Comparing LRFD & ASD Results

Last Revised: 11/04/2014

LRFD and ASD loads are not directly comparable because they are
used differently by the design codes. LRFD loads are generally
compared to member or component STRENGTH whereas ASD loads
are compared to member or component allowable values that are
less than the full strength of the member or component. In order to
determine which design philosophy is more or less demanding (i.e.
results in larger members), it is necessary to "unfactor" the load
combinations using the material specific strength and allowable
stress requirements.
Also, there are times when you will know the capacity of a member
relative to a limit state and want to know what actual loads you can
put on it. In order to accomplish this task you need to "turn around"
the load combination equations and compute D, L, etc. To
accomplish this task, you will need to know the relative magnitudes
of the service load (i.e. actual applied magnitudes) components.
This tends to get extraordinarily difficult if your member has
multiple load sources (i.e. a uniform load, a point load, etc.),
however if you have a single load source the task is manageable.
This text uses a service level equivalent load, Ps,equiv (or Ps,eq), for
comparison of LRFD and ASD loads. The equivalent service load is
taken to be the sum of all service level load components extracted
from a particular load combination equation. The next section
illustrates this concept using the requirements of the 13th edition of
the AISC Steel Construction Manual.
Converting Load Combinations to a Comparable Equivalent
Load
The typical strength based limit state statement takes the form:
LRFD

ASD

Pu < Pn

Pa < Pn/

Where Pu and Pa are values of design loads that have been

computed using the load combination equations and the terms on
the right side of each equation represent the capacity of the
member.
For example, let us assume that we know the axial force capacity of
a tension member and that the applied dead load equals the live
load and the seismic load is twice the dead load. In other words, the
load consists of one part dead load, one part live load, and two parts
seismic load
For this situation, we introduce the quantity Ps,equiv which is the sum
of the service level load components. For our example:
Ps,equiv = D + L + E
Where
D = 1/4 Ps,equiv = 0.25 Ps,equiv
L = 1/4 Ps,equiv = 0.25 Ps,equiv
E = 2/4 Ps,equiv = 0.50 Ps,equiv
The quantities Pu and Pa can be related to Ps,equiv by a composite load
factor (CLF) that is derived from the load combination equations
and the relative values of the individual load components.
LRFD

ASD

Pu = CLFLRFD*Ps,equiv

Pa = CLFASD*Ps,equiv

The composite load factor is then computed for each load case. The
largest CLF will be from the controlling load case.
For our example, using the LRFD load cases:
1. Pu = 1.4(0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.35 Ps,equiv

2. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.6(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.70 Ps,equiv

3. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.425 Ps,equiv
4. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.425 Ps,equiv
5. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.0(0.50 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)=
0.925 Ps,equiv
6. Pu = 0.9(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.0(0.50 Ps,equiv)= 0.725 Ps,equiv
The controlling CLFLRFD in this case is from LRFD LC5 and is 0.925.
With the CLFLRFD we can now find the allowable magnitudes of D, L,
and E.
Maximum Pu = 0.925 Ps,equiv < Pn
Ps,equiv < (Pn)/0.925
From this we can compute the service level magnitudes for D, L, and
E, by substituting [(Pn)/0.925] in for Ps,equiv.
D < 0.25 [(Pn)/0.925]
L < 0.25 [(Pn)/0.925]
E < 0.50 [(Pn)/0.925]
Doing same thing for the eight ASD load combinations equations
listed in the SCM we get:
1. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.25 Ps,equiv
2. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + (0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.50 Ps,equiv
3. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.25 Ps,equiv
4. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.4375 Ps,equiv
5. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.70(0.50 Ps,equiv) = 0.60 Ps,equiv
6. Pa = 0.90(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.50 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.25 Ps,equiv)=
0.70 Ps,equiv

7. Pa = 0.60(0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.60 Ps,equiv

8. Pa = 0.60(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.70(0.50 Ps,equiv) = 0.50 Ps,equiv

The controlling CLFASD in this case is from ASD LC6 and is 0.70. With
the CLFASD we can now find the allowable magnitudes of D, L, and E.
0.70 Ps,equiv < Pn/
Ps,equiv < (Pn/ )/0.70
From this we can compute the service level magnitudes for D, L, and
E:
D < 0.25 (Pn/ )/0.70
L < 0.25 (Pn/ )/0.70
E < 0.50 (Pn/ )/0.70
The controlling composite load factor, CLFASD, can be easily
computed using the same spreadsheet you would use for computing
all the load combinations simply by putting in the coefficients for the
various load types in a single load source column.
Comparing ASD vs. LRFD Loads
Consider a steel tension member that has a nominal axial capacity,
Pn, and is subjected to a combination of dead and live loads. We will
use = 0.9 and = 1.67 for now.
The LRFD and ASD factored loads are not directly comparable as the
combination equations use different load factors in each case. We
can compare them at service levels by computing an equivalent
service load from each combination.
For this problem, Ps,equiv equals the algebraic sum of D and L:
Ps,equiv = D + L

ASD
The controlling ASD load combination equation in this case is ASDLC2:
Pa = 1.0*D +1.0*L = 1.0*(D+L) = 1.0*Ps,equiv
We can now determine the equivalent total load allowed by ASD by
using the design inequality:
Ps,equiv < Pn/
Ps,equiv < Pn/1.67 = 0.60 Pn
Ps,equiv / Pn < 0.60

LRFD
The controlling LRFD load combination equation in this case is LRFDLC2:
Pu = 1.2D +1.6L
We make the following definitions:
D = (X%)Ps,equiv
L = (1-X%)Ps,equiv
Where X is the percentage of Ps,equiv that is dead load. Substituting
these definitions into the load combination equation you get:
Pu = 1.2(X)Ps,equiv+1.6(1-X)Ps,equiv = [1.6 - 0.4X]Ps,equiv
Ps,equiv = Pu/[1.6-0.4X]
The term, [1.6 - 0.4X] is a composite load factor that is dependent
on the proportion of dead load that makes up the service load.

Similar "composite load factors" can be developed for other load

combination equations.
Substituting the above expression into the LRFD version of the
design inequality, we get
Pu < Pn
[1.6 - 0.4X]Ps,equiv < Pn
Ps,equiv < Pn / [1.6 - 0.4X]
Ps,equiv < 0.90 Pn / [1.6 - 0.4X]
Ps,equiv / Pn < 0.90 / [1.6 - 0.4X]

Comparison
We can now compare the results by graphing the resulting equations
for Ps,equiv/ Pn. Figure 2.3.1 shows the compared load limits based on
percentage dead load.
From Figure 2.3.1 you can see that, for this case, whenever the total
service load is 25% dead load or less that the AISC ASD method
gives greater capacity (i.e. it allows more actual load on the
structure). Otherwise the AISC LRFD method is advantageous.
The variable factor of safety associated with the LRFD method is
considered to be more consistent with probability since structures
that have highly predictable loads (i.e. a large portion of the total
load is dead load in this case) don't require the same factor of safety
as structures subjected to loads that are not very predictable (such
as live load in this case). So, in the given case, a structure that is
subjected to predominately live loads (D < 25% of total load)
requires a greater factor of safety than is provided by the ASD
method.

Note that the use of other load combination equations will yield
different results.

Figure 2.3.1
Comparison of LRFD & ASD Results