Home Forums Structural Engineers A ctivities Structural engineering other technical topics Forum

Explain ASD vs LRFD to a dumb ME 11

thread507-208740

Can someone explain in really simple terms the difference between ASD and LRFD? ASD seems easier but is it going away?

I was reading through the new AISC Steel Construction Manual about the two methodologies and, aside from the different load
combinations, was having a hard time seeing a clear distinction between the two.

Replies continue below

Professional Engineering to Science: So you have a Ph.D. in Digimat Determines

Development for You Complete Me engineering any other Material
Engineering Students qualifications Characterization of
Highlights Rising Stars Continuous Fiber
Conference Reinforced Composites

The traditional difference is using service load stresses against an Allowable Stress for ASD or using factored load forces against a
maximum Strength for LRFD.
ASD has changed from Allowable Stress Design to Allowable Strength Design. There used to be different equations for ASD and LRFD
(they were completely different specs), but now there is one equation for design strengths that are divided by a safety factor, omega,
for ASD and multiplied by a strength reduction factor, phi, for LRFD.
The only real difference now is that ASD provides a constant factor of safety for all designs regardless of load types while LRFD provides
a higher factor of safety on the loads that are less well defined (1.6 LL factor compared to a 1.2 DL factor). At a LL/DL ratio < 3, ASD is
more conservative, at a LL/DL ration = 3, it is a wash, and at a LL/DL ratio > 3 LRFD is more conservative.
Any additional questions, please ask.

It really boils down to how you apply a safety factor to the design of members.

OK - my stupid analogy:

You have a small stream and need a log to drop over the stream so your ballet cow can dance across it. The log needs to be strong
enough not to break under the weight of your cow and it needs to be stiff enough so the log won't sag too much under her weight.

Cow weighs 500 lbs. Log spans 15 feet.

ASD
You know that the wood of your log can be stressed to 1000 psi before it breaks. So you need to find a log large enough so that the
wood is not stressed to 1000 psi. In fact, you want to limit the stress with some safety factor to make sure that you are OK.

So you find a log large enough such that the stress is limited to only 600 psi. (i.e. your maximum allowable stress is 0.6 x 1000 = 600
psi.)

So you have a safety factor against failure of 1/0.6 = 1.67.

The equation looks like this:

fb = Stress from weight of cow

R = Strength of log
0.6 = safety factor
 0.6 x R > fb

LRFD

You still know that the log can be stressed to 1000 psi before it breaks. You also know that the weight of the cow used to find the
stress in the log might be plus or minus a few pounds. So because of this uncertainty you apply a safety factor to the weight of the
cow -say 1.6. Also, you know that the 1000 psi limit varies a bit with different logs so you apply a little safety factor to it - say reduce
the 1000 psi to 900 psi just to be safe. (i.e. 0.9 factor)

So you find a log big enough so that it will theoretically break when a 1600 lb cow is placed on it and you only count on 90% of its
strength.

So the equation looks like this:

fb = Stress from weight of cow

R = Strength of log
0.9 = resistance factor
1.6 = load factor

0.9 x R > 1.6 x fb

What LRFD gives you that ASD doesn't is the ability to use different load factors (the 1.6) depending on the variability of the load. Dead
loads you usually know pretty well. Live loads vary all over the place.

Also, the resistance factor can be varied depending on the variability of the strength estimates that exist with different materials and
different failure modes. Abrupt, highly variable failures need lower resistance factors
while flexible, ductile failure modes can have higher factors.

I've used stress in my LRFD example, but most LRFD specifications use moment, shear, or force variables instead of stress.

LRFD allows proper, balanced statistical probabilities of failure while ASD has a single safety factor independent of how well you know
your cow.

It really boils down more to a statistical probability of failure.

In ASD you treat dead and live loads equally. For example, if you have a case where your dead to live load is 1 to 1 (say 200 kips dead
and 200 kips live) the safety factor would be exactly the same as if your dead to live ratio was 1 to 3 (say 100 kips dead and 300 kips
live) given the same total load.

LRFD recognizes the inherent unpredictability of loads and assigns a much higher "factor of safety" to live loads (we increase them by
1.6), whereas it recognizes that dead loads are most likely much closer to what you calculate (we only multiply dead loads by 1.2).

