ACI JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Iitle no. 80-27

Load and Resistance Factors for Concrete Design

by James G. MacGregor

An overview of the methodology used and the assumptions made in

deriving load factors and resistance factors ¢ proposed for future
editions of the ACI Building Code are presented. The load factors are
based on those incorporated in ANSI A58.1-82.

"0
«<
Keywords: building codes; load factors; loads (forces); prestressed concrete; 0
....J
reinforced concrete; safety; safety factor; structural design.
II
0

In 1963 the ACI Building Code introduced ultimate

strength Design in which design was based on ultimate
limit states using loads increased by load factors and R =Strength
strengths reduced by strength reduction factors ¢. Fig. I - Strengths and maximum lifetime loads for a
These factors were based on a rudimentary statistical family of beams
analysis that was based on rather incomplete knowl-
edge. Derivation of the ACI Code safety provisions is
reviewed in detail in the appendix of Reference 1.
Since 1963 the understanding of safety theory, struc- PROBABILISTIC APPROACH TO STRUCTURAL
SAFETY
tural loadings, and reinforced concrete have expanded
Consider a large family of similar floor beams each
greatly. During the 1970s extensive work was done to
subjected to the same type of occupancy for a 50 year
derive load and resistance cJ> factors for steel struc-
lifetime. Each of the beams has been designed to sup-
tures.2 The load factors differed from those now in use
port an unfactored or service load moment Q". At one
in the design of concrete structures. Recognizing the
time during its lifetime each beam experiences a ''life-
potential confusion in design offices if steel structures
time maximum" moment. Since the dead load and the
were designed using one set of load factors and con-
live load are both random, each of the family of beams
crete structures using another, the ACI Building Code
will experience a different lifetime maximum moment.
Committee unanimously passed a motion in 1976 en-
The resulting family of lifetime maximum moments has
dorsing the concept of similar load factors for all ma-
a statistical distribution similar to that plotted along the
terials.
vertical axis in Fig. 1.
In 1979 the Center for Building Technology at the
Each of the beams concerned has a different mo-
National Bureau of Standards brought Drs. Cornell,
ment capacity due to random variations in the concrete
Ellingwood, Galambos, and the author together to de-
and steel strengths, effective depths, etc., as well as
velop a universal set of load factors for use in the de-
random and systematic errors due to simplifications in
sign of buildings. Results of this study have been pub-
the design equation (rectangular stress block, limiting
lished in References 3 through 5. It is envisioned that
strain, etc.). As a result, the family of moment capaci-
these load factors and compatible resistance factors
would be incorporated in the ACI, AISC, and AISI
Recc:ived Apr. 30, 1982, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
codes and specifications. The basic set of load factors Copyng~t © 1983! American Co~cr.ete !nstitute. All rights reserved, including
has been incorporated in the 1982 ANSI A58.1 build- the makmg of COJ;>1es unless perm1ss1on 1s obtamed from the copyright propri·
etors: Pert1_nent dtscuss10n w1ll be published in the May-June 1984 ACI JouR-
ing design load standard. 6 NAL 1f rece1ved by Feb. I, 1984.

ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983 279

James G. MacGregor, FACI, is a professor of civil engineering, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. He is a member of ACI Committee 318, Stan-
dard Building Code; and joint ACI-ASCE Committees 441, Reinforced Con-
crete Columns; and 445, Shear and Torsion. Dr. MacGregor is chairman of the
Canadian reinforced concrete code committee.
ties R has the distribution plotted along the horizontal
axis in Fig. 1.
The 45 deg line in Fig. 1 represents the case where the
load effect Q equals the strength R. Combinations of Q
and R that fall above this line such as loading Q 1 acting
on structure R 1 result in failure (Q > R).
If we know the means and standard deviations of R
and Q f/[, aR, Q, and aQ), we can define a new function
Y = R - Q = safety margin
with mean
Y=R-Q
and standard deviation
This is plotted in Fig. 2. The shaded portion of this
figure represents cases where R - Q < 0; it represents
cases where failure occurs. The probability of failure is
the probability that R - Q < 0. If the type of distri-
bution is known, the probability of failure can be com-
puted from the number of standard deviations that Y
exceeds zero. This is shown in Fig. 2 as {3a-' where {3 is
referred to as the "safety index"
{3 = Y!ay
If {3 is increased by increasing the value of Y, the
shaded area in Fig. 2 is reduced and the probability of
failure is reduced. Thus {3 is a measure of the reliability
of a structural member. A considerably more complete
version of this theory has been used to compute the
safety indexes presented in this paper.
STEPS IN DEVELOPMENT OF LOAD AND
RESISTANCE FACTORS FOR CONCRETE
STRUCTURES
A series of 11 fundamental decisions must be made
during the development of a limit states design code for
structural design. The balance of this paper will illus-
trate the application of this procedure to the calcula-
tion of load and resistance factors for reinforced con-
crete structures.
Scope of proposed code
The first step in the derivation of a limit states de-
sign code is to define the class of structures the code is
280
=Safety Margin
Fig. 2 - Definition of failure
to govern, in this case, reinforced and prestressed con-
crete structures for buildings. Safety provisions have
been developed to be compatible with the loads in the
(1) 1982 version of the ANSI A58-1 Standard6 and the de-
sign procedures in the 1983 ACI Code. 7
Definition of limit states
(2) The limit states (design conditions) to be considered
should be specified in the code and defined in func-
tional and/or numerical terms. The load and resistance
factors presented apply only to the ultimate limit states
of failure due to flexure, shear, etc.
(3)
Selection of design life
Although building codes do not specify a design life,
it is necessary to assume a value to define the extreme
values of the loads. A 50-year life has been chosen.
Definition of loads and load effects
Loads
Because the load factors were derived for inclusion in
the 1982 edition of the ANSI A58.1 building design
(4) load standard, 6 they are, of course, compatible with the
loads specified in that standard. The nominal or speci-
fied dead load corresponds to the value computed from
the dimensions shown on the drawings and nominal
densities. The ANSI floor, wind, and snow loadings are
chosen to represent the mean maximum value during a
50-year life, and earthquake effects are given in terms
of the 50 year maximum peak ground acceleration. The
live load reduction factors in ANSI A58.1-82 were in-
cluded as part of the specified live loads.
Load effects
The moments, shears, axial forces, or other effects
produced by a load acting on a structural member are
referred to as load effects. In safety calculations the
load effects caused by a given set of loads are com-
pared to the corresponding strengths or resistances of
the members in question. Variability of the load effects
includes the variability of the load itself, its distribu-
tion on the structure, and the structural analysis. 2
Probability distributions used to represent the various
load effects are given in Reference 3.
ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983
Variability of resistances of reinforced and
prestressed concrete members
Actual strength of a reinforced concrete member may
differ from the calculated or nominal strength due to
variations in material strengths and dimensions of the
member as well as variabilities inherent in the equa-
tions used to compute member strengths. Resistance
distribution properties used in this paper are docu-
mented in a companion paper8 and in Appendix B of
Reference 3.
Selection of code format
Probability based limit states design is based on
nominal loads or load effects multiplied by load fac-
tors that are generally greater than one and on nominal
resistances multiplied by resistance factors, less than
unity, according to the equation
Factored resistance ~ Effect of factored loads (5)
A number of different formats for this equation are
reviewed in the following paragraphs. The final choice
must balance theoretical appeal, computational ease,
accuracy, and user acceptance.
Load factors
The National Building Code of Canada9 uses the
probability factor format given in Eq. (6) to specify the
basic loading cases
Factored load effects
= U{yJ). + a('yLLn + 'YwW.)} (6)
where U refers to the load effects due to loads in the
brackets and D., L., etc., are the nominal or specified
load 'Yv• 'Yu etc., are load factors; and a is a load com-
bination probability factor equal to 1.0, 0. 7, and 0.6 if
one, two, or three loads are included in the inner
bracket.
In this format and au·others discussed, the terms 'YD•
'YL• etc., account for variations in the dead or other
loads themselves plus variations in the load effects due
to uncertainties in the load models and the structural
analysis. The factor a in this format accounts for the
reduced probability that maximum dead, live, wind,
etc., loads act simultaneously. The ACI Code 7 uses a
similar combination for dead, live, and wind loads ex-
cept that the factored dead load is also multiplied by a.
The Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB)
Model Code 10 uses Eq. (7) to define the basic factored
load effects
Factored load effects
(7)
U ['YvlJ + 'YQ[Q,k +
i
E
>
l
(ao;Q;k)]J
where Q,k and Q;k are the characteristic values of the
principal variable load Q, and some other less impor-
tant variable load Q;; a is the ratio of the arbitrary
0;
point-in-time value of the ith load to the characteristic
value of that load; and 'YQ is the load factor on the
combination of variable loads. The characteristic value
ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983
of a load is a moderately high fractile of the distribu-
tion of 50 year maximum values of that load. In com-
puting the maximum factored load effect for a prob-
lem involving several variable loads, several combina-
tions are considered, with each of the loads being con-
sidered as the principal variable load in turn.
Turkstra and Madsen" have shown that Eq. (7) ex-
presses the true lifetime maximum combination of
loads with much more accuracy than Eq. (6). The ACI
load combination rule in which the dead load is multi-
plied by the probability factor a was considerably less
accurate than either Eq. (6) or (7). The set of load fac-
tors presented in this paper are based on Eq. (7). To
simplify design, however, a few fundamental load
combinations are explicitly stated rather than using the
general form of Eq. (7).
Resistance factors
The left-hand side of Eq. (5), factored resistance, can
also be expressed in several ways. The most familiar of
these to North American designers is the use of
''strength reduction factors'' or ''resistance factors''.
In this format, the left-hand side of Eq. (5) is expressed
as ct>R. where cJ> is a resistance factor that applies to a
particular structural action such as flexure, shear,
bond, axial compression, etc.
The other important method of specifying resistance
factors uses material partial safety factors. In the CEB
Model Code, 10 the strength of a cross section is com-
puted using design material strengths equal to f: l"fc
and fyi'Ys where 'Yc and 'Ys are material partial safety
factors or material understrength factors for concrete
and steel, respectively. These partial safety factors are
the same for all ultimate limit states. For average con-
struction quality these terms have values of 1.5 and
1.15, roughly corresponding to the 1 in 1000 under-
strength values of concrete and steel.
Major factors to consider when deriving resistance
factors include:
1. Variability in member strength due to variability
of the material properties in the structure. In the case
of a composite material like reinforced concrete, two or
more material variabilities may have to be considered.
The material understrength factor approach is better in
this case since the variabilities of concrete and steel can
be considered independently.
2. Variability in member strength due to variability
of dimensions. Neither approach is adequate here.
3. Variability in member strength due to simplifying
assumptions in the resistance equations (e.g., use of a
rectangular stress block in concrete design). The resis-
tance factor approach is better in this case since each
type of structural action has its own resistance factor.
4. Increased risk to building occupants if failure oc-
curs without warning and the post-failure strength is
less than original strength. Both approaches can allow
for this in an empirical manner.
5. Importance of member in structure. Neither pro-
cedure is entirely adequate. Resistance factors can be
281
 Typical ranre for 2.0
I• reinforced concrete I
4 r I· Typical ranre
5 3 ~ for steel
~-~4
14~-~3 1.5
3,..- -,..._
(3 f-2 ----L: r___
-- ---6

