LRFD

LOAD RESISTANCE & FACTOR DESIGN

DEFINITION:
History
Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) represents the first
attempt in the United States to implement a rational probabilistic
approach to managing uncertainties in the building process in a
structural code. The development of LRFD during the period 1969–
85, under the leadership of Professor Theodore V. Galambos, is a
paradigm of collaboration between structural engineers, reliability
analysts, and the building industry. Not surprisingly, LRFD has
opened the door to new research opportunities and challenges.
DEFINITION:
LRFD Criteria Format
In the framework of LRFD-based design method, the adequacy of a
design is verified by demonstrating that the effects of the factored
loads do not exceed the factored resistance for each limit state under
consideration. The factored loads are normally defined through a
combination of the representative values of loads in various load
categories modified by relevant load factors. Load factors can be
greater than, less than, or equal to 1.0.
DEFINITION:
LRFD Criteria Format
The effects of the factored loads are the responses of the structure
subjected to the factored loads. The structural responses are
typically expressed in the form of, for instance, internal forces,
internal moments, stresses, strains, rigid body motions, and elastic
deformations. The factored resistance is the representative value of
the resistance divided by a resistance factor usually greater than 1.0.
 To overcome the deficiencies of
•
ASD, the LRFD method is based
Strength of
Materials on:
 It considers the variability not only in resistance but also in
the effects of load.
 It provides measure of safety related to probability of failure.
 Safety in the design is obtained by specifying that the reduced
Nominal Strength of a designed structure is less than the
effect of factored loads acting on the structure

Rn = Resistance or Strength of the

component being designed
n =Takes intoandaccount ductility, redundancy
operational imp.

QI = Effect of Applied Loads    Φ =Resistance

= Factor or Strength Reduction Factor
Overload or Load Factors
= Factor of Safety
USAGE:
• LRFD models the behavior of the structure at definitive loads and provides an
accurate estimation of the strength of the steel or composite structure. If you
choose to use LRFD for your design philosophy, then you are to make sure that
your structure is capable of supporting the loads resulting from the seven ASCE
7-05 basic load combination equations.

• LRFD applies load factors to service level loads so that they are safely
comparable to member strengths (which are generally inelastic) while
maintaining the actual (service) loads in the elastic region.

• Examination shows that when design is based solely on strength considerations,

LRFD is considerably more economical than ASD for office floor beams
spanning 30 feet to 46 feet.
 Analysis of a structure shows that a particular member supports
Example:
5 kips dead load and 6 kips live load. Using LRFD LC-2, the
combined design load equals 1.2 times the dead load plus 1.6
times the live load, or 15.6 kips. The factor for dead load (1.2) is
lower than the factor for live load (1.6) because dead load is
more predictable than live load. The load factors are all greater
than 1.0 since we want to compare the result to the ultimate
strength of the member instead of the yielding strength of the
member yet we don't want yielding to occur. The ultimate
strength is generally about 1.3-1.4 times the yield strength of the
member.
 ADVANTAGES
ADVANTAGES and and
DISADVANTAGES:
DISADVANTAGES:
Advantages of using LRFD method and Comparison of ASD and LRFD

 LRFD is another tool for design of steel buildings. It provides flexibility to the
designer in selecting design methodology.
 When dead load is larger as compared to live load then LRFD becomes economical.
 LRFD has been an accepted method of design for reinforced concrete for years and is
the primary method authorized in the American Concrete Institute’s Building Code,
where it is known as strength design.
 LRFD offers a solution to inelastic design that ASD is incapable of providing.
 LRFD targets a statistically consistent structural reliability, by requiring a higher safety
factor for loading with greater variance.
 ADVANTAGES
ADVANTAGES and and
Disadvantages ofDISADVANTAGES:
DISADVANTAGES:
Using LRFD method

 LRFD requires a higher factor of safety for loads with higher variability (less
predictability).
 The LRFD method requires the use of higher load factors for loads with
higher variance, such as live or snow loads.
 LRFD vs.
ASD:
 The first difference between ASD and LRFD, historically,
has been that the old Allowable Stress Design compared
actual and allowable stresses while LRFD compares
required strength to actual strengths. The difference
between looking at strengths vs. stresses does not present
much of a problem since the difference is normally just
multiplying or dividing both sides of the limit state
inequalities by a section property, depending on which way
you are going.
 LRFD vs.
ASD:
 LRFD is based on an ultimate strength and reliability
approach and is a more rational design procedure. The
safety factors are comprised of load factors and strength
reduction factors for different loadings, while the ASD
(Allowable Stress Design) method uses a safety factor on
the yield stress value to obtain an allowable stress.
  ASD combines Dead and Live Loads and treats them in the
same way
 In LRFD different load factors are assigned to Dead Loads
LRFD and Live Loads which is appealing
 Changes in load factors and resistance factors are much
vs. easier to make in LRFD compared to changing the
ASD: allowable stress in ASD
 LRFD is intrinsically appealing as it requires better
understanding of behavior of the structure in its limit states
 Design approach similar to LRFD is being followed in
Design of concrete structures in form of Ultimate Strength
Design -- why not use similar approach design of steel
structures?
  ASD indirectly incorporates the Factors of Safety by limiting
the stress whereas LRFD aims to specify Factors of Safety
directly by specifying Resistance Factors and Load Factors
LRFD  LRFD is more rational as different Factors of Safety can be
assigned to different loadings such as Dead Loads, Live
vs. Loads, Earthquake Loads and Impact Loads
 LRFD considers variability not only in resistance but also in
ASD: the effects of load which provides measure of safety related to
probability of failure
 It achieves fairly uniform levels of safety for different limit
states.
 ASD still remains as a valid Design Method