ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 100-S42
Calibration of Design Code for Buildings (ACI 318): Part 2
Reliability Analysis and Resistance Factors
by Maria M. Szerszen and Andrzej S. Nowak
Calibration of the design code for concrete structures is presented
in two studies. The first one focused on the development of resistance
models. This paper deals with the reliability analysis and selection
of resistance factors. The structural types considered in this study
include beams, structural slabs, and columns. The analysis is
performed for reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete elements.
A wide range of materials is covered: ordinary concrete, high-
strength concrete, lightweight concrete, reinforcing bars No. 3
through 11, and two grades of prestressing strands. The reliability
analysis requires the knowledge of the statistical parameters for
load and resistance. Resistance models are described in the first
paper. In addition to the material parameters based on the new test
results, the parameters used in previous studies (1970s) were
considered. Load models are based on the data available in literature.
Reliability indexes are calculated using various load combinations,
the basic combination of dead load and live load, and other
combinations with snow, wind, and earthquake for the two
resistance models considered (older database and new material
database). The resulting values of the reliability index calculated
for the old data base and old load models, and potential consequences
of failure, served as a basis for the selection of the target reli-
ability index. For each type of structural element and load combination
case, several possible values of the resistance factor were considered
(rounded to the nearest 0.05). The recommended values provide a
close fit to the target reliability levels.
Keywords: analysis; load; resistance.
INTRODUCTION
This is the second of two papers presenting the calibration
of the Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318). The first study (Nowak and Szerszen 2003) focused
on the development of the statistical models for resistance
including strength of materials: concrete (ordinary concrete,
high-strength concrete, and lightweight concrete), reinforcing
steel, and prestressing steel. This paper deals with the reliability
analysis and selection of resistance (strength reduction) factors.
The 2002 edition of the Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) specifies loads and load
combinations consistent with ASCE 7, Standard on Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (1998).
The objective of this calibration is to calculate a new set of
resistance factors (strength-reduction factors) based on a
probabilistic analysis using the currently available statistical
data, so that the reliability of designed elements is consistent
with a predetermined target level.
The calibration procedure follows the basic steps as described
by Nowak and Collins (2000). Load and resistance parameters
are treated as random variables. Therefore, structural perfor-
mance is measured in terms of the reliability index (Nowak
and Collins 2000). The statistical parameters of load are
based on the available literature, and for resistance, two
databases are considered: one from the 1970s, and the other
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003
TECHNICAL PAPER
from material tests performed in 2000 and 2001 (Nowak and
Szerszen 2003). The quality of workmanship can have a strong
influence on materials, and it is assumed to be of average level.
CALIBRATION PROCEDURE
The calibration procedure used for selection of resistance
factors is based on the structural reliability theory (Nowak and
Collins 2000). The calibration procedure includes five steps.
First, the types of structural elements and materials covered
by ACI 318 Code are identified. It is important to select the
representative dimensions and reinforcement ratios for
structural elements. Depending on the structural types, the
typical load component ratios D/(D + L) are determined,
where D = dead load effect and L = live load effect.
The second step is to select the statistical models for load
components that are needed for reliability analysis. For each
time-varying load, two load components are considered: an
arbitrary-point-in-time value and the maximum lifetime value.
The models include the mean value and coefficient of variation.
It is assumed that the database for loads available in the
literature is sufficient for the purpose of this calibration. For
load combinations, Turkstras rule was applied (Turkstra 1970;
Turkstra and Madsen 1980; Nowak and Collins 2000).
The third step, selection of the resistance models, is one of
the most important tasks in the calibration process. The
available database for material properties was reviewed. The
quality of materials (concrete and steel) has improved over the
years and it is not reflected in the design formulas, particularly
in the resistance factors. Therefore, this step in the calibration
process included the collection of new material test results
and redevelopment of statistical models for resistance.
The next step in the calibration process focused on the
reliability analysis procedures. Various available procedures are
presented in the literature (for example, Nowak and Collins
2000; Thoft-Christensen and Baker 1982; Madsen, Krenk,
and Lind 1986; and Melchers 1987). In this study, safety was
measured in terms of the reliability index.
The developed procedure was applied to calculate the
reliability indexes for the considered structural types and
materials, for various ratios of load components, designed
exactly according to ACI 318-99 (no under-design or over-
design). The analysis was performed for two sets of statistical
models for resistance: 1) based on the material test data from
1970s and early 1980s; and 2) based on new material test data
provided by the industry and processed in conjunction
with this study.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 3, May-June 2003.
MS No. 02-177 received May 28, 2002, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright 2003, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the March-
April 2004 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2003.
383

