YW are the load effects due to dead, live and wind load, respectively, YD, YL and expected that the maximum live load and the maximum wind load will act simultaneously. The proposed design process thus defines the appropriate limit states, and hence it is often named Limit States Design. Limit states design, in itself, is nothing fundamentally new but is a procedure which, in effect, requires the designer to consider explicitly several different modes of possible structural behavior during design. The particular method above also identifies resistance factors and load factors, and so it is called Load and Resistance Factor Design; it is one (of several) limit states design criteria formats. Broadly speaking, there are two types of limit states: (1) ultimate limit states under which the structure or component is judged to have failed in its capacity to carry load; and (2) serviceability limit states under which the function of the building is impaired. The recommendations in this report are confined to the ultimate limit states as these are of particular concern in standards and specifications which are intended to protect the public from physical harm. The recommended load and resistance factor design format which incorporates limit states, resistance factors, load factors and load combinations is a formalization of trends evident in many structural specifications in the United States. It provides a means whereby it is possible to achieve more uniform performance and reliability in structural design than is possible with just one factor of safety. This has long been recognized in reinforced concrete design. Current research in metal structures has also produced tentative rules which apply to steel, cold-formed steel, and aluminum structures. The thesis of this report is that it is also desirable to provide common load combinations and load factors which can be used in connection with all material specifications. This point will be elaborated upon subsequently. The recommended approach requires that procedures be available to determine values for the resistance factors and the load factors. The development of the load criterion is carried out within the context of probabilistic limit states design. This is because the reliability of a structure or element is defined in a natural way by the probability of not achieving any of its limit states. The procedure used herein is based on modern engineering reliability analysis methods which have been developed, tested and refined over the last decade. The details of the method are described elsewhere in this report. For our purposes here it suffices to say that given a structural member or element designed according to a current structural specification, it is possible to compute the relative reliability of this design from data defining probability distributions and statistics of the resistance, the loads and the load effects. This relative reliability is expressed as a number called the reliability index, B. This index usually varies from 2 to 8, depending on the structure type and loading. By repeatedly determining ẞ for many structural designs, the relative reliability of different structural members built from different structural materials can be compared. If representative values of B are now selected, reflecting the averaged reliability of satisfactory current designs, it is again possible by using reliability analysis methods to compute resistance and load factors. It should be clearly pointed out that this process is elaborate, and it is performed as a research operation for use by standard and specification-writing bodies. The designer would only use the standard specified values of and y in the structural design operation. The underlying average reliability 8 is (1) not necessarily the same for all types of building materials (and there is no reason to force the design profession to adopt a uniform value), and (2) the values of and y depend not only on 8 but also on the load and the resistance statistics. Thus, it is quite likely that if the methodology were applied to each material separately, different values of the load factors y would be obtained for, say, steel structures and masonry structures. This is an entirely logical consequence of the probabilistic methodology used. However, the use of different load factors for different structural material specifications is undesirable in the design office and results in confusion, especially in structures where the design calls for a mix of materials, say reinforced concrete, structural steel and aluminum (e.g., slabs, frame and curtain walls). It thus was deemed desirable to determine uniform load factors which could be included in the A58 Standard for all structural materials and to provide a means whereby individual material specification writing groups could select suitable nominal resistances and resistance factors corresponding to the load criterion and whatever values of B they desire. The use of common load factors would simplify the design process, particularly when more than one construction material is used in a structure. Various standard groups in the United States agree that the A58 Standard is the logical place for this load criterion inasmuch as it is a national standard and requires consensus approval and public review of the criteria prior to their implementation. Summary of Procedure: The details of achieving the objectives discussed above are given in the body of this report, with further details and statistics being provided in the Appendices. The following is only an abbreviated description of the procedure. This consists basically of using a probabilistic safety analysis to guide the selection of load factors that produce desired levels of uniformity in safety which are consistent with existing general practice. Step 1 Estimate the level of reliability implied by the use of the various current design standards and specifications (e.g. ACI Standard 318, AISC Specifications, etc., and loads from ANSI Standard A58.1-1972) for