By the same token, LRFD also recognizes the uncertainty of different failure modes. For example, flexural capacity of a concrete beam is
fairly predictable; therefore we count on 90% of the theoretical value. Shear in concrete, on the other hand is much less predictable;
therefore, we only count on 70% of the value. I believe ASD also recognizes this to some extent, by applying different factors of
safety to different failure modes, but I only really worked ASD for a few months, so I don't remember.

When all is said and done, you design so that the decreased member capacity with which you rely exceeds the capacity required by the
factored loads.

In ASD you take the total loads that you expect on the structure and apply a single factor of safety to the members (say 2) regardless of
the nature of the load.

It's worth mentioning that in the steel code (AISC), the publication of the 13th edition of the code attempts to unify the two. The way
they did this was to calibrate load factors and resistance factors so that ASD and LRFD would yield the same factor of safety at a certain
dead to live load ratio (don't quote me on this, but I believe it's 1 to 2).

My apologies for the length of this post.

As JAE mentioned above, another reason that certain failure modes are "penalized" more harshly than others is because we want
failures to be ductile. A beam that's failing due to excessive flexural stress tends to give a lot of warning (you see walls cracking and
doors not closing, etc.)

A shear failure on the other hand is brittle. Unless you actually see the beam and see some shear cracks forming, you really wouldn't be
able to see anything going on in your structure before it fails (assuming it was over loaded). As a result, you go the extra mile to avoid
these failures and you do so by reducing their theoretical capacity by a higher amount than you do for ductile modes of failure.

A significant difference is that you can look at a structure as a complete item and apply a more uniform factor of safety (not to be
confused with a safety factor) to the overall structure. This you can do with LRFD. LRFD gives a better appreciation of the manner of
failure and loading.

Dik

I hate how they cram LRFD down your throat in school. ASD is easier to use and generally more conservative.

abusemantpark-

They "cram" LRFD down your throat because all the major codes are moving this way. As dik mentioned, it provides a more uniform
(and consequently reliable) factor of safety.

As for more conservative, that entirely depends on the dead to live ratio. As I mentioned in my previous post, ASD and LRFD were
calibrated at a specific dead to live ratio (I believe 1 to 2). At this ratio the true factor of safety is the same. If your dead to live ratio is
lower than 1 to 2 (that is, more dead load) then yes, ASD is more conservative. However, at anything above this ratio, LRFD is more
conservative (as it places more uncertainty on live load).

I'm not knocking ASD- I know it's been used for many years quite successfully. But LRFD is not entirely without merit.

I hadn't read Structural EIT's post- I'll take his word for it and say the ratio is 3 to 1.

frv, StrlEIT is correct about the breakeven being at 3. I think this is in Part 2 of the Manual.

I like to think of it as large L/D --> use ASD because it's more economical. Then again, I'm a metal bldg systems guy at heart, LOL.

JAE:

I take it that the .9 resistance factor allows for the milked cow condition?

Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

No.. the .9 is for the rotten wood. The 1.6 is for the miled cow :) Define the milked cow.. the milk has been milked out or is it full of
milk? The 1.6 is just in case they have a pregnant cow.

Not almost anymore!

We generally refer to the 0.9 as the material property factor; it varies from a low of about 0.65.

It depends on the type of material and the type of force and is lower for materials and the type of forces that have a greater 'scatter' of
test results. It's to make up for uncertainties of how things 'behave'.

In 1965, we were the first engineering class at the U of Manitoba to deal exclusively with 'Limit States' design, the precursor to LRFD
and consequentially 'Working Stress' design (ASD) was only touched on for historic reasons. So, it's been around for a while (40 years).

Dik

The 0.9 is the "R" in LRFD (Resistance Factor); the 1.6 is "L" (Load Factor)

Yes, the 0.9 ( factor is to account for the following variations in the log:

Varation in:
Depth of log
Width of log
Strength of the wood
Whether there were termites in the log
The span length
The accuracy of the equations that tell us what the log will support.
The 1.6 load factor accounts for variations in:
The cows weight - I guess it depends on milked/not-milked and pregnant/not-pregnant but let's not forget the steroid question.

Is terminology being fiddled with again? Dik, you said the phi factor is "material property factor", but it has been "capacity reduction
factor" to me since 1963.

hokie66-

I believe it actually stands for "resistance factor" as in Load and Resistance Factor Design.