ACI member Maria M. Szerszen is an assistant research scientist in the Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
She is a member of ACI Committee 348, Structural Safety, and Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 343, Concrete Bridge Design.
ACI member Andrzej S. Nowak is a professor in the Department of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, University of Michigan. He is a member of ACI Committees
318, Structural Concrete Building Code; 348, Structural Safety, and Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 343, Concrete Bridge Design.
The next important step in the calibration process is the
selection of the target reliability index for all design cases,
including all of the considered structural types and materials.
The reliability indexes corresponding to the current practice,
as calculated in the previous step, were used as important
references in the selection process. The target reliability level
depends on consequences of failure and cost of increasing/
decreasing the safety margin by a unit (marginal cost of safety).
The final step in this calibration is the calculation and
selection of resistance factors for the considered limit states
and the design cases corresponding to the load factors
specified in ASCE 7-98 Standard. The acceptance criterion
was closeness to the target reliability index. The resistance
factors were rounded to the nearest 0.05. To check the
consistency of the results, reliability indexes were calculated
using the proposed resistance factors and the results were
compared with the target values.
DESIGN FORMULAS
The ultimate limit state load cases specified by ACI 318-99
Code are:
1.4D + 1.7L < R (1)
0.75(1.4D + 1.7L +1.7W) < R
0.9D + 1.3W < R
0.75(1.4D + 1.7L + 1.87E) < R
where D = dead load; L = live load; W = wind, E = earthquake;
R = resistance (load-carrying capacity); and = resistance
factor (capacity-reduction factor). Snow S is not mentioned
in the Code, and it is implied that snow load is included in
the live load L.
Resistance factors are specified depending on structural
type, material, and limit state; = 0.90 for flexure, = 0.85 for
shear, = 0.70 for tied columns, = 0.75 for spiral col-
umns, and = 0.60 for plain concrete.
The ultimate limit state load cases specified in the
ASCE 7-98 Standard are
1.4D < R (2)
1.2D + 1.6L < R
1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5S < R
1.2D + 0.5L + 1.6S < R
1.2D + 1.6W + 0.5L + 0.5S < R
1.2D + 1.0E + 0.5L + 0.2S < R
0.9D (1.6W or 1.0E) < R
384
In addition, wind load is multiplied by the directionality
factor 0.85. The objective of this calibration is to determine
the value of factors corresponding to Eq. (2). In addition,
the values of load factors are also verified for consistency.
Some of the load factors specified in ACI 318-02 for the
ultimate limit states and load combinations including live
load, snow, and wind are different than load factors in ASCE
7-98. In particular, the live load factor of 0.5 in ASCE 7-98
is changed to 1.0 in ACI 318-02. A live load factor of 0.5 is
still permitted except for garages, areas of public assembly, and
for a live load greater than 100 lb/ft2. The reliability analysis was
performed for live load factor of 0.5, and an increased load factor
will result in higher reliability indexes. Therefore, the recom-
mended resistance factors are acceptable for ACI 318-02.
LOAD MODELS
The considered load components include dead load, live
load, snow, wind, and earthquake. The statistical parameters
for load components are taken from the available literature
(Ellingwood et al. 1980; Ellingwood and Rosowsky 1996;
and Nowak 1999). For each load combination, the statistical
parameters are determined using the so-called Turkstras
rule (Turkstra 1970; Turkstra and Madsen 1980; and Nowak
and Collins 2000). Turkstra observed that the extreme value
of load combinations corresponds to the occurrence of an
extreme value of only one load component, while all the other
load components take the corresponding average (arbitrary-
point-in-time) values.
Therefore, for each load component, two sets of statistical
parameters are considered. The first corresponds to the
maximum expected value of the load component during the
lifetime of the structure, and the other corresponds to the
average value (arbitrary-point-in-time value).
Dead load is the weight of structural and nonstructural
elements permanently connected to the structure. The bias
factor (ratio of mean-to-nominal) value of dead load is = 1.05,
and coefficient of variation V = 0.10 for cast-in-place concrete,
and = 1.03, and coefficient of variation V = 0.08 for precast
concrete (Nowak and Collins 2000). Because dead load is
assumed to be time-invariant, only one set of parameters
is needed.
Live load is the weight of people, furniture, partitions, and
other items. For the maximum 50-year live load, the bias factor
is = 1.0, and the coefficient of variation V varies depending
on the influence area. V decreases with an increasing influence
area. In this study, the calculations were performed for sev-
eral influence areas, but the results are presented for 40 m2
and V = 0.18. For average live load, = 0.24 and V = 0.65.
Snow is specified in terms of ground snow, and the design
value is modified using several additional parameters. The
parameters for the maximum snow are = 0.82 and V = 0.26.
For the average snow load, = 0.20 and V = 0.87.
Wind load is specified in terms of wind velocity at 10 m
above the ground level, and the design value of pressure due
to wind is modified using several additional parameters,
including gust factor and exposure factor. The parameters
for the maximum 50-year wind are = 0.78 and V = 0.37. It
was assumed that the average (arbitrary-point-in-time) wind
load is negligible, with = 0.
Earthquake load is specified in terms of ground acceleration,
and the design value is modified using several additional
parameters. The parameters for the maximum earthquake
are = 0.66 and V = 0.56. For the average earthquake, = 0.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003
 The basic load combination includes dead load and live
load. The reliability analysis is performed for a full range of
load ratios that are expressed as D/(D + L), varying from 0 to
1. The practical range of D/(D + L), however, is between 0.3
and 0.9. Because of the load duration and a negligible
probability of a simultaneous occurrence, the combination
of W and E is not considered.
For load combinations including S, W, and E, the analysis
is performed for a full range of D/(D + L) in addition to one
of the environmental loads. For combinations including
snow, the results are presented for S = 0.5D. For combina-
tions including wind, the results are presented for W = 0.5D.
For combinations including earthquake, the results are
presented for E = 0.5D.
The load statistical parameters are summarized in Table 1.
The parameters shown in Table 1 are bias factor and coeffi-
cient of variation. For each design case considered, the mean
value of load is calculated as a product of the nominal (design)
value and bias factor. The standard deviation is calculated as
the product of the mean and coefficient of variation.
structural slabs, and plain concrete. Three types of concrete
are considered: ordinary, high-strength, and lightweight. A
wide range of reinforcing bar diameters and prestressing
strands are included.
The statistical parameters of resistance were derived by
Monte Carlo simulations, based on material test data and
other parameters. The procedure is presented by Nowak and
Szerszen (2003), and the results are summarized in Table 2.
The parameters shown in Table 2 are bias factor and coefficient
of variation. For each design case considered, the mean value of
resistance is calculated as a product of the nominal (design)
value and bias factor. The standard deviation is calculated as
the product of the mean and coefficient of variation.
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Load and resistance parameters are random variables;
therefore, it is convenient to measure the structural perfor-
mance in terms of the reliability index . Various procedures
for calculation of are presented by Nowak and Collins
(2000). The general format of the limit state function g is