-
5
Ay = 400 11 1
:::!
Q
2 1- Curve Description R/Rn VR u
1 RC-Grade 60 O+L 1.05 0.11
~
2 RC - Grado 40 D+L 1.15 0.14 1.0
3 RC • Grade 60 D+S 1.05 0.11 :'§
1r 4
5
RC • Grede 40 D+S 1.15
Still O+L 1.07
0.14
0.13 .,.
t:
A.
6 Stul O+S 1.07 0.13
0~----L-----L-----L-----~----~----~
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.5 R/C, Grade 60 · Flexure
Lo/Dn or Sn/Dn
D+L

Fig. 3 - Safety indexes /3 for gravity loads on beams /3 = _._

(from Ref. 3)
derived to reflect the relative importance of the average
beam or average column.
6. Designers' familiarity with method used. The re-
sistance factor approach is currently used in the ACI
Code and is widely understood.
Based on a review of these items, the structural ac-
tion resistance factor or cJ> factor has been recom-
mended for use in material standards in the United
States. 3
Selection of the method used to compute load
and resistance factors
The calculations of load and resistance factors pre-
sented have been carried out using an ''advanced first
order, second moment procedure". This procedure,
which gives a good approximation of the true reliabil-
ity, originally presented by Rackwitz and Fiessler,l 2 is
described in References 3 and 4.
Selection of target reliability
Safety indexes inherent in current American practice
for various load combinations for typical members are
summarized in References 3 and 4. Representative val-
ues of (3 for gravity loads are in the range of 2.8 to 3.2
for reinforced concrete beams, as shown in Fig. 3, and
range from 3.5 to 4 for plant pretensioned beams with
low to moderate steel percentages, dropping to 3.1 for
very high steel percentages. For tied columns failing in
compression the (3 values ranged from 3 to 3.5; while
for tied columns failing in tension (3 values of 2. 75 to
3.5 were found. For shear failures the (3 values ap-
peared to be much lower, ranging from about 2.25 to
2.4. For load combinations involving wind or earth-
quake and for counteracting loads D- W, the (3 values
appeared to be lower as discussed in References 3 and
4.
Based on these studies, the target (3 values chosen for
the purpose of deriving load factors were 3.0 for (dead
+ live load) and (dead + snow load); 2.5 for (dead +
live + wind load); and 2.0 for (dead - wind load) and
(dead + live + earthquake load). In general, these val-
282
o"--_ __,___ 3.0
__. . . .___.___ __.__
0 2 3 4 5
Ln/Dn
Fig. 4 - Theoretical load and resistance factors for
flexure in reinforced concrete beams - Dead plus live
load (from Reference 3)
ues are slightly more conservative than the values in
current practice. The lower values for wind loading and
particularly for seismic loading can be rationalized in
part by the fact that under wind and seismic loads a
number of cross sections, rather than one isolated
member, must fail before the structure fails. In the case
of seismic loadings the load modeling is more vague,
and possibly more important, a much higher degree of
damage is allowed than under gravity or wind loading.
In the calculation of individual factors, the target (3
values given previously will be increased by 0.5 for
members displaying sudden, brittle failures (compres-
sion failures in columns, etc.) to reflect the increased
danger to occupants due to the lack of warning of fail-
ure.
Derivation of load factors
Using the first order, second moment calculation
procedure with the target values of (3, it is possible to
compute resistance factors ct> and load factors 'Y for
various loading cases. One particular set is presented in
Fig. 4 for (3 = 3 and various ratios of live and dead
load. The resulting factors are not constant. Thus for a
live/dead ratio of 0.5 the values of ¢, 'Yv• and 'YL are
0.78, 1.15, and 1.5, respectively, while for live/dead =
1.5 they have changed to 0.85, 1.08, and 1.88. As a
particular load becomes dominant in the combination,
its theoretical load factor increases.
Studies of this type suggested that the values of the
load factors at given live/dead or snow/dead ratios
were very similar and not especially sensitive to the type
of material being considered. Furthermore, the magni-
tude of the dead load factor 'Yv was relatively constant
in all the combinations, suggesting that the dead load
factor and resistance factor could be set independently
of the factors for variable loads.
ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983
Dead load factor
The load factor for dead load in Fig. 4 ('Yv = 1.05 to
1.21) is much lower than in any existing or proposed
standard because the variability in the dead load itself
was small compared to other load variabilities. The
value of 'Yv was set at 1.20, believed to be the lowest
value that the profession would accept.
When only dead load was present, studies based on {3