various common types of members and elements (e.g., beams, columns, beam-columns, walls, fillet welds) using a) a particular common reliability calculation scheme (Chapter 2); b) common and realistic best estimates of distribution types and parameters (Chapter 3 and Appendices); c) the reliability index 8 as a safety measure for comparison. Step 2 Observe the B-levels over ranges of material, limit states, nominal load ratios (e.g., live-to-dead, wind-to-dead, snow-to-dead), load combinations, and geographical locations (Chapter 4). From Steps 1 and 2 it was found that a level of B = 3.0 was consistent with average current practice for load combinations involving dead plus live or dead plus snow loads, while 82.5 and 8 = 1.75 were appropriate for combinations containing wind and earthquake loads, respectively. Step 3 Based on the observed 8 levels, determine load factors consistent with the implied safety level and the selected safety checking format. These load factors are compatible with the nominal load definitions in the proposed ANSI A58.1-1980 Standard currently being developed. From Step 3 the following load combinations and load factors were derived (see Chapter 5 for details) Step 4 Display the relationships between the implied B-levels for these load factors and nominal loads for the material statistics (mean resistances, coefficients of variation) against alternate -factors. These charts are given in Chapter 5, together with example This information generally determinations of for several structural types and materials. would be sufficient to enable a specification writing group, if it so desires, to select -factors without further computer operations. Some Particular Critical Issues 1. The selected load factors do not prevent material specification writing groups from selecting their own factors together with their own desired values of B. There is no intent here to dictate particular values of or ẞ to be used in material specifications. Only the load factors are presented along with preliminary resistance variable information and a method by which 8 can be estimated for any particular that might be proposed by the material groups for their own specifications. If this procedure is used, material groups do not have to deal with loads to harmonize their own safety levels among their various limit states. If desired, for example, different values of ẞ could be used for bending and shear in concrete structures, or members and connectors in steel structures. The information given also permits the observation of relative safety levels in current practice in several material technologies which may assist material specification groups in selecting their own values of ẞ and for design. 2. The results of this work, as detailed in the main report, show some differences in Blevels from material to material, limit state to limit state, member type to member type, and especially, from load type to load type. In particular, reliability with respect to wind or earthquake loads appears to be relatively low when compared to that for gravity loads (i.e., dead, live and snow loads), at least according to the methods used for structural safety checking in conventional design. These are methods which are simplified representations of real building behavior and they have presumably given satisfactory performance in the past. It was decided to propose load factors for combinations involving wind and earthquake loads that will give calculated B values which are comparable to those existing in current practice, and not to attempt to raise these values to those for gravity loads by increasing the nominal loads or the load factors for wind or earthquake loading. Based on the information given here the profession may well feel challenged (1) to justify more explicitly (by analysis or test) why current simplified wind and seismic calculations may be yielding conservative estimates of loads, resistances and safety; (2) to justify why current safety levels for gravity loads are higher than necessary if indeed this is true; (3) to explain why lower safety levels are appropriate for wind and earthquake vis-à-vis gravity loads, or (4) to agree to raise the wind and seismic loads or load factors to achieve a similar reliability as that inherent in gravity loads. While the writers feel that arguments can be cited in favor and against all four options, they decided that this report was not the appropriate forum for what should be a profession-wide debate. The method of obtaining the load factors and resistance factors presented in this report is general in its applicability. However, the data used herein restrict the utilization of the results to buildings and similar structures. They are not intended for vehicular loads on bridges, transients in reactor containments, and other loads which are considered to be outside the scope of the A58 Standard. Future Action The writers expect that the loading criterion presented in this report will be carefully scrutinized by numerous professional organizations and individuals who have interest in or are affected by the scope and provisions of the A58 Standard. The writers feel that a discussion of the recommendations is extremely important, in view of the implications that the adoption of these recommendations would have on structural design in the United States. The decision as to whether to incorporate the load criterion in a future edition of the A58 Standard lies with the A58 Standard Committee. After an appropriate period of review and public discussion, a draft provision will be prepared containing the load combinations and load factors which will be submitted for ballot by the A58 Standard Committee in accordance with ANSI voluntary consensus standard approval procedures. approved, the load criterion will become part of the A58 Standard. It will then be up to material specification writing groups to decide whether they wish to adapt their standards to this load criterion in the interest of harmonizing structural design. If |