I think dik is in Canada and the term used up there may be different than the AISC term "resistance" factor or capacity reduction
factor.

The term "material property" factor is a bit misleading because it not only responds to variability in material properties but also
geometric property variations (i.e. variability in depth, width, location of rebar, diameter of bars, thickness of flanges).

Oh well, I am in Australia, and now that I think of it, the term here is supposed to be "strength reduction factor" now, but most of us
old hands still call it "capacity reduction factor".

a rose by any other name...

I thought the resistance factor was only applied to mules, not cows.

Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

msquared.. I think you refering to importance factor. I think cows are more important than mules though.

Not almost anymore!

There are a couple of important things to realize.

1.) The ASD Manual (the Green Book) has not been updated since 1989. The specificatyion part of it has not been updated since the
70s. All current research has been conducted using limit stares design.

2.) In ASD, the factor of safety is based on probability for (3) itesm.(A), the probaibility of errors in erection, (B) the probability of errors
in manufacturing, and (C) the probability of errors in the "simplified" mathmatical equations we use. By the time the building is in
service, these probablilities are have been accounted for and there is really no factor of safety any more.

3.) If you really read the Seismic manual, you have to use LRFD anyway.

4.) In reality, as stated above, ASD does not exist anymore. It is now strength design, which in essence is LRFD, just with the factors
moved aroud to make the old method seem like it is still there.

Pretty soon we will be having the same conversation about concrete and the ACI's method of using compatibility instead of balanced
steel. Those of you using 1.6 and 1.2 in Concrete and not performing a compatibility analysis to determine tesion / compression control
are not doing your calculations correctly.

Have fun!

The phi factor is typically referred to as a "strength reduction factor" in Canadian codes. I refer to it as a material reduction factor
because I think of it as a factor that reduces the published strength due to uncertainties related to the material and type of
loading. For example, wood, steel and concrete can have different phi factors for shear... or a different value for bolt shear as opposed
to a steel section.

Dik

VTPE - I doin't believe the original source for the 0.6Fy factor in ASD really had much to do with probability. It developed over the
years as a feel good level of safety, from the gut, that over time has been confirmed as a pretty good level.
Your statement number 2 implies that ASD is not as safe as LRFD, which is not true in simplistic terms. In fact, much of the statistical
analysis done by Galambos and Bruce Ellingwood many times calibrates the load-factor/phi-factor level of safety to that of the traditional
ASD safety factors.

With very high live load to dead load ratios, LRFD will result in heavier members than ASD and with low ratios the resulting designs are
heavier with ASD.

ASD exists in the latest AISC manual and uses one factor, replicating what the 9th edition of the AISC ASD manual used, but also
incorporating the latest research.

ASD simply doesn't reflect at all the variations in loads and resistance factors and so provides a variable probability of failure while
LRFD's probability of failure is much more constant with different loading conditions and with different materials.

I use LRFD all the time now (grew up on ASD).

VTPE:

The old ASD (allowable stress design) is the same as the new ASD (allowable strength design). The difference is it now has you check
the strength (P, M, etc) as opposed to a stress (fb, fc, etc). That is the only difference to the approach, which really isn't a difference at
all. The equations have changed because there has been much research since the last ASD specification.

I've studied all of the supposed benefits of LRFD over ASD, and I don't see it. For my money, I'm using ASD all day long. The
frustrating part of LRFD is you still have to run the service load combinations to check serviceability of the structure. Why do two
analyses when one will check both strength and serviceability? Maybe you can lighten up your members a little for certain cases with
LRFD, but I don't design that close anyway, so where's the benefit?

Thanks for all the replies everyone. The cow example was especially helpful.

nutte, I have one proposed benefit. I'm inclined to think that Allowable Strength Design is only a temporary part of the Spec. and will
vanish in a Spec. or two. The hottest research topics right now are all probabilistic and reliability-based. Researchers WANT the
strength and loads separated to make future enhancements possible and/or easier.

I personally don't see the big deal in using LRFD, so might as well go that direction and get used to it. Just my $0.02

271828-

You're absolutely right. The reason they included a combined specification was to try to coax everyone into LRFD. My steel professor
even seemed a bit disappointed that they included ASD at all in the Specification.

I'd guess that the metal bldg folks played a big part in keeping ASD around. With the L/D ratio, they'd be increasing sizes all over the
place if they were forced to use LRFD.

