LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD)

In Steel Design, LRFD is used to determine the required strength of a member and arranges for the allowable
strength to satisfy this equation:
Ru * Rn
where:
Ru = required strength,
Rn = nominal strength, specified in Chapters B through K of the AISC SCM,
= resistance factor, specified in Chapters B through K of the AISC SCM,
Rn = design strength.

Load Combination of LRFD

For LRFD, the required strength, Ru, is determined from the following factored load combinations:
1.4(D+F)
1.2(D+F+T)+1.6(L+H)+0.5(Lr orSor R)
1.2D + 1.6(Lr or S or R) + (L or 0.8W)
1.2D + 1.6W + L + 0.5(Lr or S or R)
1.2D 1.0E + L + 0.2S + 0.9D + 1.6W + 1.6H
0.9D + 1.6 H (1.6W or 1.0E)
where the letters for the loads are the same as for ASD.
For the wind consideration, the ASCE allows a "position correction factor" which turns the coefficient of wind action to
1.36:
1.2D + 1.36W +.... the same above or 0.9D 1.36W

where:
D = dead load,
Di = weight of Ice,
E = earthquake load,
F = load due to fluids with well-defined pressures and maximum heights,
Fa = flood load,
H = load due to lateral earth pressure, ground water pressure, or pressure of bulk materials,
L = live load due to occupancy,
Lr = roof live load,
S = snow load,
R = nominal load due to initial rainwater or ice, exclusive of the ponding contribution,
T = self straining load,
W = wind load,
Wi = wind on ice.
Special Provisions exist for accounting flood loads and atmospheric loads i.e. Di and Wi

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF LRFD

ADVANTAGES
1. Accounts for variability.
2. Uniform levels of safety.
3. Risk assessment (based on reliability theory)
DISADVANTAGES
1. Requires availability of statistical data.
2. Resistance factor vary.
3. Old habits.
Load and resistance factor design represents a more rational approach by which the more significant uncertainties
listed above (i.e., load and material resistance) can be incorporated quantitatively into the design process. As used in
the AASHTO LRFD Specification (AASHTO, 1997a), the basic LRFD equation or relationship is defined by:
iQi Rn (Eq. 2-2)
where:
= Statistically-based load factor generally greater than one
Qi = Load
Rn = Nominal (ultimate) resistance
= Statistically-based resistance factor generally less than one
LRFD DESIGN APPROACH
When applying LRFD, the estimated magnitudes of the various types of load effects are multiplied by appropriate
load factors to determine the factored load effects, and the estimated nominal (ultimate) resistance is multiplied by a
resistance factor prescribed for the model used to estimate material resistance and the field and/or laboratory test
methods used to develop the material properties. For simplicity, the nominal and factored loads and the nominal and
factored resistances are unique values. Of course, the load and material resistances vary.
LRFD CALIBRATION
The process of assigning values to resistance factors and load factors is called calibration. A design code may be
calibrated by use of (1) judgment, (2) fitting to other codes, (3) reliability theory, or (4) a combination of approaches.
Calibration by judgment requires experience. For example, poor past performance of foundations may force a code
authority to adjust the code until satisfactory results are achieved. Code parameters for structures that perform

