What is LRFD in civil engineering?

The newly developed load and resistance factor design (LRFD) specification for engineered
wood construction in the United States uses probabilistic methods as the technical basis for
selecting design strength requirements, load combinations and load factors.

What is the LRFD method?

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), a Limit States Design implementation, and.
Allowable Strength Design (ASD), a method where the nominal strength is divided by a safety
factor to determine the allowable strength.

What are the load factors that can be used for LRFD?
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.

A Beginner's Guide to ASCE 7-05

Chapter 2 - Load Combinations

© 2007, 2009, T. Bartlett Quimby

Section 2.2

The Load Combination Equations

Last Revised: 11/04/2014

ASCE 7-05 provides load combination equations for both LRFD and ASD.
The ones that you will use will depend on which of the two design
philosophies that have been chosen for your project.
You will note that several of the load combination equations have
multiple permeations due to use of "or" or "+" in the equations (both
wind, W, and seismic, E, are considered to be + loads). This is true of
both the LRFD and ASD combinations.
Load and Resistance Factor Design
If you chose 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. Member
strength (the maximum load that the member will support) is generally
between 1.3 to 1.4 times the force that will cause yielding in a member.
These load factors are applied in the load combination equations and
vary in magnitude according to the load type.
The magnitude of the LRFD load factors reflect the predictability of the
loads. For example, the load factor for D is generally lower than the load
factor for L in any given equation where there is equal probability of
simultaneous occurrence of the full value of each load type. This is
because dead loads are much more predictable than live loads and,
hence, do not require as great of a factor of safety.
Example: Analysis of a structure shows that a particular member
supports 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.
Allowable Strength Design
For ASD there are eight basic load combination equations. You will notice
that the large load factors found in the LRFD load combinations are
absent from the ASD version of the ASCE 7-05 load combination
equations. Also, the predictability of the loads is not considered. For
example both D and L have the same load factor in equations where they
are both likely to occur at full value simultaneously. The probability
associated with accurate load determination is not considered at all in
the ASD method. Hence the major difference between LRFD and ASD.
Example: Analysis of a structure shows that a particular member
supports 5 kips dead load and 6 kips live load. Using ASD LC-2, the
combined design load equals the dead load plus the live load, or 11.0
kips. The factor for dead load (1.0) is the same as the factor for live load
(1.0), hence not accounting for the fact that the dead load is more
predictable than the live load. The result of the load combination
equation is then generally compared against the yielding strength of the
member to ensure elastic behavior.
The Load Combination Equations
The published load combination equations are:
LRFD
 1. 1.4(D + F)
2. 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5(Lr or S or R)
3. 1.2D + 1.6(Lr or S or R) + ((0.5 or 1.0)*L or 0.8W)
4. 1.2D + 1.6W + (0.5 or 1.0)*L + 0.5(Lr or S or R)
5. 1.2D + 1.0E + (0.5 or 1.0)*L + 0.2S
6. 0.9D + 1.6W + 1.6H
7. 0.9D + 1.0E + 1.6H
When atmospheric ice is included, ASCE 7-05 requires modifications to
equations (2), (4), and (6), effectively resulting in three new equations
which are listed here:
2ice. 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.2Di + 0.5S
4ice. 1.2D + (0.5 or 1.0)*L + Di + Wi + 0.5S
6ice. 0.9D + Di + Wi + 1.6H
*
Note that the load factor for L in equations (3), (4), and (5) is permitted
to equal 0.5 for occupancies in which the unit live load is less than or
equal to 100 psf, except for garages or areas occupied as places of public
assembly.
ASD
1. D + F
2. D + H + F + L + T
3. D + H + F + (Lr or S or R)
4. D + H + F + 0.75(L + T) + 0.75(Lr or S or R)
5. D + H + F + (W or 0.7E)
6. D + H + F + 0.75(W or 0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75(Lr or S or R)
7. 0.6D + W + H
8. 0.6D + 0.7E + H
For the purposes of this text, we will identify the equations and their
permutations by the labels defined as defined in Table 2.1.
When atmospheric ice is included, ASCE 7-05 requires modifications to
equations (2), (3), and (7), effectively resulting in three new equations
which are listed here:
 2ice. D + H + F + L + T + 0.7Di
3ice. D + H + F + 0.7Di + 0.7Wi + S
6ice. 0.6D + 0.7Di + 0.7Wi + H