Your professor might do some work for AISC. The inclusion of ASD and LRFD wouldn't make the Manual 2x as hard to create, but
would definitely add a lot of time and effort. Remember that volunteers, for the most part, put that thing together.

I personally do not like having ASD in there simply because it muddies the water. Take a look at the hanger prying action stuff, for
example. It's also VERY easy to mis-read a table and yank an ASD number when using LRFD.

Yeah.

He's a task committee member.

Let us look at this example and see how the margin of safety could be deceiving and erratic with the ASD method:

You have a 4x12x0.25m concrete shear wall that resists a wind load applied on a 30x12 m sq. tributary area. You were told to design for
a 75km/h wind speed, which applies about 0.35kPa pressure. For this wall you needed a tie down that is capable of resisting 48kN
tension. You decided to apply a factor of safety of 2.0, therefore, your tie down is capable of resisting 96kN tension. Well, the building
was hit by 85km/h wind (13% increase in speed), which applied 0.44 kPa pressure. The tension in your tie down is 96kN. It yielded.
What happened to you safety factor of 2.0?
frv:

Quote:
The reason they included a combined specification was to try to coax everyone into LRFD.

I disagree. The reason they went to LRFD back in 1986 or so, and the reason they only issued LRFD specifications with the silver and
dark blue manuals, was to coax designers to use LRFD. Designers balked and wanted an ASD specification that reflected the latest
research. The combined specification is to please the portions of the steel community that wanted a comparable ASD specification. In
my mind, this is AISC saying "we give up, here's your ASD back."

271828:

The researchers want it, it's inevitable, so we may as well get used to it? What about the designers that use these specifications? Is
their input worthless? I don't mean to belittle the researchers and the academics, but as designers, we should make our voice heard as
well.

As I mentioned above, I don't get the factor of safety argument. We don't have structures failing all over the place. Why is there a
push to change a system that's working fine, especially when the change is to make it more complicated for no good reason?

With computers, we can put in 100 load combinations as quickly as we can put in 50, so why not? How about keeping things
simple? Does anybody do hand calculations anymore? Run one check ASD, determine strength and serviceability with the same loads,
or have to do it twice with LRFD? How is this beneficial to anybody?

nutte-

The 13th edition is a limit state design in either ASD or LRFD. They combined ASD and LRFD to showcase how "similar" the two could
be and as a result ease the transition to LRFD for those designers who had been using ASD for many years.

AISC did capitulate a bit in a sense, since they really would rather not have included ASD, but they did so looking to eventually phase
out ASD. The 13th edition can be considered a "transition" specification. It's the "rosetta stone" for ASD designers.

I guarantee you AISC is most definitely not "giving up".

nutte, you make a lot of good points, and I tend to agree in general.

As a former designer, I sure hope their input is not worthless or ignored. A very sizeable portion of today's engineers learned LRFD first
and won't give a rip if ASD goes away. It won't be long at all until the vast majority of designers will have learned on LRFD. Calculating
and using wu to get Mu and then using w to get deflections is old hat to them.

I'm a researcher nowadays and there seems to be an inevitable march away from deterministic approaches toward reliability-based
approaches. I personally HATE this because I despise probability and reliability as subject, but it seems completely inevitable at this
point. Like it or not, researchers have fairly strong voices when it comes to Spec. writing, so these approaches will have a strong
influence.

How is this stuff beneficial? To be honest, I cannot answer that for most situations. I think some of the worst technical authors have
written most of the papers on this subject. I read papers and do research every day and my eyes glaze over when I read most of
these.

For some types of checks, going probabilistic makes great sense. Take floor vibrations for example. The loading is almost totally
random. Any criterion that claims "OK" or "NG" is hard to justify (other than not having anything else). Some of the newer methods
will eventually lead to the ability to tell an owner that he has 2%, or whatever, probability of complaints.

271828:

I got my BS in 2001. I learned LRFD in school, but as a designer, I use almost strictly ASD. This is common for many of my peers that
went through school about the same time, who never once studied ASD in school.

frv:

Sure, the unified specification is based on limit state design, just as the old ASD was. Further, the unification of the specification shows
how the equations are the same for a given limit check. The changes between the 9th edition ASD and the 13th edition ASD are due to
research that has taken place, not a change in the philosophy of any of the checks.

nutte-

This argument can go on ad infinitum.

