28/5/2020 Comparing LRFD vs ASD

A Beginner's Guide to ASCE 7-10

Chapter 2 - Load Combinations

© 2012, T. Bartlett Quimby

Overview
BGASCE7-10 Section 2.3
The Load
Combination Comparing LRFD & ASD Results
Equations
Last Revised: 11/04/2014
Comparing
LRFD & ASD LRFD and ASD loads are not directly comparable because they are used differently by the design
Results 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
Example
member or component. In order to determine which design philosophy is more or less demanding (i.e.
Problems
results in larger members), it is necessary to "unfactor" the load combinations using the material
Homework specific strength and allowable stress requirements.
Problems
Also, there are times when you will know the capacity of a member relative to a limit state and want to
References 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
Report Errors or get extraordinarily difficult if your member has multiple load sources (i.e. a uniform load, a point load,
Make etc.), however if you have a single load source the task is manageable.
Suggestions
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 < fPn Pa < Pn/ W

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

https://www.bgstructuralengineering.com/BGASCE7_10/BGASCE7002/BGASCE700203.htm 1/4
28/5/2020 Comparing LRFD vs 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 = 1.4D = 1.4(0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.35 Ps,equiv

2. Pu = 1.2D + 1.6L = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.6(0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.70 Ps,equiv
3. Pu = 1.2D + L = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + (0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.550 Ps,equiv
4. Pu = 1.2D + L = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + (0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.550 Ps,equiv
5. Pu = 1.2D + E + L = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.0(0.50 Ps,equiv) + 1.0(0.25 Ps,equiv) = 1.050 Ps,equiv
6. Pu = 0.9D = 0.9(0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.225 Ps,equiv
7. 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 1.050. With the CLFLRFD we can now find
the allowable magnitudes of D, L, and E.

Maximum Pu = 1.050 Ps,equiv < fPn

Ps,equiv < (fPn)/1.050

From this we can compute the service level magnitudes for D, L, and E, by substituting [(fPn)/0.925] in
for Ps,equiv.

D < 0.25 [(fPn)/1.050]

L < 0.25 [(fPn)/1.050]
E < 0.50 [(fPn)/1.050]

Doing same thing for the eight ASD load combinations equations listed in the SCM we get:

1. Pa = D = (0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.25 Ps,equiv

2. Pa = D + L = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + (0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.50 Ps,equiv
3. Pa = D = (0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.25 Ps,equiv
4. Pa = D + 0.75L = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.4375 Ps,equiv
5. Pa = D + 0.7E = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.70(0.50 Ps,equiv) = 0.60 Ps,equiv
6.
a. Pa = D + 0.75L = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.4375 Ps,equiv
b. Pa = D + 0.75L + 0.75(0.7E) = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(.7)(0.50
Ps,equiv)= 0.70 Ps,equiv
7. Pa = 0.6D = 0.60(0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.150 Ps,equiv
8. Pa = 0.6D + 0.7E = 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 LC6b and is 0.70. With the CLFASD we can now find the
allowable magnitudes of D, L, and E.

0.70 Ps,equiv < Pn/ W

Ps,equiv < (Pn/ W)/0.70

From this we can compute the service level magnitudes for D, L, and E:

D < 0.25 (Pn/ W)/0.70

L < 0.25 (Pn/ W)/0.70
E < 0.50 (Pn/ W)/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.

https://www.bgstructuralengineering.com/BGASCE7_10/BGASCE7002/BGASCE700203.htm 2/4
28/5/2020 Comparing LRFD vs ASD

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 f = 0.9 and W = 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 ASD-LC2:

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/W

Ps,equiv < Pn/1.67 = 0.60 Pn

Ps,equiv / Pn < 0.60

LRFD
The controlling LRFD load combination equation in this case is LRFD-LC2:

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 < fPn

[1.6 - 0.4X]Ps,equiv < fPn

Ps,equiv < fPn / [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.
https://www.bgstructuralengineering.com/BGASCE7_10/BGASCE7002/BGASCE700203.htm 3/4
28/5/2020 Comparing LRFD vs ASD

From Figure 2.3.1 Figure 2.3.1

you can see that, Comparison of LRFD & ASD Results
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.

https://www.bgstructuralengineering.com/BGASCE7_10/BGASCE7002/BGASCE700203.htm 4/4