A Beginner's Guide to the Structural Engineering

Basic Design Concepts

2006,2008 T. Bartlett Quimby

Introduction
to Design
Theory

Section DC.5

ASD vs LRFD

Design
Objectives

Last Revised: 11/04/2014

Limit State When designing in steel and timber, there is choice of design philosophies that needs to
Concepts be made. In concrete the only design philosophy in extensive use is strength based
(LRFD).
Searching for
the Best Steel
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
ASD vs LRFD
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.
Loads and
Their
Until AISC introduced the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Combinations
specification in 1986, the design of steel structures was based solely on
Allowable Stress Design (ASD) methodologies. The shift to LRFD has not
Example
been readily embraced by the profession even though almost all universities
Problems
shifted to teaching the LRFD specification within ten years of its
Homework
introduction. Its seems that there was not a perceived need by the
Problems
profession to change methodologies even though there was ample evidence
References
that LRFD produced structures with a more consistent factor of safety.
Report Errors Timber
or Make
LRFD is relatively new to timber. It was explicitly included with ASD in the
Suggestions
National Design Specification with the latest edition of the specification.
Make
Donation 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
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

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

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,
Rn/ W= ASD Capacity
depending on which
fRn = LRFD Capacity
way you are going.
R
n = Nominal Capacity
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. 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, W,
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, f.
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 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 f, and the factors of safety
with the symbol W. 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 (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.
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 < fPn
Req'd Pn = Pu / f < Pn
Pu / fPn < 1.00

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

Bending Moment

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

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

Shear Force

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

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

Reaction/Resistance

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

Ra < Rn/ W
Req'd Rn = Ra W < Rn
Ra W / 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 (f / CLFLRFD) = Pn/ Weff
Where the LRFD equivalent factor of safety is the term Weff = (f / CLFLRFD). f 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 Weff 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 Weff is lower than the ASD W which results in a
potentially lighter structure. For structures subjected to highly unpredictable loads
(live, wind, and seismic loads for example) the LRFD Weff is higher than the ASD W
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.