The equations are the same, but the the safety factor is not.

nutte, that is not my experience. At the last two firms I worked for (retired from design, LOL, and went back to school 3 years ago after
working 9 years), the younger engineers all learned LRFD in school and have never used ASD on any job.

I did work for one firm, however, in which 89 ASD was used. The younger guys there hated it and saw the firm as backward for not
letting them use what they learned in school.

I do not claim to know which is more typical, my experience or your experience. As time goes on, however, I have to think more and
more folks will come out of school thinking LRFD = Steel Design, so won't give a rip about ASD.

LRFD confirms that the capacity of the beam is less than an inflated load that is never actually realized in the field.
ASD actual stress are computed for actual loads and held below a maximum allowable stress.
Which method gives you more control over your deign?
(Hint: With ASD you know stresses at every point in your cross section and can compute actual deflections)

The ASD method does NOT give you more control, nor does it offer you any sort of consistent, measurable probability of failure.

Cripes, the only difference is in the fact that LRFD weighs the safety factors on each load and the member strength to give you a much
more rational level of safety.

I grew up on ASD - don't have anything against it. It is fine, easy, straightforward, etc. But it s*cks when it comes to measuring
safety consistently.

DRC1, ASD's stress is "held below a maximum allowable stress" as you say. The problem with it is that the amount you hold it down is
totally arbitrary - a historic one-shot safety factor that has no rationale behind it.

You say you know the stress at every point for "actual loads", but those "actual" loads are still just estimates of variable loads. Your
actual stress depends on a live load that has been measured in the field as having incredibly high variability....so it's not anymore actual
than the factored loads of LRFD.

I've learned both methods. Both are fine.

Yes you can argue that the extra value in knowing you have a more rational, consistent safety factor in LRFD is of questionable value in
most structures. I won't argue that.

It's just that I can't believe how many engineers I've heard bashing LRFD simply because of a few extra steps - and then try to
insinuate that there is some lack of rationale or intelligence in LRFD.

I've converted to LRFD (after using ASD more than 15 years) and it's not that big of a deal to use nor that cumbersome once you start
using it.

Both methods have been set up to give similar results and both methods are "good engineering practice." But I can't agree with the
implication that ASD is somehow superior or offers more control to LRFD.

Agree with JAE on all points.

Uniform safety and a reliability based rational design is LRFD.

Used both ASD, the not so adopted LFD, and now LRFD and I don't see the big deal.

Same issue we had with metric, you're an engineer for cripes sake, shouldn't matter what units you use.

Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

jdog1, if you're still here: You sure stirred up the structurals with dancing cows and all, and peaked my interest, too. For a nice
concise description of LRFD go to www.iccsafe.org/ps/pdf/9008s2.pdf
I've lost my old LRFD introductory seminar notes, but as I remember it, LRFD was based on a lot of statistical analysis to arrive at
scientifically based load and resistance factors. Fair enough, but I seem to remember that the factors, arrived at scientifically, were
then "adjusted" so that real world designs came out closer to designs done by ASD. If that's the case, then it appears to me that the
reliability theory was abandoned.

Also, the reliabiltiy of a design system depends on how it is used. With multiple load cases to consider, LRFD demands computer based
designs. You've heard it yourself. At the end of any LRFD seminar, attendees with glaxed eyes start asking for the software that can
perform all these calculations. Well, for my money, as soon as the designs are done by engineers who cannot design the element by
hand, reliability goes down.

I use LRFD by hand all the time. There are just as many load combinations in ASD.

LRFD factors are indeed adjusted as you say.

What is done is that statistical analyses are performed to determine the weighted variabilities of different load cases. (i.e. live load is
more variable and thus has a higher load factor).

Then, a measure of probability of failure is determined based upon historical design methods like ASD.

This probability is a factor that is based upon the combination of load factors / phi factors. Then the LF/Phi factor is adjusted down or
up to reflect the overall probability of failure desired.

The statistics are still there (i.e. the load factors are of different values based on variability of loads and the phi factors are relatively
different depending on the material and the mode of failure).

They haven't abandoned the reliability theory at all. That is incorrect.

Quote:
Then the LF/Phi factor is adjusted down or up to reflect the overall probability of failure desired.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the LF/Phi factor was also adjusted down or up to more closely match designs done using ASD.

