Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol.
29, May 1996, pp 250-252
The strength design method for reinforced concrete
TECHNICAL NOTES
around the world
John A. Zachar 1 and Tarun R. Naik 2
(1) Department of Architectural Engineering and Building Construction, Milwaukee School of Engineering, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA
(2) Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, College of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee,
POBox 784 Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA.
A B S T R A C T
In the 40 years since the American Concrete Institute
(ACI) 318-56 Code introduced the ultimate strength
design method, it has become the primary method for
reinforced concrete design in the United States. The
concept of ultimate or limit state design has also been
incorporated into building codes around the world.
However, the codes of different countries do not agree
on the factors used to relate the service loads to ultimate
loads. This article reviews the basis for the strength
design method and compares the treatment of the
strength design concept by codes around the world.
In the 40 years since the ACI 318-56 Code introduced
the ultimate strength design method, it has become the
primary method of reinforced concrete design in the
United States. The concept of ultimate or limit state
design has also been incorporated into design codes
around the world. This article reviews the basis for the
strength design method and compares the treatment of the
strength design concept by codes around the world. The
codes compared are the ACI [1], Australian [2], Canadian
[3], British [4], and the unified European CEB [5].
One of the benefits of the strength design method is
that the engineer has a definitive measure of the factor of
safety for the design that defines its reserve strength. The
total factor of safety has two components, one based on
the load, the other based on the materials and fabrica-
tion. The engineer must plan for the case of a weaker
than expected structure subjected to heavier than
expected loads.
For the component of the factor of safety based on
load, the actual working load is increased by code-pres-
Editorial note
Dr. Tarun R. Naik is a RILEM Senior Member. Since 1992 he has been involved in the work of RILEM Technical Committee 126-IPT on in-place
testing of hardened concrete.
0025-5432/96 © RILEM
R É S U M É
Au cours des 40 années qui ont suivi l’introduction, grâce
au code de l’American Concrete Institute ACI 318-56,
de la méthode de calcul de la résistance à la rupture, celle-ci est
devenue la plus couramment utilisée aux États-Unis pour le
calcul du béton armé. Le concept de calcul à l’état-limite ou à
la rupture a également été introduit dans les codes du bâti-
ment de divers pays. Toutefois, ces codes ne concordent pas sur
les facteurs utilisés pour établir la corrélation entre charges de
service et charges ultimes. L’article analyse les bases de cette
méthode de calcul et compare les diverses façons dont ce concept
est traité dans les codes à travers le monde.
cribed factors to simulate an “ultimate” load. All loads
are not increased by a single factor. Instead, different fac-
tors are used for the different types of loads, the primary
load types being dead load and live load. The ultimate
load is defined by ACI 318-89 as 1.4 times the dead load
plus 1.7 times the live load.
It should be noted that when the ACI 318-56 intro-
duced the concept of ultimate strength design, the dead
and live load factors were 1.5 and 1.8, respectively. The
factors of 1.4 and 1.7 were adopted in the ACI 318-71
and have remained the same in the current Code. Fig. 1
illustrates how the overload factors extend the service
loads approximately 3 standard deviations, which repre-
sents a probability of ultimate load occurrence of less
than 1 in 1/1000.
The second component of the factor of safety
involves reducing the calculated strength of the section
by an undercapacity or strength reduction factor. This
factor accounts for variations in material and fabrication,
design approximations, and the ductility and relative
250
Zachar, Naik

Table 1 – Load and reduction factors

for various codes
Code Overload Factors Global Strength Reduction
Dead Load Live Load Factor (flexure)
ACI 1.40 1.70 0.90
Australian 1.25 1.50 0.80
Canadian 1.25 1.50 none
British 1.40 1.60 none
CEB 1.35 1.50 none

