Limit state design

Limit State Design (LSD), also known as Load And Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), refers
to a design method used in structural engineering. A limit state is a condition of a structure
beyond which it no longer fulfills the relevant design criteria.[1] The condition may refer to a
degree of loading or other actions on the structure, while the criteria refer to structural integrity,
fitness for use, durability or other design requirements. A structure designed by LSD is
proportioned to sustain all actions likely to occur during its design life, and to remain fit for use,
with an appropriate level of reliability for each limit state. Building codes based on LSD
implicitly define the appropriate levels of reliability by their prescriptions.

The method of limit state design, developed in the USSR and based on research led by Professor
N.S. Streletski, was introduced in USSR building regulations in 1955.

Criteria

Limit state design requires the structure to satisfy two principal criteria: the ultimate limit state
(ULS) and the serviceability limit state (SLS).[2]

Any design process involves a number of assumptions. The loads to which a structure will be
subjected must be estimated, sizes of members to check must be chosen and design criteria must
be selected. All engineering design criteria have a common goal: that of ensuring a safe structure
and ensuring the functionality of the structure.

Ultimate limit state (ULS)

A clear distinction is made between the ultimate state (US) and the ultimate limit state (ULS).
The ULS is a physical situation that involves either excessive deformations leading and
approaching collapse of the component under consideration or the structure as a whole, as
relevant, or deformations exceeding pre-agreed values. It involves, of course, considerable
inelastic (plastic) behavior of the structural scheme and residual deformations. In contrast, the
ULS is not a physical situation but rather an agreed computational condition that must be
fulfilled, among other additional criteria, in order to comply with the engineering demands for
strength and stability under design loads. A structure is deemed to satisfy the ultimate limit state
criterion if all factored bending, shear and tensile or compressive stresses are below the factored
resistances calculated for the section under consideration. The factored stresses referred to are
found by applying Magnification Factors to the loads on the section. Reduction Factors are
applied to determine the various factored resistances of the section.

The limit state criteria can also be set in terms of load rather than stress: using this approach the
structural element being analysed (i.e. a beam or a column or other load bearing elements, such
as walls) is shown to be safe when the "Magnified" loads are less than the relevant "Reduced"
resistances.
Complying with the design criteria of the ULS is considered as the minimum requirement
(among other additional demands) to provide the proper structural safety.

Serviceability limit state (SLS)

In addition to the ULS check mentioned above, a Service Limit State (SLS) computational check
must be performed. To satisfy the serviceability limit state criterion, a structure must remain
functional for its intended use subject to routine (everyday) loading, and as such the structure
must not cause occupant discomfort under routine conditions.

As for the ULS, the SLS is not a physical situation but rather a computational check. The aim is
to prove that under the action of Characteristic design loads (un-factored), and/or whilst applying
certain (un-factored) magnitudes of imposed deformations, settlements, or vibrations, or
temperature gradients etc. the structural behavior complies with, and does not exceed, the SLS
design criteria values, specified in the relevant standard in force. These criteria involve various
stress limits, deformation limits (deflections, rotations and curvature), flexibility (or rigidity)
limits, dynamic behavior limits, as well as crack control requirements (crack width) and other
arrangements concerned with the durability of the structure and its level of everyday service
level and human comfort achieved, and its abilities to fulfill its everyday functions. In view of
non-structural issues it might also involve limits applied to acoustics and heat transmission that
might also affect the structural design.

This calculation check is performed at a point located at the lower half of the elastic zone, where
characteristic (un-factored) actions are applied and the structural behavior is purely elastic.

Factor development

The load and resistance factors are determined using statistics and a pre-selected probability of
failure. Variability in the quality of construction, consistency of the construction material are
accounted for in the factors. Generally, a factor of unity (one) or less is applied to the resistances
of the material, and a factor of unity or greater to the loads. Not often used, but in some load
cases a factor may be less than unity due to a reduced probability of the combined loads. These
factors can differ significantly for different materials or even between differing grades of the
same material. Wood and masonry typically have smaller factors than concrete, which in turn has
smaller factors than steel. The factors applied to resistance also account for the degree of
scientific confidence in the derivation of the values — i.e. smaller values are used when there
isn't much research on the specific type of failure mode). Factors associated with loads are
normally independent on the type of material involved, but can be influenced by the type of
construction.