satisfactorily were accepted as correct, although this may be excessively conservative. A fundamental disadvantage
of this method of calibration is that it results in non-uniform levels of conservatism.
Calibration by fitting to other codes, or simply fitting, involves using parameters (i.e., resistance factors) that would
result in the same minimum permissible physical dimensions of a foundation as by ASD. Calibration by fitting does
not achieve more uniform margins of safety than the ASD procedures it replaces. It does, however, make it possible
to use the same loads for superstructure and foundation, and it ensures that the new code will not lead to radically
different designs from the old code. Calibration by fitting with ASD can be used where there is insufficient statistical
data to perform a more formal process of calibration by reliability theory.
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Substructure
The American Concrete Institute (ACI) introduced a limit state design code in an appendix to the 1956 ACI building
code. Initially, the code did not include any resistance factors, only load factors, so the code was known as load
factor design (LFD). The load factors (and resistance factors when they were introduced) were not based on the
reliability concepts used in developing the AASHTO LRFD Specification, but rather on matching with the then existing
ASD ACI code. The fact that reliability theory was not used in the selection of load and resistance factors represents
the greatest difference between LFD and LRFD.
In LRFD, the resistance side of Eq. 3-1 is multiplied by a statistically-based resistance factor, , whose value is
usually less than one. As applied to the geotechnical design of substructures, accounts for factors such as weaker
foundation soils than expected, poor construction of the foundations, and foundation materials such as concrete,
steel or wood that may not completely satisfy the requirements in the specifications.
The load components on the right side of Eq. 3-1 are multiplied by their respective statistically based load factors, i,
whose values are usually greater than one. Because the load effect at a particular limit state involves a combination
of different load types, Qi, each of which has different degrees of predictability, the load factors differ in magnitude for
the various load types. Therefore, the load effects can be represented by a summation of i Qi products. If the
nominal resistance is given by Rn, then the safety criterion can be written as:
Rr Rn i iQi (Eq. 3-3) (A1.3.2.1-1)
where:
= Statistically-based resistance factor (dim)
Rn = Nominal resistance
i = Load modifier to account for effects of ductility, redundancy and operational importance (dim)
i = Statistically-based load factor (dim)
Qi = Load effect
Because Eq. 3-3 involves both load factors and resistance factors, the design method is called Load and Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD). For a satisfactory design, the factored nominal resistance should equal or exceed the sum of
the factored load effects for a particular limit state. Load and resistance factors are chosen so that in the highly
improbable event that the nominal resistance of the foundation material is overestimated, and at the same time the
loads are underestimated, there is a reasonably high probability that the actual resistance of the foundation material
should still be large to support the loads.

The value of chosen for a particular limit state can take into account the: 3-5
Variability of the soil and rock properties
Reliability of the equations used for predicting resistance
Quality of the construction workmanship and quality control programs
Extent of soil exploration (little versus extensive)
Consequence(s) of a failure
In the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (1997a), not all of these features have been implemented. However, they all
can be included in the LRFD format once research has been completed and the experience base has been
established. The LRFD Specifications will continue to improve and the resistance factors will be adjusted as more
field performance measurements are evaluated. It is important that the experience of geotechnical engineers with
LRFD be shared and that the quality of the geotechnical data base be improved (e.g., load-deformation response of
spread footing foundations) through the use of well planned and instrumented testing programs. As a result, our
understanding of design methods and the safety margins needed for their effective and economic use in reducing the
risk of failure can be improved.
Some methods of predicting the nominal resistance are empirical whereas others are based on classical theories of
mechanics. Also, different methods of predicting resistances employ the use of different soil parameters [e.g., friction
angle of cohesionless soils based on Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts or Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
tip resistance, and undrained shear strength of cohesive soils based on CPT sleeve friction]. It is generally true in
ASD that a higher FS is used for empirically-based methods (e.g., bearing resistance estimated using SPT blow
counts), as opposed to methods based on classical bearing resistance theories. Because different methods of
predicting resistance have different degrees of reliability, different values of resistance factors are required for each
method.
The load factor, i, chosen for a particular load type must consider the uncertainties in the:
Magnitude and direction of loads
Location of application of loads
Possible combinations of loads (i.e., dead load + live load to dead load + environmental load)

AASHTO LRFD LOAD COMBINATION

REFERENCE
1. Steel Construction Manual (13th ed.). American Institute of Steel Construction. 2006. ISBN 1-56424-055-X.
2. http://peer.berkeley.edu/~yang/courses/ce248/CE248_CN_Loading_and_Gravity_loads.pdf
3. http://www.inti.gob.ar/cirsoc/pdf/puentes_hormigon/FHWA_Manual.pdf