RESISTANCE MODELS g = RQ0 (3)

The reliability analysis is performed for reinforced concrete
and prestressed concrete components such as beams, columns, where g = safety margin; R = resistance; and Q = load effect.
In this study, Q is a combination of load components.
Table 1Statistical parameters for The reliability index can be considered as a function of
load combinations the probability of failure PF
Arbitrary-point-in- Maximum
time load 50-year load 1
= ( PF ) (4)
Load component Bias COV Bias COV
Dead load (cast-in-place) 1.05 0.10 1.05 0.10
Dead load (plant-cast) 1.03 0.08 1.03 0.08
where 1 = inverse standard normal distribution function.
The reliability analysis procedure used in this calibration
Live load 0.24 0.65 1.00 0.18
includes the following steps:
Snow 0.20 0.87 0.82 0.26
1. Prepare input data:
Wind 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.37 Structural type and limit state;
Earthquake 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.56 Nominal values of load components: D, L, S, W, and E; and
Note: COV = coefficient of variation. Load and resistance factors: D, L, S, W, E, and .

Table 2Statistical parameters of resistance R

Statistical parameters of resistance
Existing design (based on Proposed design (based on new material data)
material data from
Ellingwood et al. [1980]) Ordinary concrete High-strength concrete Lightweight concrete
Structural type and limit state Bias factor V Bias factor V Bias factor V Bias factor V
RC beam cast-in-place, flexure 1.114 0.119 1.190 0.089 1.160 0.090 1.180 0.090
RC beam plant-cast, flexure 1.128 0.133 1.205 0.081
RC beam cast-in-place, shear 1.159 0.120 1.230 0.109 1.190 0.110 1.230 0.110
RC beam plant-cast, shear 1.170 0.116 1.242 0.105
PS beam plant-cast, flexure 1.034 0.081 1.084 0.073
PS beam plant-cast, shear 1.130 0.105 1.194 0.103
RC slab cast-in-place 1.052 0.169 1.077 0.146 1.070 0.145 1.080 0.150
RC slab plant-cast 1.146 0.116 1.174 0.082
PS slab plant-cast 1.053 0.070 1.075 0.070
Post-tensioned slab cast-in-place 0.961 0.146 0.982 0.145 1.030 0.110
RC column cast-in-place, tied 1.107 0.136 1.260 0.107 1.200 0.120 1.260 0.130
RC column plant-cast, tied 1.102 0.134 1.252 0.103
RC column cast-in-place, spiral 1.163 0.124 1.316 0.097 1.260 0.110 1.330 0.120
RC column plant-cast, spiral 1.156 0.122 1.323 0.091
PS column plant-cast, tied 1.017 0.094 1.080 0.090
PS column plant-cast, spiral 1.068 0.076 1.133 0.071
Plain concrete, flexure, shear 1.004 0.082 1.105 0.082 1.240 0.080 1.400 0.080

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003 385


Fig. 1Reliability indexes calculated for D + L load com-
bination; reinforced beam made of ordinary concrete (flexure).
Fig. 2Reliability indexes calculated for D + L load com-
bination; reinforced beam made of ordinary concrete (shear).
Fig. 3Reliability indexes calculated for D + L load combina-
tion; reinforced slab made of ordinary concrete (flexure).
The load factors are available, but the factor is to be deter-
mined. There are a limited number of possible values for ,
however, (they are rounded to the nearest 0.05); therefore,
calculations are carried out for several possible values of .
2. Calculate load parameters: the mean total load, the corre-
sponding coefficient of variation, and the standard deviation.
3. Calculate the nominal resistance for two cases: ASCE 7-98
from Eq. (2), using new statistical data for materials (Nowak
and Szerszen 2002), and ACI 318-99 from Eq. (1), using old
statistical data for materials (based on Ellingwood et al. 1980).
4. Determine the statistical parameters of R (Table 2).
5. Calculate the reliability index
2 2 0.5
= ( m R m Q ) ( R + Q ) (5) for old materials data and existing design are slightly
386
where mR = mean value of resistance; mQ = mean value of
the total load effect; R = standard deviation of resistance;
and Q = standard deviation of the total load effect.
RELIABILITY INDEXES FOR SELECTED
STRUCTURES AND MATERIALS