Bows humbly in the direction of Master JAE (Yoda). He is correct.

The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an
awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through
form. Eladio Dieste

miecz - you're correct in my view. That is what I meant to say - that the overall prob of failure is adjusted to match traditional ranges of
safety found in ASD. But you can't match it exactly because ASD doesn't provide a truly consistent level of safety. Just in general is the
factor adjusted.

Hmm.. I need to look through the new NDS. It is for ASD and LRFD combined. How do they list the strength of the wood? Do they
use the actual stress or do they still use the lowered stress for ASD?

Never, but never question engineer's judgement

JAE- As you say, ASD provides a range of safety levels and so the LRFD folks had a range of possible levels to pick from. Economy
suggests that they could have selected the lowest level provided by ASD. As I remember it though, they selected a relatively high safety
level. So, the result of switching to LRFD was to provide greater safety, rather than greater economy. Was the driving force behind
LRFD that ASD provided insufficient safety? I don't think so. So, what problem were we trying to solve here?

"So, what problem were we trying to solve here?"

I think that's the wrong way to look at it.

I'm sure an engineer or builder 8-9 decades ago would ask the same thing when faced with newfangled materials, design methods,
and construction methods. Would we be better off today if no advances were made since the 1920s? 1960s? Do we think structural
engineering knowledge advanced to a practical maximum level for all time in the 1980s (a pretty arrogant claim if you ask me)? I don't
claim to know what structural engineers will be able to do with advances made between now and, say 2050. It's not about "solving a
problem" in most cases. It's about "moving forward with new and better information." Is Beam 437 in a given building directly
influenced? Probably not, in most cases. That's not the point.
271828-Point well taken. We're all for advancing the state of the art. If that was the driving force behind the LRFD movement, then it
has achieved it's goal.

But a benefit of LRFD often cited is increased reliability. In that regard, I'm not so sure I agree. As I said earlier, the multiple load
cases inherent in LRFD demands more use of computer aided designs.* I believe that, as more designs are carried out by computer,
engineers will lose the feel for what constitutes a safe design. In that regard, I believe that overall reliability suffers. Is advancing the
state of the art worth a decrease in reliability?

*Note: While it's true that IBC and ASCE7 require multiple load cases for ASD design, ASD traditionally used one or two load cases, and
no load factors. Including load factors in ASD, as IBC has done in Article 2.4, essentially converts ASD into a Load Factor Design.

I don't think the safety was set higher with LRFD.

If you take a design - say a steel beam spanning 30 feet, and design it with ASD for a set load. Then take that load and design it with
LRFD assuming it is all dead load. Then design it again with LRFD assuming it is all live load.

Here's an example:
Per AISC 13th Edition

Span: 30 feet
Load: 3 kips/ft (service)
Unbraced length: 0 ft
Fy = 50 ksi

ASD
Moment = wL^2/8 = 3(30)^2/8 = 337.5 ft-kips
b = 1.67

Mn = Mp = FyZx

Zx (required) = 337.5(12)1.67/50 = 135.3 in^3

W21 x 62 (Zx = 144)

LRFD with all dead load

Mu = 1.4(337.5) = 472.5 ft-kips
= 0.9

Zx(required) = 472.5(12)/.9/50 = 126 in^3 (which is less than the ASD requirement)

W21x55 (Zx = 126)

LRFD with all live load

Mu = 1.6(337.5) = 540 ft-kips
= 0.9

Zx(required) = 540(12)/.9/50 = 144 in^3 (which is more than the ASD requirement)

W21x62 (Zx = 144)

So LRFD sort of brackets ASD depending on the DL vs. LL ratio.

"I believe that, as more designs are carried out by computer, engineers will lose the feel for what constitutes a safe design. In that
regard, I believe that overall reliability suffers. Is advancing the state of the art worth a decrease in reliability?"

I am totally with you on this one, as I've typed around here many times. There *will* be another major collapse at some point due to
mis-use of a black box.

I doubt that LRFD is to blame, however. The advent of the cheap personal computer and the currently popular, un-named automated
steel design system, combined with tight structural fees combine to cause the danger, IMO.

Structural fees and schedules are so tight that it is very tempting to press "Run" then "Export to dxf" (or worse yet, "Export to SDS/2")
and then never look at it again. I'm sure most of us can point to a pet case or two of that. I have one in mind that actually caused
failure.

