Advantages of the Strength Design Method over Allowable Stress Design Method

The architecture and civil engineering sectors have seen a continuous evolution of methodologies designed to ensure the safety, efficiency, and longevity of structures. Two such fundamental methodologies in structural engineering are the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) and the Strength Design Method. This article aims to dive deep into understanding these approaches, comparing the Allowable Stress Design vs. Strength Design Method, discussing Advantages of the Strength Design Method over Allowable Stress Design, and and providing insights on the Allowable Stress Design vs. LFRD (Load and Resistance Factor Design). By examining these critical elements, the article aims to furnish a comprehensive understanding of these design techniques, thereby supporting informed decision-making for structural engineers and architects.

Allowable Stress Design, often abbreviated as ASD, is a traditional method used in structural engineering. It involves designing structures based on service load conditions, where the actual stress is not allowed to exceed a specified fraction of the material’s yield strength, known as the ‘allowable design stress.’ The fundamental premise of the Allowable Stress Design method is to ensure that the structures maintain a safe margin below the elastic limit, thereby preventing any permanent deformation. This principle forms the crux of the ASD (Allowable Stress Design), distinguishing it from other methods.

On the other hand, the Strength Design Method, also referred to as the Ultimate Strength Design, is a more recent approach. This method involves the application of factored loads, which are higher than the service loads, and designs the structure to resist these loads without failing. Unlike the Allowable Stress Design, the Strength Design Method focuses on the structure’s ultimate strength rather than staying within the elastic limit.

Comparing the Allowable Stress Design vs. Allowable Strength Design, it’s important to recognize that these are essentially different names for the same approach and the Strength Design Method. When we talk about ‘allowable strength design,’ we’re essentially referring to the Allowable Stress Design method, while the ‘strength design method’ is its distinct counterpart.

This brings us to a common question: which method is better – the Working Stress Design vs. Allowable Stress Design? The Working Stress Design is another term for the Allowable Stress Design method, further emphasizing the multiple terminologies used in structural design approaches. Both methodologies prioritize the same principles of ensuring safety margins below the yield strength of materials.

The comparison of Strength Design vs. Allowable Stress Design offers intriguing perspectives. While the Allowable Stress Design provides safety by staying within the elastic limit, the Strength Design Method considers the structure’s ultimate strength, ensuring that the structure can resist higher, factored loads without failure. The choice between the two depends on various factors, including material availability, cost considerations, the nature of the project, and regulatory standards.

The discussion of Allowable Stress Design vs. LFRD is another key point to consider. LFRD, or Load and Resistance Factor Design, is another term for the Strength Design Method. It factors both the loads and material strengths in the design, accounting for uncertainties in load predictions and material properties. The comparison of Allowable Stress Design vs. LFRD essentially mirrors the comparison between Allowable Stress Design and Strength Design Method.

Both Allowable Stress Design and Strength Design Method offer distinctive advantages and are suitable for different scenarios. Understanding the principles and applications of both methodologies can guide structural engineers in choosing the most appropriate approach for their specific project requirements. The discussion around the Allowable Stress Design vs. Strength Design Method, or the Allowable Stress Design vs. LFRD, is not about finding a ‘one-size-fits-all’ answer but about realizing the complexities and trade-offs involved in structural design decisions.

Therefore, to discuss the details of ASD and LFRD, this article aims to compare these two primary design methods and highlight the advantages of the strength design method over the allowable stress design or other alternate methods.

1. Allowable Stress Design Method

The allowable stress design method, also known as the working stress design method, has been in use for a very long time. This method’s central principle is that structures are designed not to exceed the allowable stress limit of the material during their lifetime. Allowable stress is the maximum stress that a material can handle without failing, divided by a factor of safety to account for uncertainties.

2. Strength Design Method

In contrast, the strength design method, more modern and increasingly preferred, calculates the ultimate strength of a structure under the maximum possible load conditions. It incorporates factors for different types of load and material uncertainties. By considering both the structure’s ultimate strength and the possible maximum loads, it provides a more comprehensive view of the structure’s ability to withstand extreme conditions.

3. Advantages of the Strength Design Method

3.1 Enhanced Safety and Reliability

One of the main advantages of the strength design method is that it offers enhanced safety and reliability. It considers the maximum potential loads that a structure might face during its life cycle, including extreme scenarios. By designing to resist these maximum loads, structures built using the strength design method are inherently safer and more reliable, reducing the chance of catastrophic failure.

3.2 Incorporation of Various Load Types and Probabilities

The strength design method takes into account different types of loads, such as dead loads, live loads, and environmental loads. Each load type is assigned a load factor reflecting its variability and uncertainty, which provides a more nuanced and realistic design. This capability to account for different load types and their respective probabilities is an advantage that sets the strength design method apart from the allowable stress design.

3.3 Efficient Material Utilization

The strength design method promotes more efficient material usage than the allowable stress design. Since it calculates the ultimate strength, the method encourages designers to use materials up to their maximum potential, thus reducing wastage and making designs more cost-effective.

3.4 Better Reflecting Real World Scenarios

Unlike the allowable stress design method, which assumes that both material properties and loads are deterministic and can be accurately predicted, the strength design method acknowledges that both are subject to variability. By reflecting these real-world conditions in the design process, the strength design method provides more robust, reliable structures.