The reliability analysis is performed following the procedure
described previously for the considered structural types and
limit states. The resistance is determined using formulas in
Eq. (1) and (2) for ASCE 7-98 and ACI 318-99, respectively.
The former is denoted as proposed design, and the latter as
existing design. The statistical parameters used in the
computations are as described in this paper and in Nowak
and Szerszen (2003). For the existing design, the analysis is
carried out for old material data. For the proposed design,
new statistical parameters for materials are considered.
The analysis is performed for the following load com-
binations:
D (6)
D+L
D+L+S
D+L+W
D+L+E
D+L+S+W
D+L+S+E
Reliability indexes are calculated for each type of structural
component and material, and for the full range of the D/(D + L)
ratio, including the case of dead load without any live load
(L = 0). The reliability indexes are shown for the full range
of the D/(D + L) ratio. For existing design (ACI 318-99), the
old factors were used. For the proposed design (ASCE 7-98),
s were calculated for specified in ACI-318-99, and in
addition for ( 0.05) and ( + 0.05).
The average reliability indexes, determined for ordinary
concrete, high-strength concrete, and lightweight concrete,
are presented in Table 3. These average values are calculated
based on the range of reliability indexes selected depending
on structural component and D/(D + L) ratio. The most probable
load ratios are selected as follows: for beams, D/(D + L) =
from 0.3 to 0.7, for slabs, D/(D + L) = from 0.3 to 0.6, and
for columns, D/(D + L) = from 0.4 to 0.9. Reliability indexes
calculated for existing design and old factors served as refer-
ences for the selection of the target reliability indexes. The
selection criterion for new factors was closeness to the
safety margin calculated for the existing design.
Examples of the reliability indexes plotted versus D/(D + L)
for the basic load combination of D + L and for combinations
with environmental loads are shown in Fig. 1 to 20. The
resulting s vary, depending on type of component, limit
state, and load ratio.
Reliability indexes calculated for beams vary depending
on the type of beam (reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete,
cast-in-place or plant-cast) and limit state (flexure or shear).
Most of the s are close to 4 or over. Values calculated
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003
Table 3Average values of reliability indexes for load combination, D + L
Old material data, existing
design 1.4D + 1.7L New material data, proposed design, 1.4D or 1.2D + 1.6L
Resistance factor Ordinary concrete High-strength concrete Lightweight concrete
Structural type and limit state
0.95 3.83 3.63 3.75
RC beam cast-in-place, flexure 3.54 0.90 4.19 3.99 4.10
0.85 4.55 4.36 4.46
0.95 4.31
RC beam plant-cast, flexure 3.34 0.90 4.69
0.85 5.09
0.90 3.78 3.58 3.75
RC beam cast-in-place, shear 3.95 0.85 4.07 3.87 4.04
0.80 4.36 4.17 4.33
0.90 4.03
RC beam plant-cast, shear 4.18 0.85 4.33
0.80 4.63
0.95 3.75
PS beam plant-cast, flexure 4.34 0.90 4.20
0.85 4.65
0.90 3.88
PS beam plant-cast, shear 4.37 0.85 4.19
0.80 4.51
0.95 2.25 2.24 2.21
RC slab cast-in-place 2.45 0.90 2.48 2.47 2.44
0.85 2.72 2.71 2.67
0.95 4.13
RC slab plant-cast 3.84 0.90 4.51
0.85 4.90
0.95 3.82
PS slab plant-cast 4.90 0.90 4.27
0.85 4.73
0.95 1.85 2.54
Post-tensioned slab cast-in-place 2.41 0.90 2.09 2.85
0.85 2.35 3.17
0.75 4.68 4.03 3.94
RC column cast-in-place, tied 3.98 0.70 4.99 4.32 4.20
0.65 5.30 4.61 4.45
0.75 4.93
RC column plant-cast, tied 4.09 0.70 5.25
0.65 5.57
0.80 4.97 4.27 4.19
RC column cast-in-place, spiral 4.26 0.75 5.30 4.57 4.45
0.70 5.64 4.87 4.71
0.80 5.44
RC column plant-cast, spiral 4.38 0.75 5.78
0.70 6.13
0.75 4.67
PS column plant-cast, tied 5.21 0.70 5.09
0.65 5.51
0.80 5.45
PS column plant-cast, spiral 6.05 0.75 5.96
0.70 6.48
0.70 5.37 6.21 6.93
Plain concrete, flexure, shear 5.98 0.65 5.84 6.66 7.34
0.60 6.32 7.11 7.74

