bgstructuralengineering.com/BGDesign/BGDesign05.

htm

A Beginner's Guide to the Structural Engineering

Basic Design Concepts

© 2006,2008 T. Bartlett Quimby

Section DC.5
Introduction
to Design ASD vs LRFD
Theory
Last Revised: 11/04/2014

When designing in steel and timber, there is choice of design philosophies that
Design needs to be made. In concrete the only design philosophy in extensive use is
Objectives strength based (LRFD).

Limit State Steel

Concepts
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
Searching for Factor Design and Allowable Strength Design philosophies as well as the section on
the Best Design Fundamentals. These are found on pages of 2-6 and 2-7 of the SCM.
Design
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 vs
(ASD) methodologies. The shift to LRFD has not been readily embraced by the
LRFD 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
Loads and ample evidence that LRFD produced structures with a more consistent factor of
Their
safety.
Combinations
Timber

Example LRFD is relatively new to timber. It was explicitly included with ASD in the
Problems National Design Specification with the latest edition of the specification.

Homework Concrete
Problems
Because of the complexities of analyzing composite sections using working stress
method, the much simpler strength approach was easily adopted with it was first
References 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:

Report Errors
or Make
Suggestions
1. The comparison of loads to either actual or ultimate strengths and
2. a difference in effective factors of safety.

Actual vs. Ultimate Strength

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

1/5
 Rn/ W= ASD Capacity
fRn = LRFD Capacity
Rn = Nominal Capacity

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 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 , M a , V a ) 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 , M u , V u ) are kept below a computed member load
capacity that is the product of the nominal strength, R n , 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
2/5
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 P a ) to the algebraic sum of the individual load components (Ps,equiv or P s,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

P u = P s,equiv * CLF LRFD P a = P s,equiv * CLF ASD

CLFLRFD = P u / P s,equiv CLFASD = P u / P s,equiv

Where:
Ps,equiv is the algebraic sum of all the service load components (i.e. P s,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.

3/5
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 P u < fP n P a < P n/ W

Req'd P n = P u / f < P n Req'd P n = P a W < P n
P u / fP n < 1.00 P a W / P n < 1.00

Bending Moment Mu < fMn Ma < Mn/ W

Req'd Mn = M u / f < Mn Req'd Mn = M a W < Mn
Mu / fMn < 1.00 Ma W / Mn < 1.00

Shear Force V u < fV n V a < V n/ W

Req'd V n = V u / f < V n Req'd V n = V a W < V n
V u / fV n < 1.00 V a W / V n < 1.00

Reaction/Resistance Ru < fRn Ra < Rn/ W

Req'd R n = R u / f < Rn Req'd R n = R a W < Rn
Ru / fRn < 1.00 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 : P s,equiv < P n (f / CLFLRFD) = P n / Weff

Where the LRFD equivalent factor of safety is the term Weff = (f / CLF LRFD). f is a
constant. The composite load factor, CLF = Pu /( P s,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 .

4/5
5/5