Figure DC.5.1
Comparison of LRFD/ASD Capacities
On a Load vs. Displacement Diagram

Rn/ = ASD Capacity

Rn = LRFD Capacity
Rn = Nominal Capacity

2. a difference in effective factors of safety.

Actual vs. Ultimate Strength

The first difference between ASD and LRFD, historically, has been that
the old Allowable Stress Design compared 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 AISCAllowable 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. deformation diagram. The
combined force levels (Pa, Ma, Va) for ASD are typically kept below the
yield load for the 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, R n, 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, thenload 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 7-05 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 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 (P u or Pa) to
the algebraic sum of the individual load components (P s,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.
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

Axial Force

Pu < Pn
Req'd Pn = Pu / < Pn
Pu / Pn < 1.00

Pa < Pn/
Req'd Pn = Pa < Pn
Pa Pn < 1.00

Bending Moment

Mu < Mn
Req'd Mn = Mu / < Mn
Mu / Mn < 1.00

Ma < Mn/
Req'd Mn = Ma < Mn
Ma Mn < 1.00

Shear Force

Vu < Vn
Req'd Vn = Vu / < Vn
Vu / Vn < 1.00

Va < Vn/
Req'd Vn = Va < Vn
Va Vn < 1.00

Reaction/Resistance

Ru < Rn
Req'd Rn = Ru / < Rn
Ru / Rn < 1.00

Ra < Rn/
Req'd Rn = Ra < Rn
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.
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 = P u/( 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.