τs is equal to 1.15. The τs is a strength reduction factor

specific to the steel. Therefore, the tension force calculat-
Fig. 1 – Frequency of occurence curve comparing service load to ed by the CEB or British codes is only 87% of the tension
ultimate load, assuming statistically normal distribution. force calculated in accordance with the ACI Building
Code using T = As*fy. The Canadian code uses a partial
strength reduction factor φs applied to the steel stress, so T
importance of the member. The strength reduction fac- = As*φs*fy, where φs = 0.85. Similarly, the Canadian,
tor is often referred to as a “resistance factor”, since it British and CEB codes do not directly use f ′c. The
represents a reduction in the ability of the member to Canadian code uses a partial factor φc = 0.6 to be applied
resist load. The strength reduction factor is designated as to f ′c. The British and CEB codes apply a reduction factor
φ by the ACI 318-89, Section 9.3.2. For flexure, φ is 0.9, τc to the concrete stress in the same manner as the τs was
for shear or torsion it is 0.85, and for axial load it is 0.7 applied to the steel stress. The value of τc equals 1.5 in the
to 0.75. Relating the service load capacity to some British and CEB codes. The factor τc can be considered
reduction of the ultimate strength of the section is a the product of three factors, τc1, τc2 and τc3, that account
common practice of building codes around the world, for uncertainties and deviations between design, labora-
but the codes of different countries do not agree on tory testing, and actual construction. This essentially
either the values of the strength reduction factors or the accomplishes the same purpose as the global φ used by the
overload factors. ACI Building Code. Taerwe [6] has performed extensive
Fig. 2 shows the relationship between service load and research regarding these partial factors and has verified
ultimate strength. This is done with two idealized proba- their continued validity for high-strength concrete. The
bility curves, which reflect the effects of the overload and moment capacity of a section, calculated using partial
strength reduction factors. For the case of a flexural beam strength reduction factors, can be compared to give a
design based upon the ACI 318-89 criteria, the ultimate mathematical equivalent of the global φ used by the ACI
moment is related to the service moment by the formula Building Code. These equivalent global strength reduc-
1.4*MDL + 1.7*MLL = φ*Mn, where MDL refers to the tion factors are shown in Table 2.
dead load moment, and MLL refers to the live load To illustrate the calculation of the equivalent strength
moment. The strength reduction factor φ equals 0.9 for reduction factor, a comparison between the ACI and
f lexural calculations. The service moment, Ms, equals
MDL plus MLL. If the value of MDL is assumed to equal
the value of MLL, then Ms calculates to equal 0.58*Mn.
If MDL only equals 0.7*MLL, then Ms equals 0.57*Mn.
If MDL equals 1.3*MLL, then Ms equals 0.59*Mn.
Therefore, it is apparent that the variation between the
dead and live load moments has little effect on the rela-
tionship between the service and ultimate moment.
Codes from other countries use overload and strength
reduction factors that differ from the ACI Building Code.
A comparison of the factors used by various codes is
shown in Table 1.
Are the Canadian, British and CEB codes really as dif-
ferent from the ACI code as Table 1 would seem to indi-
cate ? No, even though those codes do not directly have a
global φ factor, they do have partial strength reduction fac-
tors based on the materials included in the preliminary
calculations. Unlike the ACI Code, the British and CEB
codes do not directly use the yield strength of the steel
(fy). Instead, they use a “design” stress fyd = fy / τs, where Fig. 2 – Frequency of occurence curves for load and strength.