3.5 Consideration of Different Failure Modes

Another strength of the strength design method is its consideration of different failure modes. It factors in possible structural behavior beyond the elastic limit, such as plastic deformation and post-elastic strain hardening. By providing an analysis of the structure’s performance under these conditions, the strength design method provides additional safeguards against unexpected failure.

3.6 Adaptability to New Materials

In a world where new construction materials and methods are continually being developed, the Strength Design Method stands out for its adaptability. It can accommodate materials with nonlinear stress-strain behavior more effectively than the Allowable Stress Design method, which is limited by its assumption of linearity and elastic behavior. This adaptability makes the Strength Design Method an excellent choice for structures that incorporate newer, high-strength materials, or those with complex geometries or load conditions.

3.7 Comprehensive Safety Factors

The Strength Design Method includes comprehensive safety factors, known as resistance factors, to account for variability in the material properties, workmanship, and loading conditions. This feature is more advanced and nuanced compared to the single safety factor used in the Allowable Stress Design method, leading to a more comprehensive and accurate safety check.

3.8 Optimal Design Solutions

In addition to safety, the Strength Design Method often results in lighter and more economic structures without compromising structural integrity. By effectively utilizing the full strength of materials, engineers can achieve optimal design solutions that use less material and reduce construction costs.

3.9 Uniform Risk Level

The Strength Design Method’s probabilistic nature helps ensure a uniform risk level in the design of structures. This benefit is a result of the load and resistance factors used in the design equations, which balance the uncertainties in load effects and material strengths. Such a balanced approach is generally not achievable with the Allowable Stress Design method, which assumes that the loads and material strengths can be determined with certainty.

4. Disadvantages of Allowable Stress Design Method

The Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method, also known as the working stress design, is an older and more traditional method of structural design. While it is still in use, there are some noted disadvantages associated with it:

1. Conservatism: ASD tends to be more conservative than other design methods, such as Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), often leading to more materials being used than necessary, which can increase construction costs.
2. Over-simplification: ASD simplifies complex stress conditions by using average values, which may not accurately represent the actual field conditions.
3. Inconsistent Safety Levels: The ASD method assumes a single safety factor for all types of loads, which may not appropriately reflect the variable nature of loads and material strengths, leading to inconsistent levels of safety.
4. Inadequate Stress Checks: It doesn’t check stress under extreme conditions, only checks under service loads, which could lead to under-design in certain situations.
5. Inability to Handle Different Material Behavior: ASD is based on elastic theory, which assumes linearly elastic material behavior, which may not be appropriate for materials that do not adhere strictly to this behavior, such as concrete or plastic.
6. Ignoring Load Combinations: ASD generally doesn’t take into account the different possible combinations of loads a structure may face, which could underestimate the total load and cause problems.
7. Lack of Probabilistic Nature: It doesn’t use a probabilistic approach like the LRFD method, meaning it doesn’t factor in the likelihood of different load combinations or material strength variations.
8. Overemphasis on Working Stress: ASD places too much emphasis on working stress, rather than ultimate stress or strength, which can lead to inefficient designs.
9. Discrepancy with Real-world Loading Conditions: It assumes static loading conditions, which do not always reflect the dynamic nature of real-world loading.
10. Not As Universal: Since ASD has been largely replaced by LRFD in various design codes and standards, using ASD could lead to problems when coordinating with other engineers or contractors who are more familiar with the newer methods.

5. Comparison of Strength Design Method (LRFD) and Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

A comparison of Strength Design Method (also known as Load and Resistance Factor Design – LRFD) and Allowable Stress Design (ASD) methods is given below:

Comparison Criteria	Strength Design Method (LRFD)	Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
Considers probabilistic approach	Yes	No
Uses multiple factors of safety	Yes	No
Based on ultimate strength of material	Yes	No
Uses single factor of safety	No	Yes
Assumes linearly elastic material behavior	No	Yes
Takes into account different load combinations	Yes	No
Tends to be overly conservative	No	Yes
Considers both static and dynamic loading conditions	Yes	No
Uses working stress as primary design criterion	No	Yes
Considers material behavior beyond elastic limit	Yes	No
Checks stress under extreme conditions	Yes	No
Generally recognized and preferred in modern codes and standards	Yes	No
Assumes all loads are equally likely	No	Yes
Efficient in terms of material usage	Yes	No
Based on service loads	No	Yes
Accurately represents complex stress conditions	Yes	No

6. Final Thoughts

In conclusion, the Strength Design Method offers a more realistic, safer, and often more economical approach to structural design. Its ability to account for uncertainties in loads and material properties, consider various load types, provide more efficient use of materials, and better adaptability to new materials, make it a preferred choice in the structural design field.

While both methods have their uses and appropriate applications, the Strength Design Method’s advantages make it an important tool in the modern engineer’s arsenal. It’s an evolution that showcases how engineering continually adapts to new knowledge, technology, and societal needs to build safer, more efficient, and resilient structures. Although it may require more complex calculations, the benefits it provides in terms of safety, reliability, and material efficiency make it well worth considering for structural design projects.

FAQ’s

Read More

1.Top 10 Key Reasons for Minimum Percentage of Reinforcement in Beams as per ACI Code

2. 5 Purpose of Minimum Cover Requirements as per ACI Code

3. Top 10 Crucial Difference Between Tension-Controlled and Compression-Controlled Beams