Table 2.1
ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Equation Permutations
LRFD ASD

LRFD-LC1 1.4(D+F) ASD-LC1 D+F

LRFD-LC2a 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5Lr ASD-LC2 D+H+F+L+T

LRFD-LC2b 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5S ASD-LC2i D + H + F + L + T + 0.7Di

LRFD-LC2c 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5R ASD-LC3a D + H + F + Lr

LRFD-LC2i 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.2Di + 0.5S ASD-LC3b D+H+F+S

LRFD-LC3a 1.2D + 1.6Lr + (0.5 or 1)*L ASD-LC3c D+H+F+R

LRFD-LC3b 1.2D + 1.6Lr + 0.8W ASD-LC3i D + H + F + 0.7Di + 0.7Wi + S

LRFD-LC3c 1.2D + 1.6S + (0.5 or 1)*L ASD-LC4a D + H + F + 0.75(L + T) + 0.75Lr

LRFD-LC3d 1.2D + 1.6S + 0.8W ASD-LC4b D + H + F + 0.75(L + T) + 0.75S

LRFD-LC3e 1.2D + 1.6R + (0.5 or 1)*L ASD-LC4c D + H + F + 0.75(L + T) + 0.75R

LRFD-LC3f 1.2D + 1.6R + 0.8W ASD-LC5a D+H+F+W

LRFD-LC4a 1.2D + 1.6W + (0.5 or 1)*L + .5Lr ASD-LC5b D+H+F-W

LRFD-LC4b 1.2D + 1.6W + (0.5 or 1)*L + .5S ASD-LC5c D + H + F + 0.7E

*
LRFD-LC4c 1.2D + 1.6W + (0.5 or 1) L + .5R ASD-LC5d D + H + F - 0.7E

LRFD-LC4i 1.2D + (0.5 or 1.0)*L + Di + Wi + 0.5S ASD-LC6a D + H + F + 0.75W + 0.75L + 0.75Lr

LRFD-LC5a 1.2D + E + (0.5 or 1)*L + 0.2S ASD-LC6b D + H + F + 0.75W + 0.75L + 0.75S

*
LRFD-LC5b 1.2D - E + (0.5 or 1) L + 0.2S ASD-LC6c D + H + F + 0.75W + 0.75L + 0.75R

LRFD-LC6a 0.9D + 1.6W + 1.6H ASD-LC6d D + H + F - 0.75W + 0.75L + 0.75Lr

LRFD-LC6b 0.9D - 1.6W + 1.6H ASD-LC6e D + H + F - 0.75W + 0.75L + 0.75S

LRFD-LC6i 0.9D + Di + Wi + 1.6H ASD-LC6f D + H + F - 0.75W + 0.75L + 0.75R

LRFD-LC7a 0.9D + E + 1.6H ASD-LC6g D + H + F + 0.75(0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75Lr

LRFD-LC7b 0.9D - E + 1.6H ASD-LC6h D + H + F + 0.75(0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75S

* Note that the load factor for L in LRFD equations ASD-LC6i D + H + F + 0.75(0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75R
(3), (4), and (5) is permitted to equal 0.5 for
occupancies in which the unit live load is less than or ASD-LC6j D + H + F - 0.75(0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75Lr
equal to 100 psf, except for garages or areas
occupied as places of public assembly. Otherwise ASD-LC6k D + H + F - 0.75(0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75S
the load factor for L equals 1.0.
ASD-LC6l D + H + F - 0.75(0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75R

ASD-LC6m 0.6D + 0.7Di + 0.7Wi + H

ASD-LC7a 0.6D + W + H

ASD-LC7b 0.6D - W + H

ASD-LC8a 0.6D + 0.7E + H

ASD-LC8b 0.6D - 0.7E + H

Can you mix load combinations?

Load Combination Considerations

You cannot mix values from different combination equations in the same analysis. The
same equation is applied to each load source. The final structure must have sufficient strength
to support all load conditions in the philosophy (LRFD or ASD) you have chosen for your
project.

