LOAD AND

RESISTANCE
FACTOR DESIGN
z
(LRFD)
STRUCTURAL DESIGN – 2

CE 524

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO

 z
STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)

 LOAD COMBINATIONS

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 RESISTANCE FACTOR

 Known as the strength reduction factor.

 Depends upon the resistance type such as bending, tension, and compression. It
represent uncertainties in design theory, material properties, and construction and
fabrication practices. The nominal strength reduced by the ‘resistance factor’ is termed
as the design strength φ Rn .

For fracture in shear on high-strength bolts, tension, and bearing of a bolt against the
side of a hole, the ‘resistance factor’ is taken as 0.75. The resistance factor accounts
for the possible conditions that the actual fastener strength may be less than the
theoretically-calculated strength value as a result of variations in dimensional
tolerances and material properties. Neither the over load factors nor the resistance
factors are proposed to account for careless errors in construction or design.

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 RESISTANCE FACTOR

 The ‘resistance factor’ is 0.90 for the limit state of yielding and 0.75 for the fracture
limit state. The ‘resistance factor’ for flexure is 0.90.

 For steel, the ‘resistance factor’ for axial force is 0.5 to 0.6 and the shear
‘resistance factor’ is 1.0.

 For timber, the ‘resistance factor’ for compression is 0.9, the ‘resistance factor’ for
tension is 0.8, the ’resistance factor‘ for flexure is 0.85, and the ‘resistance factor’
for shear is 0.75.

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE
FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD)

 LOAD COMBINATIONS

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
ALLOWABLE STRENGTH
DESIGN (ASD)
 LOAD COMBINATIONS

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON with ASD

 ACTUAL vs ULTIMATE STRENGTH

 old ASD compares actual and allowable stresses
 LRFD compares required strength and actual strength

 FIXED vs VARIABLE SAFETY OF FACTOR

 LRFD – 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.
 ASD - combines the two factors into a single factor of safety.
ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT
 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON with ASD

 LOAD COMBINATION COMPUTATION

 each load type (i.e. dead, live, 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 combined using load combination
equation 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 ∅, and the
factors of safety with the symbol Ω.

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON with ASD

 LOAD COMBINATION COMPUTATION

 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. 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.

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON with ASD
 LRFD and ASD LOADS

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON with ASD

 LRFD and ASD

LOADS

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON with ASD

 LRFD EFFECTIVE FACTOR OF SAFETY

 LRFD equivalent factor of safety is the term Ω eff = (∅ / CLFLRFD). ∅ is a constant. The composite
load factor, CLF = Pu/( Ps,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 LRFD Ω eff is more consistent with the probabilities associated with design. Structures
with highly predictable loadings (i.e. predominately dead load) the LRFD Ω eff is lower than the
ASD Ω which results in a potentially lighter structure. For structures subjected to highly
unpredictable loads (live, wind, and seismic loads for example) the LRFD Ω eff is higher than the
ASD Ω which results in stronger structures.
 LRFD argument is that ASD is overly conservative for structures with predicable loads and non
conservative for those subject to less predictable loads.
ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT
 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON OF RESULTS with ASD
 CONVERTING LOAD COMBINATIONS TO A COMPARABLE
EQUIVALENT LOAD

 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.

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON OF RESULTS with ASD
 CONVERTING LOAD COMBINATIONS TO A COMPARABLE
EQUIVALENT LOAD

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON OF RESULTS with ASD
 CONVERTING LOAD COMBINATIONS TO A COMPARABLE
EQUIVALENT LOAD

 Using the LRFD load cases

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON OF RESULTS with ASD
 CONVERTING LOAD COMBINATIONS TO A COMPARABLE
EQUIVALENT LOAD

 Using the LRFD load cases

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON OF RESULTS with ASD
 CONVERTING LOAD COMBINATIONS TO A COMPARABLE
EQUIVALENT LOAD

 Using the ASD load cases

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON OF RESULTS with ASD
 CONVERTING LOAD COMBINATIONS TO A COMPARABLE
EQUIVALENT LOAD

 Using the ASD load cases

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON OF RESULTS with ASD

 Example:
 Consider a steel tension member that has a nominal axial capacity, Pn
and is subjected to a combination of dead and live loads. Use Φ= 0.90
and Ω = 1.67.

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON OF RESULTS with ASD

 Using ASD

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON OF RESULTS with ASD

 Using LRFD

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT

 z
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
 COMPARISON OF
RESULTS with ASD

ENGR. CHRISTOPHER S. PALADIO ASCOT