19/9/24, 12:14 ASD vs LRFD in FEA: Understanding the Methods | SDC Verifier

EN  

Differences between ASD and LRFD

methodology in finite element analysis
Home » Articles » Differences between ASD and LRFD methodology in finite element analysis

Last Updated on April 12th, 2024 by Oleg Ishchuk

ASD (Allowable Stress Design) and LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design)
methodologies are used in structural engineering to ensure the safety and reliability of
structures. The ASD (or Allowable Stress, or Working Stress Design Method (WSD))
approach is one of the earliest design methodologies used in structural engineering.
The design process in ASD involves calculating the applied loads on the structure and
then analyzing the stresses developed within the members. The design is considered
safe if the calculated stresses remain below the allowable limits. The LRFD (or Limit
State Design (LSD)) approach emerged as a more rational and reliable design method
later and addresses some of the limitations of the ASD approach by incorporating a
probabilistic-based design philosophy. The design process in LRFD involves
calculating the loads acting on the structure, determining the required strength to
resist those loads, and comparing it to the available strength of the structural
members. The design is considered adequate if the required strength is less than or
equal to the available strength, considering appropriate safety factors. LRFD is
considered a more comprehensive and accurate approach than ASD because it
explicitly considers the probability of failure and incorporates reliability-based design
principles. It has become the predominant design method in many countries and is
supported by codes and standards.

Table of Contents

Allowable Strength Design (ASD)

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
ASD vs LRFD
Design Checks using LRFD and ASD Methodology in SDC Verifier
Privacidad - Términos

https://sdcverifier.com/articles/differences-between-asd-and-lrfd-methodology-in-finite-element-analysis/ 1/8
19/9/24, 12:14 ASD vs LRFD in FEA: Understanding the Methods | SDC Verifier

Allowable Strength Design (ASD)

Allowable Strength Design (ASD) is based on the principle that stresses in a structure
should not exceed a specific allowable value. A safety factor is applied to the
expected loads and then compared to the material’s capacity. The factor of safety
considers uncertainties in the material properties, loads, and other factors that could
affect the strength of the structure.

The ASD methodology is often used for more straightforward, less complex
structures.

Therefore, the design equation of the ASD method can be expressed as:
σn
∑ σi ≤ σall = Fs

where σi is a working stress due to the design load, which is determined by an elastic
structural analysis under the design loading conditions. σall is the allowable stress of
the constructional material. The σn is the nominal stress of the material, and FS
denotes the safety factor specified in the design specification.

Load and Resistance Factor Design

(LRFD)
Load and Resistance Factor Design (also known as Limit State Design or Limit State
Method) is based on the principle that the design of a structure should be based on
the actual loads it will be subjected to, and the capacity of the material being used. In
LRFD, the loads are factored up to account for uncertainties in their magnitude and
distribution, while the resistance of the materials is factored down to account for
uncertainties in their strength. The resulting values are then used to design the
structure to safely withstand the expected loads. This approach considers both the
statistical mean resistance and the statistical mean loads. The fundamental LRFD
equation includes a load modifier (η), load factors (γ), force effects (Q), a resistance
factor (φ), a nominal resistance (Rn), and a factored resistance (Rr = φRn)

As LRFD being a scheme of designing steel structures and structural components

different from ASD, their differences can be seen by comparing the following two
inequalities:

Rn /F. S. ≥ ∑i1 Qni

https://sdcverifier.com/articles/differences-between-asd-and-lrfd-methodology-in-finite-element-analysis/ 2/8
19/9/24, 12:14 ASD vs LRFD in FEA: Understanding the Methods | SDC Verifier

ϕRn ≥ ∑i1 γi Qni

Where the first inequality represents the allowable stress case, and the second – the
LRFD design criterion. The left side in each case is the design strength, and the right is
the required strength. The term Rn defines the normal strength as given by an
equation in a specification, and Qni is the load effect (i.e., a computed stress or a force
such as bending moment, shear force, axial force, etc.).

