LRFD and ASD loads are not directly comparable because they are

used differently by the design 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 member or component. In order to
determine which design philosophy is more or less demanding (i.e.
results in larger members), it is necessary to "unfactor" the load
combinations using the material specific strength and allowable
stress requirements.
Also, there are times when you will know the capacity of a member
relative to a limit state and want to 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 get extraordinarily difficult if your member has
multiple load sources (i.e. a uniform load, a point load, etc.),
however if you have a single load source the task is manageable.
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 < Pn

Pa < Pn/

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

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 = 1.4(0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.35 Ps,equiv
2. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.6(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.70 Ps,equiv
3. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.425 Ps,equiv
4. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.425 Ps,equiv
5. Pu = 1.2(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 1.0(0.50 Ps,equiv) + 0.5(0.25 Ps,equiv)=
0.925 Ps,equiv
6. 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 0.925.
With the CLFLRFD we can now find the allowable magnitudes of D, L,
and E.

Maximum Pu = 0.925 Ps,equiv < Pn

Ps,equiv < (Pn)/0.925
From this we can compute the service level magnitudes for D, L,
and E, by substituting [(Pn)/0.925] in for Ps,equiv.
D < 0.25 [(Pn)/0.925]
L < 0.25 [(Pn)/0.925]
E < 0.50 [(Pn)/0.925]
Doing same thing for the eight ASD load combinations equations
listed in the SCM we get:
1. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.25 Ps,equiv
2. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + (0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.50 Ps,equiv
3. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.25 Ps,equiv
4. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.25 Ps,equiv)= 0.4375 Ps,equiv
5. Pa = (0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.70(0.50 Ps,equiv) = 0.60 Ps,equiv
6. Pa = 0.90(0.25 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.50 Ps,equiv) + 0.75(0.25 Ps,equiv)=
0.70 Ps,equiv
7. Pa = 0.60(0.25 Ps,equiv) = 0.60 Ps,equiv
8. Pa = 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 LC6 and is 0.70. With
the CLFASD we can now find the allowable magnitudes of D, L, and E.
0.70 Ps,equiv < Pn/
Ps,equiv < (Pn/ )/0.70
From this we can compute the service level magnitudes for D, L,
and E:
D < 0.25 (Pn/ )/0.70
L < 0.25 (Pn/ )/0.70
E < 0.50 (Pn/ )/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.
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 = 0.9 and = 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 ASDLC2:
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/
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 < Pn
[1.6 - 0.4X]Ps,equiv < Pn
Ps,equiv < Pn / [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.

Figure 2.3.1
Comparison of LRFD & ASD Results

From Figure 2.3.1 you can see that, 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.

Allowable Stress Design (ASD) technique is the conventional method accepted for the design
of steel structures over many years. The method is based on pure elastic theory and demands that the
stresses produced in a component by the applied loads must not exceed a stipulated allowable stress.
In1986, the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) presented an alternative method called the
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method. In this method, factored loads are applied to a
steel component to determine the required absolute strength and this is evaluated with the
component's assumed strength and a suitable reduction factor.

Historically, the Allowable Stress Method (ASD) has delivered safe and reliable steel and composite
structures; however, the method does not comprehend inconsistency of various load effects (live load,
dead load) and resistances (i.e. shear capacity, bending, cracks, etc.). For this reason, the Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is the preferred method of structural steel design. LRFD method has
two principle benefits over the ASD method. First, during limit state analysis, engineer does not have to
presume linearity between force and load, or stress and force. Second, different load factors can be
utilized to suggest the degree of uncertainty for various loads (dead and live). Due to these benefits of
LRFD, more consistent reliability is achieved during the structural steel design process and in many
cases a more cost-effective steel structure results.

The principal advantage of the Load and Resistance Factor Design method is that, by applying a
statistical analysis to the random values of component strengths and loads, a consistent factor of safety
may be achieved for all types of steel structures. LRFD models the behavior of the structure at
definitive loads and provides an accurate estimation of the strength of the steel or composite structure.
Inrecent years, LRFD method has been successfully employedto the design of hot-rolled and coldformed steel sections and components in United States, United Kingdom and other countries.

Also when you need to evaluate structure strength under seismic circumstances, a truly elastic design
approach is difficult to correlate with estimated structural response. The existing alternative provisions
for ASD are totally misleading because they utilize a conservative load factor of1.7 on all live and dead
loads and a set of customized ASD factors to determine permissible strengths. At some point, we are
creating more confusion and work by trying to use ASD for the intrinsic inelasticity of seismic design.

A third area where LRFD offers tremendous advantage is in the design of frames with PR steel
connections. Steel Designers will be able to discard the restraining assumptions of perfectly fixed
connection behavior. Modeling connections using their authentic strength and stiffness may result in a
more economic structural frame due to easy connection details.

AISCs LRFD method is a practical, world-class and trusted design specification. Whats more,
because a metric version is now available, it is assumed that most international jurisdictions will
recognize it, either as an alternative to their own code or in the lack of an established code. Even if this
is not the case, the LRFD method would form an economical and convenient base for the US
engineers to get familiar with the internationally established limit states design philosophy. While ASD

may not be beyond its usefulness today, there can be no doubt that LRFD will replace it gradually as
innovative ideas become normal practice for steel structures.