I'm going out on a limb to come up with an example of possible future analyses that might be carried out with LRFD, but not
ASD. Here goes. Imagine that I have a load that is genuinely better represented by a probability distribution than a deterministic
design load. If I have separate load and resistance factors, then this can be dealt with. If one factor of safety exists for both sides,
there's no way to approach the problem. I can think of several good examples: earthquake, wind, footfall forces, etc.

The factors for LRFD were adjusted based on statistical data to achieve on average a combined load factor of 1.5 which matches the .67
Fb in allowable design because everone felt comfortable with that number. So there is really nothing new except some racing stripes.
Same engine. The LTB formulas are somewhat more refined but use the same basic curves that are 30 or 40 years old. Im not saying
there has not been improvement in our analysis, its just not the quantum leap every one says it is. As for the basis of ASD stresses, it is
the culmination of quite a bit of research. Most of it focuses in the significant variability of the strength of the structural steel. I do not
think LRFD addresses this with any greater accuracy than ASD, as LRFD assumes uniform plastification of the member as the stress
inceases. As for the allowable loads, For some work, they provide a significant margin of safety. When was the last time you saw a 50
psf floor loading? However for a lot of work you are actually working with measured loads and are designing based on actual loads.
Thus I believe the point remains that AISC LRFD is simply a restatement of ASD and LRFD does not give you any significant information
about your structural member except that it is big enough.

ASD stresses havent' changed in many many years. How that can be proof of the "culmination of quite a bit of research" is beyond me.

With all due respect, DRC1, ASD was the method one of my mentors used from the 1930's. He started his career in 1927 and was very
comfortable with ASD. Fine and dandy. OK with me.

LRFD isn't a quantum leap...no one ever said it was. It's just based upon statistical balancing of variabilities. I did my thesis on Phi
factors for metal deck slabs and read multitudes of papers on how LRFD is developed. Yes, it balances with ASD for general loading
but does allow you to consider the variability of loading AND of the material variations.

From that research, you would know that your reference to the "variability of the strength of structural steel" has very little to do with
the safety factors. 0.6Fy isn't about whether your Fy equals 36 ksi or 38 ksi. The 0.6 factor is simply, historically, a feel good level of
safety for design. It's not about variability of steel strength - that only accounts for about 3 to 5% of the total variability of our level of
safety.

LRFD does NOT assume "uniform plastification" of a member...it is based upon a limit state within the elastic range (i.e. at yield, not
beyond it).

I agree with you that LRFD doesn't give you any magic information better than ASD other than accounting for variability (thus my
design example above).

JAE-
Quote:
So LRFD sort of brackets ASD depending on the DL vs. LL ratio.

True, but it shouldn't be that way.

Here's how I understand the sequence. LRFD theory started out with a set of assumptions and goals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
believe one of those goals was to provide the same reliability as ASD. After all, we didn't have a reliability problem. If I understood the
seminars, the initial result turned out to be more economical than ASD. Then, LRFD's factor was "adjusted" to bracket ASD, or bring
it more in line with traditional designs. So, instead of a design approach that had the same reliability as ASD and better overall
economy, LRFD was adjusted to provide the same overall economy and better reliability. It's at that point that one of the initial goals
(same reliability) was abandoned.

miecz - perhaps your history is correct. But LRFD has better reliability in that, for a specific combination of dead and live loads, there is
a better adjustment in the factor of safety to account for the higher, or lower, variability of the loads. It also sets us up for the future as
more data is researched to better understand variability of materials, formulae, construction, loading, etc.

I am with others in that the codes are getting into overkill mode with the attempt to get more and more precise with design methods -
chapter 10 of the ACI code comes to mind - but my only main points in this discussion are:

1. LRFD isn't that hard to use (as some have suggested)

2. LRFD provides a better rationale for safety factors and produces a better level of reliability than ASD.
3. ASD is fine to use...just has a variable level of reliability that may or may not matter.

Having ASD and LRFD in the same steel manual is fine, I guess...but when I first saw it my mind immediately thought of a scenario
where some confused, inexperienced engineer would wrongly use different tables for a single design and screw up.....like using a
non-factored dancing cow load on an LRFD log.