= 3.0 gave 'Yv = 1.28 to 1.33 for ¢ = 0.80 and 'Yv =
1. 35 to 1.41 for ¢ = 0. 85. On this basis a separate
loading case U = 1.4D was selected.
Live and snow load factors
From the reliability calculations, the values of 'Yv· 'YL•
and¢ were found to be variable, as shown in Fig. 4 and
discussed earlier. As a result, if constant values are
chosen for design, the resulting reliability will vary.
Linear programming was used to calculate values of 'Yu
'Ys• and ¢ to minimize the difference between the nom-
inal resistance corresponding to the target {3 value ob-
tained from the reliability calculation and that given by
the proposed set of load and resistance factors. 3
Results of this calculation suggested that for rein-
forced concrete beams the optimum values of¢ and 'YL
or 'Ys based on {3 = 3.0 and 'Yv = 1.2 were 0.82 to 0.93
and 1.56 to 1.93, respectively. If 'Yv and 'YL or 'Ys were
set equal to 1.2 and 1.6, the optimum values of ¢, for
reinforced concrete beams and {3 = 3.0, ranged from
0.81 to 0.86. On this basis the basic gravity load com-
binations were chosen to be
(8)
(9)
and as chosen earlier
U = 1.4 D (10)
For members supporting both snow and live load, the
probability of the simultaneous occurrence of maxi-
mum snow load and maximum live load is very low.
Probabilistic studies indicated this was best handled by
introducing two new loading combinations
(11)
(12)
For live loads with a large sustained fraction the 0.5
factor in Eq. (12) becomes 1.0.
Wind and earthquake load factors
Similar calculations were carried out for combina-
tions of D, L, W, S, and E as outlined in References 3
and 5. Calculations involving wind assumed a target {3
of 2.5 and those involving earthquake a target {3 of 2.0.
The resulting load combinations were
ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983
U = 1.2D + 1.3W + 0.5L (13)
U = 1.2D + 1.5£ + (0.5L or 0.2S) (14)
U = 0.9D - (1.3 W or 1.5£) (15)
Other loadings
Although the studies reported in References 3 and 5
considered only dead, live, snow, wind, and earth-
quake loads, the ACI Code includes load factors for
fluid loads F, soil loads H, and imposed deformations
T. Similarly, the AISC Specification includes ponding
load P. Finally, prestressing forces, classified as dead
load in ANSI A58.1-1972, are present in many concrete
members. Due to the absence of data on the variability
of these loading cases, load factors were arbitrarily as-
signed based on the following arguments.
For F = weight and pressure of fluids with well-de-
fined maximum level, the variability of the maximum
load is small, approaching that of dead load. The cur-
rent ACI load factor is the same as that for dead load.
Although difficulties have been reported arising from
this low value, these have stemmed from filling the tank
with a heavier fluid, failure to consider differential set-
tlements T, or inadequate attention to the limit state of
watertightness. Later in this paper a value of ¢ = 0.85
is proposed for flexure. Based on this value, the value
of 'YF corresponding to current practice would be 1.4 x
0.85/0.9 = 1.32. A value of 1.3 has been suggested.
For H = weight and pressure of soil and water in
soil, the variability of the maximum load can be high,
as for example, when ornamental landscaping leads to
unexpected mounds of earth where the design called for
a uniform fill. The current load factor on H in the ACI
Code is 1. 7, the same as live load. It is proposed that
this correspondence be maintained and that a value of
1.6 be used in the future.
For T = effects of imposed deformations such as
differential settlements, shrinkage, temperature change,
etc., there is again no statistical data on which to base
a selection. The effect of imposed deformations on a
structure depends on the limit state in question. For
ductile limit states such as flexure, the internal forces
due to imposed deformations are dissipated by inelastic
deformations leaving the ultimate strength unaffected.
For brittle limit states such as shear or for serviceabil-
ity limit states such as cracking, stresses due to im-
posed deformations will tend to proportionately reduce
the failure load. The ACI Code currently suggests con-
sideration of U = 1.05D + 1.05 T + 1.28L or U =
1.4(D + n. In the proposed loading criteria the load
factors for Tare taken equal to those for D.
Prestressing force has not been considered as a sepa-
rate loading case in the proposed load factor relation-
ships, in effect, setting the load factor on prestress
equal to 1.0. This is in agreement with current Ameri-
can practice but is in conflict with the CEB Model
Code 10 which suggests that prestress should be multi-
plied by 0. 9 if the prestress is beneficial and 1.2 if it
unfavorably affects the limit state in question.
283

