Design Considerations

• Any design procedure require the confidence

of Engineer on the analysis of load effects and
strength of the materials.

• The two distinct procedures employed by

designers are Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
& Load & Resistance Factor Design (LRFD).

1
 Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

• Safety in the design is obtained by specifying,

that the effect of the loads should produce
stresses that is a fraction of the yield stress f y,
say one half.

2
 Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

• This is equivalent to:

FOS = Resistance, R/ Effect of load, Q
= fy/0.5fy
=2

3
 Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

• Since the specifications set limit on the

stresses, it became allowable stress design
(ASD).

• It is mostly reasonable where stresses are

uniformly distributed over X-section (such
on determinate trusses, arches, cables etc.)

4
 Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

Mathematical Description of A S D
 Rn

 Q i

= Factor of Safety FS

Qi = Effect of applied loads

CE-411:Lecture No. 1 Prof. Dr. Akhtar Naeem Khan 5

 Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
Mathematical Description of Allowable Stress Design
In ASD we check the adequacy of a design in terms of stresses
therefore design checks are cast in terms of stresses for
example if:
Mn = Nominal Flexural Strength of a Beam
M = Moment resulting from applied unfactored loads
FS = Factor of Safety
 F F 
f  F  y
or F  cr

 FS 
b b b
FS
M F I /c M
n
 M y

FS FS I / c I /c

CE-411:Lecture No. 1 Prof. Dr. Akhtar Naeem Khan 6

 ASD Drawbacks

• Implied in the ASD method is the

assumption that the stress in the member is
zero before any loads are applied, i.e., no
residual stresses exist from forming the
members.

7
Variation of Residual Stress with
Geometry

Material A has more Residual Stresses due to:

1. Non uniform cooling
2. Cutting a plate into smaller
pieces reveals the stresses

8
 ASD Drawbacks

• ASD does not give reasonable measure of

strength, which is more fundamental
measure of resistance than is allowable
stress.
• Another drawback in ASD is that safety is
applied only to stress level. Loads are
considered to be deterministic (without
variation).

9
Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD)
• To overcome the deficiencies of ASD, the
LRFD method is based on:
Strength of Materials
• It consider the variability not only in
resistance but also in the effects of load.
• It provides measure of safety related to
probability of failure.

10
Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD)
 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

R n
 n  Q
i

Rn = Resistance or Strength of the component being designed

Qi = Effect of Applied Loads
n = Takes into account ductility, redundancy and operational imp.
Φ = Resistance Factor or Strength Reduction Factor
 = Overload or Load Factors
 = Factor of Safety


11
 The role of ‘n’

Ductility: It implies a large capacity for inelastic

deformation without rupture

 Ductility will ensure

redistribution of load through
inelastic deformation.

12
 The role of ‘n’

Redundancy:
1. A simply supported beam is a determinate
structure so it has no redundant actions.
2. A fixed beam is indeterminate by 2 degrees
so it has two redundant actions.

13
 The role of ‘n’

Operational Importance:

A hospital and a school require more

conservative design than an ordinary
residential building.

14
 Operational Importance

→ park
→ hospital

15
 LRFD Advantages

• LRFD accounts for both variability in resistance

and load.
• It achieves fairly uniform levels of safety for
different limit states.

16
 LRFD Disadvantages

• It’s disadvantage is change in design

philosophy from previous method.

17
 Comparison of ASD and LRFD Design
Approaches
• ASD combines Dead and Live Loads and
treats them in the same way
• In LRFD different load factors are assigned to
Dead Loads and Live Loads which is
appealing
• Changes in load factors and resistance
factors are much easier to make in LRFD
compared to changing the allowable stress
in ASD

18
 Comparison of ASD and LRFD Design
Approaches
• 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?

19
Comparison of ASD and LRFD Design
Approaches
• 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 is more rational as different Factors of
Safety can be assigned to different loadings
such as Dead Loads, Live Loads, Earthquake
Loads and Impact Loads

20
 Comparison of ASD and LRFD Design
Approaches
• LRFD considers variability not only in
resistance but also in 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

21