WSM and LSM are totally different methods of structural design and employ different methods of

analysis and use different design philosophies. It is not right to compare any parameters of these
two design methods such as safety factors and drawing any conclusions out of these comparisons.
The right way is to compare the methods in their totality while paying attention to every aspect
involved. Such incomplete comparisons lead to false deductions and ideas which do not hold good
universally.

Some such comparisons and ideas involving these two methods which are either completely false
or myths or at least don't hold good universally are:

 WSM employs more factor of safety as compared to LSM in both concrete and steel and
hence it gives more conservative design or safer design.
 WSM gives larger size of members and/or more quantity of steel as compared to LSM.
 WSM turns out to be much uneconomical than the LSM for all types of design of all
types of structural members.
 Life of structures designed using WSM is higher due to more factor of safety and
important structures are designed using WSM because of this reason.
 Structures designed using WSM perform satisfactorily in serviceability criteria whereas
LSM structures fail to do so.
 WSM method is easier to learn or grasp or it is the 'basic method’ and learning LSM
must be preceded by learning WSM.
 LSM is chosen over and has replaced WSM only because of more economy offered by
LSM in the design.
The major points of difference between WSM and LSM which relate to their method of analysis
and design philosophies are:

 WSM deals with working loads or loads that act on the structure under normal working
condition. Hence, no safety factor is used for loads.
 LSM deals with failure at limit state, ie: conditions of excessive loads acting on the
structure. Hence, partial safety factors are used to accentuate the working loads. These
partial safety factors are selected based on probabilistic estimates.
 WSM uses a more simplified analysis without considering exact stress strain
relationships or compatibilities, hence it employs safety factors to reduce material
strength appropriately as per engineering judgement. The factors generally taken are 3
for concrete and 1.8–1.9 for steel.
 LSM also reduces the material strength but partial safety factors wrt material strength
are less than WSM because of a more exact analysis employing realisable/ visualisable
and predictable failure mode and due to existence of probabilistic safety factors already
used to accentuate the loads. The partial safety factors usually taken are 1.5 for concrete
and 1.15 for steel.
Let us look at the design philosophy of WSM and LSM and their differences by considering
different factors that are involved:

 In LSM design, though the partial safety factor wrt concrete is 1.5, the maximum stress
in extreme fibres is 0.45*Fck. This factor of 0.45 takes into account the deviation of field
conditions from laboratory conditions in addition to partial safety factor. Such deviation
is accounted for in design by WSM by factor of safety alone and no other factor is used.
 In LSM, the maximum stress in concrete for ultimate loads is 0.45*fck. For working
loads it would come out to be 0.30*fck. In case of WSM this stress is 0.33*fck. Hence, in
 the overall sense, concrete strength is slightly more underestimated in LSM as compared
to WSM and slightly more FOS is available wrt concrete in LSM than WSM.
 In LSM, the partial safety factor wrt steel is 1.15 and FOS wrt steel in WSM is around
1.7–1.8. The maximum stress in steel for ultimate loads is 0.87*fy. For working loads it
comes out to be 0.57fy. This is slightly more than stress allowed in WSM which is around
0.55*fy. Hence, in the overall sense, steel strength is slightly overestimated in LSM as
compared to WSM and slightly less FOS is available wrt steel in LSM than WSM.
 In column design, for the same load, LSM design gives slightly larger size of column and
lesser percentage of steel than WSM because as compared to WSM, in LSM the concrete
strength is underestimated and steel strength is overestimated.
 In beam design, for the same moment, the contribution of concrete to moment
resistance is more in LSM than in WSM. This is because of the increased neutral axis
depth and parabolic stress curve in LSM which has more area compared to triangular
stress curve and less neutral axis depth in WSM. Hence, concrete strength is
overestimated in analysis in LSM and steel strength is slightly underestimated in LSM as
compared to WSM.
 Hence, in beam design for the same moment LSM design would give slightly lesser size
(lesser effective depth) as compared to WSM and more quantity of steel than WSM. This
is so because concrete strength is overestimated and steel strength underestimated in
LSM as compared to WSM in beam design.
 Such differences in either the size or the quantity of steel used in design in different
members like beams and columns occuring due to use of WSM or LSM is only marginal
and does not affect the size or look of the structure.
 It cannot be pointed out by even expert structural engineers if a beam or a column or
slab has been designed by LSM or WSM by simply looking at the structure.
 The difference such design brings in the economy of the project is minimal and LSM
design may actually prove to be slightly more uneconomical than WSM (this usually
happens in beam design). Hence, economy is never the reason why LSM is chosen over
WSM and has gradually replaced it.
 LSM has replaced WSM because of its more acceptable design philosophy and more
realisable failure mode along with an analysis that is closer to reality as compared to
WSM.
 Though WSM designs members slightly stiffer than LSM, even LSM structures are made
to satisfy Provisions for serviceability, before they are accepted.
 Though some important structures are designed using WSM, such as water tanks and
prestressed structures etc, because of the inbuilt serviceability criteria. They may as well
be designed using LSM by employing suitable serviceability criteria separately.
 It is wrong to assume that WSM design has inherently long life. Life of a structure does
not depend on reserve or excess strength or method of design. Such perceptions are
prevalent because old structures (100 years) designed using WSM are seen standing
today while LSM designed structures are yet to prove their longevity, which they will,
after another 100 years.
 WSM and LSM are completely different philosophies and the idea that knowledge of one
is required to understand the other is completely absurd. In fact, in places outside India,
WSM has been completely phased out, even from academics and they directly learn
LSM.