05 o~--~O~l--~0~2~--0~3~--~0~4--~0~5--~0~6~--0~7~
p/pb
Fig. 5 - Resistance factors for reinforced concrete
beams
When a beam is prestressed, two general types of
self-equilibrating force systems are introduced into the
member. The first of these systems is the isostatic or
primary force system in which a compressive force in
the concrete equilibrates the tension in the tendons. At
ultimate load, the internal resisting couple consists of a
compressive force in the concrete and a tensile force in
the steel separated by a lever arm. For a given cross
section, the magnitude of these forces at ultimate is es-
sentially independent of the level of prestress since the
prestress force has, in effect, disappeared. Clearly, with
respect to the ultimate limit state in flexure in a simply
supported beam, the primary or isostatic prestressing
forces should have a load factor of 1.0.
In a statically indeterminate beam the deflections in-
duced by eccentric prestressing may cause changes in
the beam reactions leading to a second set of self-equi-
librating forces and moments known as the hyperstatic
or secondary forces. These forces are important at the
serviceability limit state but tend to disappear near ul-
timate load if plastic hinging and moment redistribu-
tion can occur. In checks of serviceability limit states
and of ultimate limit states for heavily reinforced
beams, it may be desirable to factor the secondary ef-
fects of the prestress.
The prestressing force affects the shear strength of
concrete beams. Here also it may be desirable to factor
the prestressing force using factors less than 1.0 when
the force has a beneficial effect on the capacity.
In these recommendations, the load factor for pre-
stressing force has been set equal to I. 0 for the ulti-
mate limit state because this is the correct value for the
primary or isostatic prestress force system and because
the effects of the secondary force system tend to dis-
appear as the ultimate limit state is approached.
Derivation of resistance factors
Reinforced concrete beams in flexure
The range of ct> values for various loading cases is
shown in Fig. 5 as a function of the ratio pi Pb of the
longitudinal steel ratio to that at balanced failure. The
284
10
0.8
04 Tension Failures
f3 ~ 3.0
0.2
Fig. 6 - Resistance factors for tied columns failing in
compression
points represent weighted values for the most common
loading cases for various types of flexural members. It
can be seen that the level of cJ> drops significantly when
plpb exceeds 0.5. This is because asp approaches, Pb the
chance of compression failures in beams increases. 8
This occurs, for example, if the concrete strength is
lower than specified and the steel strength is higher
than specified.
It is proposed that the maximum value of pi Pb be
limited to 0.60 and that ¢1 (where f stands for flexure)
be set equal to 0.85 for reinforced concrete beams in
flexure. Similar studies for prestressed concrete beams
suggested that ¢ 1 should be 0.85, and except for beams
produced in a certified plant, the value could be raised
to 0.90.
Columns
Reinforced concrete columns derive their strength
partly from concrete and partly from the reinforce-
ment. In the compression failure range the failures are
brittle with little warning, while in the tension failure
region the failures are initiated by yielding of the rein-
forcement and hence are more ductile. For this reason
a target (3 = 3.5 was selected for computing cJ> factors
for compression failures of tied columns, a target (3 =
3.0 for pure moment failures, and values between 3.0
and 3.5 in the tension failure range. Fig. 6 is a plot of
the computed values of cJ> for compression failures. The
width of the band of cJ> values results from the different
variabilities of concrete and steel. In this instance the
CEB system of material understrength factors would
reduce the scatter. A value of ct>c = 0.65 has been cho-
sen for this case.
Spiral columns have considerable ductility after
reaching their maximum capacity. A value of ct>c = 0. 70
has been selected for such columns based on a target (3
= 3.0 throughout the entire range of compression and
tension failures.
In the tension failure region it is proposed that ct>c for
reinforced concrete tied columns vary linearly with ax-
ial load from 0.65 at the balanced load P.b to ¢ 1 = 0.85
when P. = 0. If P.b is less than zero, the value of ct>c
would jump from 0.65 to 0.85 at P. = 0. A similar
variation is proposed for spiral columns starting from
0.70.
ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983
 1.0
f3 = 3.5 [For all e/h :S eb/h]
0.8
0. 6 h(7':":Jc::::::::::=:::::::::::=:::::==- ~
f = 5 kSI
¢
• We1ghted Values
0 05 1.0 1.5
L/D
Fig. 7- Resistance factors for tied columns
In the case of beams subjected to small axial com-
pressive loads, studies have shown that it is satisfactory
to base the design flexural resistance on ¢ 1 times the
nominal moment resistance for flexure alone, ignoring
the increase in capacity due to axial loads. Thus, it is
not necessary to consider the effect of small axial loads
on ¢ 1.
The moment magnifier equation for slender columns
includes a resistance factor ct>s to account for variability
in the stability calculation. Based on Monte Carlo
studies of slender columns, it is proposed that a con-
stant value of ct>s = 0.65 be used for all slender col-
umns regardless of whether they are tied or spiral or
have P. less than P.b·
Shear in beams
The words "shear failure" refer to a family of fail-
ure modes; some of which are related only in that shear
forces are present. No completely satisfactory mechan-