Why should LRFD be used?

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).May 18, 2009

What is LRFD and ASD design approach?

Structural engineering design philosophy is based on determining the demand on an element
and designing that element with the capacity to withstand that demand. There are two basic
approaches to developing the demand; LRFD (Load Resistance Factored Design) and ASD
(Allowable Stress Design).

Structural Design Philosophies ASD &

LRFD
Structural engineering design philosophy is based on determining the demand on
an element and designing that element with the capacity to withstand that
demand. There are two basic approaches to developing the demand; LRFD (Load
Resistance Factored Design) and ASD (Allowable Stress Design). Historically,
design of different materials (wood, steel, concrete and masonry) has used either
ASD or LRFD. This interactive, online course will look at the origins of the two
approaches, discuss traditional uses of ASD and LRFD and their safety implications.
We will also investigate the differing load combinations as defined in the
International Building Code®. Understanding these approaches is an essential
element of a life safe design process.
Is Wood design ASD or LRFD?
While allowable stress design (ASD) methods are still acceptable, the perception is that the
majority of engineers use LRFD for concrete, masonry and steel systems. This brings us to
wood. ASD has been the basis for engineering wood systems for decades.

What is the ideal load factor?

Load Factor is indexed on a scale from “0 to 1,” with a Load Factor of “1” being the best, as it
implies that the consumer's demand is constant. The lower the Load Factor the greater the
difference is between average consumption and peak demand.

What is a good load factor?

In general a load factor greater than 80% is great, 50%-65% is average, and below 50% is
low. Since a higher load factor usually means lower prices, the higher the load factor the
better.

What is the difference between repeat load and load combination?

Difference in results for load combination and repeat load case in STAAD.Pro lies in the
calculation. In load combination, STAAD.Pro algebraically combines the results of the previous
primary loads by factoring them. However, in Repeat load case, the structure is analyzed for
the combination of loads.
What is the difference between load case and load combination?
Load cases are combined for load combinations. A load combination is the algebraic sum
of each of the load cased multiplied by a load factor. The wall is analyzed and designed for
each load combination. Load combinations are categorized into Service level and Ultimate
level.

Which is economical LRFD or ASD?

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.
Why is LRFD used in bridge design?
The LRFD method applies statistically determined factors to bridge design parameters. It
uses a series of load factors and resistance factors to account for variabilities in properties of
loads and material resistances.

Which is more conservative LRFD or ASD?

If your dead to live ratio is lower than 1 to 2 (that is, more dead load) then yes, ASD is more
conservative. However, at anything above this ratio, LRFD is more conservative (as it places
more uncertainty on live load).Feb 1, 2008

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) of Bridges

The Load and the Resistance
This project helps engineers understand new state-of-the-art LRFD
bridge design codes developed and adopted on a trial basis by AASHTO.
The LRFD method applies statistically determined factors to bridge
design parameters. It uses a series of load factors and resistance factors
to account for variabilities in properties of loads and material resistances.
The LRFD specifications employ statistical methods and probability
theory to define the variations in loading and material properties, and the
likelihood that various loads combinations will occur simultaneously.

Since 1931, the design and construction of highway bridges in the U.S.
has been governed by the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges
published by AASHTO. Over time, there have been numerous revisions
and updates and the specifications have begun to resemble a patchwork
quilt. A number of major gaps and inconsistencies were compounded by
a lack of commentary to explain the intent or background of any of the
specification provisions. After reviewing several options, AASHTO
decided to develop an entirely new bridge code that would incorporate
state-of-the-art bridge engineering and would be based on the load and
resistance factor design approach. Following review and consideration,
the new specification is expected to be adopted by AASHTO for use by
any agency that designs bridges in the U.S. This new specification is a
radical departure from the traditional design philosophy of Working
Stress Design (WSD), which requires that the total stress caused by all
design loads be less than a specified percentage of the bridge material's
stress limit. While this design concept has worked well for many years,
engineers have known that neither loads nor material properties can be
defined with accuracy and precision. The LRFD code, with its extensive
commentary, is seen as state of the art and technically easy to maintain,
as well as ultimately easy to understand and use by bridge designers.