251
Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 29, May 1996

Table 2 – Actual or equivalent global CONCLUSIONS

strength reduction factors The concept of ultimate strength design is accepted
Code Overload Factors Global Strength Reduction and used in codes around the world, but the codes of
Dead Load Live Load Factor (flexure) different countries do not agree on either the overload
ACI 1.40 1.70 0.90 factors used to relate the service loads to the nominal
Australian 1.25 1.50 0.80 ultimate loads, or on the strength reduction factors used
Canadian 1.25 1.50 0.77 to account for differences in materials and fabrication.
British 1.40 1.60 0.75 However, in the final comparison, the results are essen-
CEB 1.35 1.50 0.83 tially identical.
The Australian Code, with overload factors of 1.25
and 1.5, initially appeared less conservative than the ACI
Code (with factors of 1.4 and 1.7). However, as shown in
Canadian codes is shown below. Both codes use the Table 3, the use of φ = 0.8 results in a service/ultimate
Whitney stress block concept to predict the ultimate moment ratio identical to ACI. The Canadian Code uses
moment. The basic ACI equation is : the same overload factors as the Australian Code, but the
a partial reduction factors lead to a smaller equivalent φ, so
Mn = T d – the Canadian Code becomes slightly more conservative
2
than the ACI Code. The British and CEB Codes also use
where d equals the depth to the centroid of the reinforc- smaller overload factors, but their smaller equivalent φ
ing steel from the extreme compression face, and a is the values result in service/ultimate moment ratios that are
depth of the Whitney stress block. Assuming T = As * fy equal, or essentially equal, to the ACI Code.
and C = T, we get : Research by MacGregor [7], and Ellingwood et al., [8]
has suggested that the optimum overload factors for
A s fy flexure should be 1.25 for dead load and 1.42 for live load.
M n = A s fy d –
1.7 f ' c b The φ factor for f lexure is suggested as 0.81. Although
there is no immediate need to revise the current ACI
The equation for the ultimate moment in the overload or strength reduction factors, the international
Canadian Code is essentially the same as that given by community of reinforced concrete design engineers
the ACI Code, with the addition of the partial strength should work to standardize the methods used to define
reduction factors φc and φs : the ultimate state.
φs A s fy
M r = φs A s fy d –
1.7 φ c f ' c b REFERENCES
Making general assumptions such as the depth d = [1] ACI Committee 318, ‘Building Code Requirements for
twice the width b, and setting the Canadian value of Mr Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-89)’, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, MI, USA 1989, 111 pages. Also 318-56, 318-
equal to φ times the ACI value Mn, the equivalent strength 63, 318-71, 318-77, and 318-83
reduction factor φ can be calculated (in this case φ = 0.77). [2] Standards Association of Australia, ‘As 3600 - 1988 Concrete
As stated previously, if the value of MDL is assumed Structures’, Standards House, North Sydney, N.S.W Australia.
to equal the value of MLL, and the service load moment [3] Canadian Standards Association, ‘Design of Concrete Structures
Ms = MDL + MLL, then the combination of load and for Buildings (CAN3-A23.3-M84)’, CSA, Rexdale, Ontario,
Canada.
strength reduction factors used by the ACI Code would [4] British Standards Association, ‘The Structural Use of Concrete,
give Ms = 0.58*Mn. Using the same assumptions with BS 8110, 1985’, BSA, London, England.
the other codes, the results are shown in Table 3. [5] CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Comité Euro-International du
Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Table 3 – Relationship of service [6] Taerwe, L. R., ‘Partial safety factor for high strength concrete
under compression’, Proceedings of High-Strength Concrete
to ultimate moment 1993, Lillehammer, Norway, June 1993.
[7] MacGregor, J. G., ‘Safety and limit states design for reinforced
ACI 1.40*MDL+1.7*MLL = 0.90*Mn leads to Ms = 0.58*Mn concrete’, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 3, 4, (December
Australian 1.25*MDL+1.5*MLL = 0.80*Mn Ms = 0.58*Mn 1976).
Canadian 1.25*MDL+1.5*MLL = 0.77*Mn Ms = 0.56*Mn [8] Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T., MacGregor, J. G. and Cornell, C.
British 1.40*MDL+1.6*MLL = 0.75*Mn Ms = 0.57*Mn A., ‘Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for
CEB 1.35*MDL+1.5*MLL = 0.83*Mn Ms = 0.58*Mn American National Standard A58’, NBS Special Publication 577,
NBS, 1980.

252