ical model exists for any of these modes, and to com-
plicate matters further, the ACI Code design equations
for shear in beams and punching shear in slabs have
been shown to be poor representations of the true
strengths.
Fig. 8 shows values of ct>v calculated for beams with
varying amounts of web reinforcement for (3 = 3.0.
The calculated values range from 0.42 to 0.49 for
members satisfying ACI Code Sections 11.5.5.1(a) to
(c) which have been designed for v" = ct>vc. No account
has been taken of possible load sharing as implied in
the Commentary to ACI Code Section 8.11.8 since this
is offset by a higher value of vc. For beams governed by
the minimum web reinforcement provisions, the calcu-
lated values of ct>v range from about 0.9 for beams with
minimum stirrups and v" = ct>vv/2 down to a low of
0.52 for a beam with minimum stirrups and v" = vc +
50 psi. Lines representing ct>v = 0.65 and 0. 70 are shown
in Fig. 8. A value of ct>v = 0.70 is proposed as a com-
promise between these results and existing practice.
At present there is little or no definitive data on the
variability of punching shear in slabs. A rudimentary
study in Reference 8 suggests that this variability is
high, and on this basis the same ¢, factors are pro-
posed for punching shear as for beam shear.
ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983
10·
08
__<..-....:--..:.....~----
........ ~
¢ 06 ¢=0.65
O ) _ J o i s t s , one way slabs and shallow beams designed
4 for vc and no stirrups
02
QL-----~~----~~----~------~----
20 0 50 100 150
Required rfy (psi)
Fig. 8 - Resistance factors for shear in beams
Testing of final results
The final stage in developing a set of load and resis-
tance factors for design is the comparison of designs
carried out under the old and new systems to see if any
major changes occur. This stage is currently underway.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LOAD FACTORS
There are four major reasons for adopting new load
and strength reduction factors.
1. Common load factors for concrete, steel, and
wooden structures will simplify the design of structures
of more than one material, such as a steel frame braced
by concrete shearwalls, because the same factored
loads will apply throughout the structure. The pro-
posed load factors are incorporated in the 1982 ANSI
A58.1 building design load specification6 and are slated
to be included in the upcoming AISC "Specification
for the Load and Resistance Factor Design, Fabrica-
tion and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings."
2. Studies of present ACI load factors and strength
reduction factors indicate that reliability decreases as
the live to dead load ratio increases. 3 •4 To partially
overcome this problem, the ratio of the load factors on
live and dead load has been increased by 10 percent.
Similarly, for the present load factors the reliability also
decreases for very low live to dead load ratios. A spe-
cial load combination, Eq. (10), has been proposed for
this case.
3. Structures with low live to dead load ratios de-
signed for wind using the current ACI Code Eq. (9-2)
have a much lower reliability than for gravity loads. 3
This results from the use of 0. 75 x 1.4D = 1.05D as
the load factor on dead load. Eq. (11) provides a gen-
erally higher and more consistant reliability than cur-
rent Eq. (9-2).
4. Snow loads and live loads due to use and occu-
pancy are statistically independent. As a result, the
probability that both will reach a maximum at the same
time is very low. This is recognized in Eq. (11) and (12)
which respectively consider the combination of maxi-
mum live load and frequent snow load, and the com-
bination of maximum snow load and frequent live load.
This allows savings, particularly in the design of struc-
tures with relatively light, long-span prestressed con-
crete roof systems.
285
 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED RESISTANCE
FACTORS
In general, the proposed resistance factors are ap-
proximately (1.2D + 1.6L)/(1.4D + 1.7L) times those
currently given in the ACI Building Code. The major
exception is the value for shear which is considerably
smaller than would be expected from the ¢ values cur-
rently used in the ACI Code. This results from the high
variability of shear strength which is a function of the
variability of the tensile strength of concrete and also
results from the poorly understood mechanism of shear
failure.
The need for a reduction in the resistance factor for
shear, while debatable, appears to be borne out by the
incidence of shear failures observed in practice. Chap-
ter 12 of Reference 13, which deals with causes of fail-
ures of buildings in service states:
"Shear is, however, the most common mode of fail-
ure in reinforced concrete buildings. In cast-in-place
concrete buildings, two types of failure are most prev-
alent: punching shear and diagonal tension. Punching
shear usually is associated with flat-slab or flat-plate
construction, and is in fact practically the only way
such structures will fail. Diagonal tension failures, on
the other hand, are associated with beam-slab elements
and have been responsible for many problems in rein-
forced concrete."
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW LOAD
AND RESISTANCE FACTORS
Due to the lack of design aids and computer pro-
grams based on the new load and ¢ factors, it seems
desirable that a transition period be provided during
which both the current values or the new values are ac-
ceptable. For this reason it is proposed that the new
safety provisions be incorporated in an Appendix to the
ACI Code and moved into the body of the code in a