In determining the specific magnitude of the factors, more deterministic loads (like dead loads,
the weight of the structure and permanent attachments like walls, floor treatments, ceiling
finishes) are given lower factors (for example 1.4) than highly variable loads like earthquake,
wind, or live (occupancy) loads (1.6). Impact loads are typically given higher factors still (say
2.0) in order to account for both their unpredictable magnitudes and the dynamic nature of the
loading vs. the static nature of most models. While arguably not philosophically superior to
permissible or allowable stress design, it does have the potential to produce a more consistently
designed structure as each element is intended to have the same probability of failure. In
practical terms this normally results in a more efficient structure, and as such, it can be argued
that LSD is superior from a practical engineering viewpoint.

Example treatment of LSD in building codes

The following is the treatment of LSD found in the National Building Code of Canada:

NBCC 1995 Format

φR > αDD + ψ γ {αLL + αQQ + αTT}
where φ = Resistance Factor
ψ = Load Combination Factor
γ = Importance Factor
αD = Dead Load Factor
αL = Live Load Factor
αQ = Earthquake Load Factor
αT = Thermal Effect (Temperature) Load Factor

Limit state design has replaced the older concept of permissible stress design in most forms of
civil engineering. A notable exception is transportation engineering. Even so, new codes are
currently being developed for both geotechnical and transportation engineering which are LSD
based. As a result, most modern buildings are designed in accordance with a code which is based
on limit state theory. For example, in Europe, structures are designed to conform with the
Eurocodes: Steel structures are designed in accordance with EN 1993, and reinforced concrete
structures to EN 1992. Australia, Canada, China, France, Indonesia, and New Zealand (among
many others) utilise limit state theory in the development of their design codes. In the purest
sense, it is now considered inappropriate to discuss safety factors when working with LSD, as
there are concerns that this may lead to confusion. Previously, it has been shown that the LRFD
and ASD can produce significantly different designs of steel gable frames.[3]

There are few situations where ASD produces significantly lighter weight steel gable frame
designs. Additionally, it has been shown that in high snow regions, the difference between the
methods is more dramatic.[4]

In the United States

The United States has been particularly slow to adopt limit state design (known as Load and
Resistance Factor Design in the US). Design codes and standards are issued by diverse
organizations, some of which have adopted limit state design, and others have not.

The ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete uses Limit State design.

The ANSI/AISC 360 Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, the ANSI/AISI S-100 North
American Specification for the Design of Cold Formed Steel Structural Members, and The
Aluminum Association's Aluminum Design Manual contain two methods of design side by side:

1. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), a Limit States Design implementation, and
 2. Allowable Strength Design (ASD), a method where the nominal strength is divided by a safety
factor to determine the allowable strength. This allowable strength is required to equal or
exceed the required strength for a set of ASD load combinations. ASD is calibrated to give the
same structural reliability and component size as the LRFD method with a live to dead load ratio
of 3.[5] Consequently, when structures have a live to dead load ratio that differs from 3, ASD
produces designs that are either less reliable or less efficient as compared to designs resulting
from the LRFD method.

In contrast, the ANSI/AWWA D100 Welded Carbon Steel Tanks for Water Storage and API 650
Welded Tanks for Oil Storage still use allowable stress design.

In Europe

In Europe, the limit state design is enforced by the Eurocodes.

References
Citations

1.

 EN 1990:2002 E, Eurocode - Basis of Structural Design, CEN, November 29, 2001

  McCormac 2008, p. 50. "The term limit state is used to describe a condition at which a structure or
part of a structure ceases to perform its intended function. There are two categories of limit states:
strength and serviceability."

  Katanbafnezhad, Naser, & Hoback, Alan, S. (2020). Comparison of LRFD and ASD for Pre-Fabricated
Gable Frame Design, American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER), vol. 9(5), pp. 120-134.

  Katanbafnezhad, Naser, & Hoback, Alan, S. (2020). Pre-Fabricated Gable Frame Design in High Snow
Regions- Comparison of LRFD and ASD, American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER), vol. 9(6), pp.
160-168.

 Steel Construction Manual Fourteenth Edition. AISC. 2011. pp. 16.1–246. ISBN 1-56424-

060-6.