7.

1 Design Methods (ASD and LRFD)

History
Allowable Strength Design (ASD) is a term used by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) in
the 14th Edition of the Manual of Steel Construction.

Allowable Stress Design philosophy was left unsupported by AISC after the 9th edition of the manual
which remained an acceptable reference design standard in evolving building codes (e.g. International
Building Code by the International Code Council). This presented problems since new research,
engineering concepts and design philosophy were ignored in the minimum requirements and references
in the aging 9th edition. As a result, structures that were code compliant based on design using the
Allowable Stress Design methods may not have been code compliant if reviewed with the Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) requirements - particularly where the LRFD procedures explicitly
defined additional analysis which was not explicitly defined in the Allowable Stress Design procedures.

AISC's Allowable Strength Design applies a quasi-safety factor approach to evaluating allowable
strength. Ultimate strength of an element or member is determined in the same manner regardless of
the load combination method considered (e.g. ASD or LRFD). Design load combination effects are
determined in a manner appropriate to the intended form of the analysis results. ASD load combinations
are compared to the ultimate strength reduced by a factor (omega) which provides a mathematical form
similar to Allowable Stress Design resolved with a safety factor.

This AISC Allowable Strength Design does not attempt to relate capacity to elastic stress levels.
Therefore, it is inappropriate to refer to the procedure or philosophy as either Allowable Stress or
Permissible Stress 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) 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.

Guide to Understand ASD vs LRFD

In today’s schools, I would go so far as to say that LRFD is THE method that is taught. I’m not saying that
ASD is a bad design; it’s just that ASD is an old-school method and LRFD is the new-school method.

Isaac’s Notes:

LRFD and ASD are both acceptable methods of design. ASD is easier to run but LRFD gives more
accurate solutions based on statistical data.

Allowable Strength Design – ASD

ASD involves the use of safety factors selected based on experience and judgement.

For example, let’s look at chairs. If we sit 500 pounds on a chair and it breaks, you now know the
nominal load of the chair. Is this what the manufacturer should advertise on the box of the chair? Hey,
this chair is good for a 300 pound dude to sit on! No, they shouldn’t because they want a safety factor
added to avoid lawsuits and other major issues that could arise. So as a manufacturer you’d say that the
maximum allowable capacity is 250 pounds. In other words, they’ve just introduced a safety factor of 2
into the design of these chairs.

Hence the equation Pallow=Pnom/FS

Now the question begs, what is a reasonable safety factor? Is two a good number? How about 1.5 to
save on material costs? What about 3 to make it even safer because some failed earlier in the year?
What is a safety factor that you feel good about so you can sleep at night?

That’s the problem with ASD–it’s really based on experience. If I had 20 years of experience in chair
design and I was designing chairs I’d have the experience to know what was failing and what was
working at certain safety factors. A new engineer might select a high safety factor and an experienced
engineer might choose something less because he/she knows that a higher one is overkill on the design.

This isn’t to say that the ASD design method is wrong or bad, it’s just a different way of designing. It’s
usually a much easier way because it’s based on experience, but there is a fair amount of uncertainty
involved.

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

Some of the advantages of LRFD are that it accounts for the statistical uncertainties that we’ve
discussed. It is also done through the use of reliability based methods.

The ultimate goal of using LRFD is to prove this – that your resistances are greater than the loads. It
might look like a crazy engineering equation but that’s really the gist of it.

Conclusion
ASD and LRFD have their strengths and weaknesses, but the industry is leaning on LRFD as we move
forward.

Comparing ASD to LRFD

The graph below illustrates the difference between the ASD and LRFD available strength values (right-
hand side of the equation) when using a simplified load-deflection graph for steel (but the concepts
apply to other materials too). LRFD has higher available strength when directly compared to the ASD
available strength.

However, LRFD uses load factors so it also has a higher “required strength” on the left-hand side of the
equation. Both methods can be used to keep material stresses within the elastic range but they are
different design methodologies and it is incorrect to say one is better than the other.

If the LRFD equation is thought of as:

We can, more or less, see a factor of safety emerging with LRFD. In this regard, LRFD arguably applies a
more rational approach by spreading out the safety factor to both sides of the equation, accounting for
uncertainty in loads (U) as well as uncertainty in material strength/construction methods (Φ). Therefore,
LRFD appears to be better equipped to deal with uncertainty because its “safety factor” is dynamic.

Comparing both on the same building design, the general consensus is that LRFD will result in stronger
structures for more highly dynamic loads and ASD will result in stronger structures for less variable
(more predicable) loads. However, in many cases the differences are not significant: both methods have
been used successfully for decades and are acceptable under the 2015 IBC.
Advantages and Disadvantages of LRFD and ASD