future edition. A proposed text is included as an Ap-
pendix to this paper.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The major portion of this work was carried out and financed by the
Center for Building Technology, National Bureau of Standards,
Gaithersburg, Maryland. The work at NBS was organized by B. Ell-
ingwood and involved Dr. Ellingwood, Professors C.A. Cornell and
T.V. Galambos, and the author. Additional work was carried out at
the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, by Dr. S.A. Mirza
and the author, and was financed by the National Research Council
of Canada. The support of these bodies is gratefully acknowledged.
The computing suport ofT. Reinhold and C. Mullin of the NBS staff
and S.E. Evison at the University of Alberta is particularly appreci-
ated.
Thanks are due to the members of the load factor subcommittee of
ANSI A58 and Subcommittee 4 of ACI 318 who reviewed this work.
In particular, the help, guidance, and criticism of J .E. Breen, E.O.
Pfrang, and C.P. Siess are appreciated.
REFERENCES
I. MacGregor, James G., "Safety and Limit States Design for
Reinforced Concrete," Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering (Ot-
286
tawa), V. 3, No.4. Dec. 1976, pp. 484-513.
2. Ravindra, Mayasandra K., and Galambos, Theodore V., "Load
and Resistance Factor Design for Steel," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 104,
ST9, Sept. 1978, pp. 1337-1353.
3. Ellingwood, Bruce; Galambos, Theodore V.; MacGregor, James
G.; and Cornell, C. Allin, "Development of a Probability Based
Load Criterion for American National Standard A58," NBS Special
Publication No. 577, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,
D. C., 1980, 222 pp.
4. Galambos, Theodore V.; Ellingwood, Bruce; MacGregor, James
G.; and Cornell, C. Allin, "Probability-Based Load Criteria: Assess-
ment of Current Design Practice," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 108, ST5,
May 1982, pp. 959-977.
5. Ellingwood, Bruce; MacGregor, James G.; Galambos, Theo-
dore V .; and Cornell, C. Allin, "Probability-Based Load Criteria:
Load Factors and Load Combinations," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 108,
ST5, May 1982, pp. 978-997.
6. "Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in
Buildings and Other Structures," (ANSI A58.1-1982), American Na-
tional Standards Institute, New York, 1982, 100 pp.
7. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete (ACI 318-83)," American Concrete Institute, De-
troit (to be published).
8. MacGregor, J. G.; Mirza, S. A.; and Ellingwood, B. R., "Sta-
tistical Analysis of Resistance of Reinforced and Prestressed Con-
crete Members," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 80, No.3, May-June
1983, pp. 167-176.
9. National Building Code of Canada, National Research Council
of Canada, Ottawa, 1980, 546 pp.
10. CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures, 3rd Edition,
Comite Euro-lnternational du Seton/Federation Internationale de Ia
Precontrainte, Paris, 1978, 346 pp.
II. Turkstra, Carl J., and Madsen, Henrik 0., "Load Combina-
tions in Codified Structural Design," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 106,
STI2, Dec. 1980, pp. 2527-2543.
12. Rackwitz, R., and Fiessler, B., "Note on Discrete Safety
Checking when Using Non-Normal Stochastic Models for Basic Var-
iables," Loads Project Working Session, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, June 1976, 20 pp.
13. "Short Course on Investigation of Structural Failures, Course
Content Notes," Notes prepared for ASCE, Wiss, Janney, Elstner
and Associates, Inc., Northbrook, May 1976, 93 pp.
APPENDIX- SUGGESTED CODE STATEMENT
It should be noted that this proposal has no legal or
other status until incorporated in the ACI Code.
APPENDIX X- ALTERNATIVE REQUIRED AND DESIGN
STRENGTH FACTORS
X.O-Notation
D= dead loads or related internal moments and forces
E = load effects of earthquake or related internal moments and
forces
F = loads due to weight and lateral pressure of fluids with well de-
fined densities and controllable maximum heights or related in-
ternal moments and forces
H= loads due to weight and lateral pressure of soil and water in soil
or related internal moments and forces
L = live loads due to use and occupancy or related internal moments
and forces
L,= roof live loads or related internal moments and forces
P = loads, forces, and effects due to ponding
R = rain loads or related internal moments and forces
S = snow loads or related internal moments and forces
T = deformation induced forces and effects arising from contrac-
tion or expansion resulting from temperature changes, shrink-
age, and moisture changes; creep in component materials; and
movement due to differential settlement or combinations thereof
W= wind loads or related internal moments and forces
</>,= strength reduction factor for bearing
cf>.= strength reduction factor for axial compression and flexure with
axial compression
ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983
tf>1 =strength reduction factor
tf>, =strength reduction factor
tf>/X=strength reduction factor
tf>,= strength reduction factor
tf>,= strength reduction factor
ial tension
tf>,= strength reduction factor
for flexure
for precast concrete connections
for plain concrete
for slenderness effects
for axial tension and flexure with ax-
for shear and torsion
X.2.6 - Where ponding P is significant in design, structures, struc-
tural members, and connections shall be designed for the load com-
binations in Section X.2.2 with the factored force 1.2P added to Eq.
(9-3) as follows
U = 1.2D + 1.6 (L., S, orR)
+ (0.5L or 0.8W)+ 1.2 P (X-13)