JAE-I agree with all of your main points, except that I differentiate between what I'll call the target reliability and the effective
reliability. I agree that the target reliability of LRFD is higher, but I still believe the effective reliability is lower than traditional ASD
methods. I see that most engineers disagree with that belief, and that's comforting, to a degree.

JAE, another ASD and LRDF question. When I went to college I dont remember doing any deflection analysis when I took steel class
(LRFD). So when I design a beam with LRFD, do you factor the load to find the deflection? On ASD I just add up the live load and the
dead load and check the deflection and I dont think they reduce the modulus of elasticity for ASD right? So how do you do deflection
analysis on ASD vs LRFD? Usually on timber the deflection controls (not the stress). I am one of those new inexperienced PEs

Never, but never question engineer's judgement

Deflection is calculated based on Nominal (not factored) loads. You should get the exact same deflection with ASD and LRFD for the
same beam size.

The reduction in E is something entirely different. This is done when you check stability of frames under Appendix 7 of the 13th Edition
of AISC.

So if I use RISA then I need to do 2 basic load cases? One with Factored load to design the member, and one without factored load to
calculate deflection?

Never, but never question engineer's judgement

Wait a minute! While reading all this stuff, I haven't weighed in because I don't have a problem with either approach. But when you
start talking about changing Young's Modulus of steel, my ears perk up. Why for? Please explain for us expats who use codes other
than AISC.

"So if I use RISA then I need to do 2 basic load cases? One with Factored load to design the member, and one without factored load to
calculate deflection?"

Yes. That would be the case regardless of what program you're using.

hokie66,

Check out this previous thread - Per Chapter C of the new 13th Edition AISC Spec, the Direct Design Method uses a reduced EI and EA
for the analysis for the purpose of accentuating the Pdelta effects a bit:

thread507-201140: Approach for designing unbraced (steel) frames.

The reduced Modulus of Elasticity is something that comes into play while checking stability of frames using the Direct Analysis Method.

A lot of threads have broached this subject, but to summarize direct analysis:

1) Use computer software that has p-capital delta and p-lower case delta capabilities (i.e. rigorous second-order capabilities)

2) Reduce the stiffness of all members that contribute to lateral stability (EA and EI)

3) Apply notional loads OR model the frame with an initial out-of-plumbness.

4)Analyze and select compression members with k=1

Thanks, JAE and frv. Just a method, not an affront to our good friend Young.

I guess not, although the specification calls it the "Modulus of Elasticity" instead of "Young's Modulus"..

It's just a matter of time before we get a corporate sponsor.. "Arby's Modulus"

"I'm thinkin' stress/strain"

If I remember correctly, the reduced E accounts for softening of the structure as yield points are reached at some localized areas.
Anybody ever done spread of plasticity modeling here?
haynewp..

the reduced E is to account for residual stresses in the fabrication process. Given these stresses, some parts of the cross-section will
yield prematurely. This essentially excludes those parts of the cross section from contributing stiffness to the stability of the structure.

=Softening of the structure

STAAD PRo has not yet incorporated the Direct Analysis Method. ELM has gotten much more complicated, so we find ourselves in a
difficult position in trying to use AISC-05 spec. There design examples are only a limited help. They need shorter, clearer examples to
illustrate both DAM and the revised ELM.

I believe you only apply the notional loads in combination with lateral loads only if the ratio of the second order displacements to the
first order displacements are greater than 1.5. If it is less than (or equal to) 1.5 then you only need to apply the notional loads in the
gravity combinations.

Bagman, the ELM has always been complicated. Folks just didn't do it right. ELM iS A LOT harder to deal with than DAM, when ELM is
done right.

Be on the lookout for an upcoming AISC Stability DG. It is very large and has dozens, if not hundreds of pages of full bldg examples--
actually borders on overkill IMO. It was in the review process at least a year ago and I'm surprised it's not out yet.

271828. I agree. I just think AISC has done a poor job transitioning to DAM. The Design Guide you mentioned should have been out
two years ago and AISC should be offering some very detailed training on DAM.

I agree totally and am frankly extremely surprised the DG isn't out. I believe it will be considered a great resource when it's released.

I sent an email question to AISC about this design guide and they replied that it is under development, but no specific publication date
has been stablished....just "near future" for release.

Join | Advertise

Copyright 1998-2017 ENGINEERING.com, Inc. All rights reserved.

Unauthorized reproduction or linking forbidden without expressed written permission. Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Privacy Policy.