ASD vs LRFD
While both methods ensure the safety and reliability of structures, they differ in their
approach to design, and the factors considered in the analysis. Here are the main
differences between ASD and LRFD methodologies:

1. Design Philosophy. While the ASD approach ensures that the stresses under
working loads do not exceed the allowable stress limits specified in the design
codes, the LRFD approach involves considering the potential load effects and
ensuring that the resistance of the structural elements exceeds these loads with a
certain level of probability.
2. Load Factors and Load Combinations. In the ASD approach, load combinations
are created by adding or combining design loads in specific ways to represent
different possible load scenarios. And the LRFD incorporates partial safety
factors to consider uncertainties in loads. However, the load factors are applied
directly to the loads rather than creating separate design loads.
3. Resistance Factors and Material Strength. The ASD utilizes a single safety factor
applied to the material strength to ensure that the capacity of the structural
elements exceeds the applied loads. Contrarily, the LRFD employs multiple
resistance factors, each associated with a different limit state. The resistance
factors are derived based on statistical analyses, aiming to achieve a consistent
level of reliability for different types of structures.
4. Design Criteria. As for ASD, the design criteria are typically based on allowable
stresses specific to different materials and provided in design codes or
standards. In LRFD, the design criteria are based on limit states such as strength,
serviceability, stability, and durability, representing the conditions beyond which
the structure may fail to fulfill its intended function.

It’s important to note that the choice between ASD and LRFD depends on various
factors, including the specific design code, project requirements, and regional

https://sdcverifier.com/articles/differences-between-asd-and-lrfd-methodology-in-finite-element-analysis/ 3/8
19/9/24, 12:14 ASD vs LRFD in FEA: Understanding the Methods | SDC Verifier

practices. Design codes and standards provide guidelines for which method to use
and specify the appropriate factors and criteria to be considered.

Comparison of LRFD/ASD Capacities

On a Load vs. Displacement (Stress vs. Strain) Diagram

The difference between these two methods is that the LRFD method takes into
account the individual influence of the specific load (i.e., probabilistic nature of the
loads) and matches it to the strength of the material. Therefore, this method is more
advanced and more accurately represents the structural behavior under the loads
compared to the ASD method. In the ASD methodology, only safety factors differ, as
this method employs different safety factors that define (reduce) allowable stress
values. That is why the LRFD method is used in most new standards and revised older
ones, mainly based on the conservative ASD method. LRFD is commonly used for
more complex structures, such as high-rise buildings, bridges, dams, and complex
mechanisms, such as lifting appliances.

Design Checks using LRFD and ASD

Methodology in SDC Verifier
One of the key features of SDC Verifier is a built-in library of industry standards, design
codes, rules and regulations for structural verification in accordance with them.
Standards include load sets and design checks that go with the ASD or LRFD
methodology. The table below lists some of the standards with corresponding
methodology

https://sdcverifier.com/articles/differences-between-asd-and-lrfd-methodology-in-finite-element-analysis/ 4/8
19/9/24, 12:14 ASD vs LRFD in FEA: Understanding the Methods | SDC Verifier

Industry Standard Design Methodology

API RP 2A-WSD ASD approach

API RP 2A-LRFD LRFD approach

DNV OS-C201-WSD ASD approach

DNV OS-C101-LRFD LRFD approach

DNV RP-C201 ASD and LRFD approach

DVS 1612 ASD approach
ISO19902 LRFD approach

AISC ASD 1989 ASD approach

EN 13001 LRFD approach

AISC 360-10 ASD and LRFD approach

F.E.M. 1.001 ASD approach
DIN 15018 ASD approach

ABS Plate Buckling (2004 editions), ABS Plate Buckling LRFD approach
(2014 editions)
ASME B31.8-2018 LRFD approach

ASME VIII (Div2, 2010) LRFD approach

AIJ-2017 ASD approach

DNV CN30 ASD approach

Eurocode 3 LRFD approach
AS 3990 ASD approach

Norsok N-004:2013 LRFD approach

AISC 360-22 Members LRFD approach

VDI 2230 LRFD approach

Design Methods in SDC Verifier standards

Within SDC Verifier, engineers can be confident that their models are built in
accordance with industry practices and regulations. In addition, any standard can be
converted to a custom for further modification to suit their needs. Using the formula
editor, engineers can create standards from scratch following the ASD or LRFD
philosophy.
https://sdcverifier.com/articles/differences-between-asd-and-lrfd-methodology-in-finite-element-analysis/ 5/8