X.l- General
X.l.l- Structures, structural members, and connections shall be
proportioned to have design strengths at least equal to required
strengths calculated in accordance with provisions of this code using
load factors and strength reduction factors </>.
X.2.7 - The load factor on L in Eq. (X-3), (X-4), (X-5), (X-8),
(X-9), (X-II), and (X-13) shall be taken as 1.0 for parking structures,
areas occupied as places of public assembly, and all areas where
specified live load exceeds 100 psf before live load reductions are
considered.

X.1.2 - In lieu of the load factors and strength reduction factors X.2.8 - If resistance to impact effects is taken into account in de-
given in Sections 9.2 and 9.3, structures, structural members, and sign, such effects shall be included with live load L.
connections may be proportioned for adequate strength using the load
factors and strength reduction factors given in Sections X.2 and X.3. X.3- Design strength

X.1.3 - Strength design shall be based entirely on the set of load and
strength reduction factors in Sections 9.2 and 9.3 or on the set of load
and strength reduction factors in Appendix X.
X.1.4- Members shall also meet all other requirements of this code
to insure adequate performance at service load levels.
X.3.1 -Design strength provided by a member, its connections to
other members, and its cross sections in terms of flexure, axial load,
shear, and torsion, shall be taken as the nominal strength calculated
in accordance with requirements and assumptions of this Code, mul-
tiplied by a strength reduction factor cf> stipulated in Section 9.3.2 and
9.3.3.

X.2 - Required Strength

X.2.1 -Strength required by a member, its connections to other
members, and its cross sections, in terms of flexure, axial load, shear,
and torsion shall be based on factored loads and forces calculated in
accordance with the factored load combinations stipulated in Sec-
tions X.2.2 to X.2.2.5. The most unfavorable effects on the struc-
ture, structural member, or connection shall be considered. The most
unfavorable effects may occur when one or more of the variable con-
tributing loads are not acting. In those load combinations which in-
clude L,, S, or R, the load which produces the most unfavorable ef-
fect shall be used.
X.2.2 - Required strength U to resist factored loads and forces shall
be as follows
X.3.2 - Strength reduction factor tf> shall be as follows:
X.3.2.1-Fiexure or flexure with axial tension:
(a) Non-prestressed members:
(i) with p or (p - p') not greater than 0.6p, ........... </>1 = 0.85
(ii) with p or (p - p') greater than 0.6p, .. ............. cf>1 = 0. 75
(b) Prestressed members
(i) with w; (w + w, - w') or (w. + w,. - w:) not greater
than 0.25 ....................................................... </>, = 0.85
(ii) with w,, (w + w, - w') or (w. + w,. - w:) greater than
0.25 .............................................................. </>, = 0.75
(c) Precast prestressed members manufactured under plant control
conditions:
</>1 may be taken 0.05 greater than the values in (b).

u 1.4D (X-1)
u 1.2D + l.6L + 0.5 (L., S, orR) (X-2) X.3.2.2-Axial tension and flexure with axial tension ....... </>, = 0.85
u 1.2D + 1.6 (L,, S, orR) + (0.5L or 0.8W) (X-3)
u 1.2D + l.3W + 0.5L + 0.5 (L, S, orR) (X-4) X.3.2.3-Axial compression and flexure with axial compression:
u 1.2D + 1.5£ + (0.5L or 0.2S) (X-5) (a) Members with spiral reinforcement conforming to Section
u 0.9D - (1.3 W or 1.5£) (X-6) 10.9.2 .................................................................. </>, = 0.70
(b) Other members ................................................. </>, = 0.65
X.2.3 - Where deformation induced forces T may be significant in (c) For compression members with axia~ load capacities P. less than
design, structural members and connections shall be designed for the the nominal balanced axial load capacity P.,, </>, may vary linearly
load combinations in Section X.2.2 with the factored force 1.2T with P. from the applicable value in (a) or (b) to the applicable
added to Eq. (X-I) and (X-2) as follows value in X.3.2.1 when P. = 0; except that when PN ~ 0.051: A,,
the design flexural strength may be taken as </>1 times the nominal
u l.4D + 1.2T (X-7) moment resistance for flexure alone.
u 1.2 (D + T) + l.6L + 0.5 (L, S, orR) (X-8)
X.3.2.4-Shear and torsion ......................................... </>, = 0. 70
X.2.4 - Where loads due to fluid Fare significant in design, struc-
tural members and connections shall be designed for the load com-
X.3.2.5-Bearing on concrete ...................................... </>, = 0.60
binations in Section X.2.2 with the factored forces l.3F included in
Eq. (X-2) and (X-6) as follows
X.3.2.6-Stability (in Section 10.11.5) ........................... </>, = 0.65
u 1.2D + 1.3F + 1.6L + 0.5 (L, S, orR) (X-9)
u 0.9D + (1.3 W or 1.5£) - 1.3F (X-10) X.3.2. 7-Piain concrete ............................................ cf>p< = 0.55

X.2.5 - Where soil pressures are significant in design, structures,
structural members, and connections shall be designed for the load
combinations in Section X.2.2 with the factored force 1.6H included
in Eq. (X-2) and (X-6) as follows
u 1.2D + 1.6 (L + H) and 0.5 (L, S, or R) (X-II)
u 0.9D - (1.3 W or 1.5£) - 1.3F (X-12)
X.3.3 - Design strength provided by connections between precast
members or between precast and cast-in-place members shall be taken
as the nominal strength for the structural effects considered, multi-
plied by a modified strength reduction factor. The modified strength
reduction factor shall be taken as the product of the appropriate
strength reduction factor from Section 9.3.2 and a strength reduction
factor for connections cf>, taken equal to 0.85.

ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983 287