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003 387

Fig. 4Reliability indexes calculated for D + L load combina-
tion; reinforced column made of ordinary concrete (tied).
Fig. 5Reliability indexes calculated for D + L load combina-
tion; reinforced column made of ordinary concrete (spiral).
Fig. 6Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S load
combination (snow is dominating load); reinforced column
made of ordinary concrete (flexure).
Fig. 7Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S load
combination (snow is dominating load); reinforced beam made
of ordinary concrete (shear).
388
Fig. 8Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S load
combination (snow is dominating load); reinforced slab made
of ordinary concrete (flexure).
Fig. 9Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S load
combination (snow is dominating load); reinforced column
made of ordinary concrete (tied).
lower. Reliability indexes calculated for axially loaded
columns are higher then those for beams by approximately 10
to 20%.
It is observed that reliability indexes for slabs are lower than
for beams, and this applies both to existing design and proposed
design code. In slabs, there is a considerable uncertainty about
the actual effective depth, and the reliability index is very
sensitive to any departure from the specified value of the
depth. Effective depth in concrete slabs is usually very small
(compared with that of a beam), and even a small reduction can
drastically reduce the reliability index. The overall reliability
of the slab, however, is considerably higher than the calculated
value due to load sharing. The reliability analysis is performed
for a 1 ft (or 1 m) wide segment of the slab. The slab, as a
structural system, can be considered as a parallel system of
interacting (load-sharing) segments. The reliability index of the
slab treated as a system is similar or larger than that of a beam.
Some of the reliability indexes for load combinations
including wind and earthquake are low. This is due to very
large coefficients of variation of W and E.
TARGET RELIABILITY INDEX
The optimum value of the target reliability index T can be
determined based on two parameters: consequences of failure,
and incremental cost of safety (Nowak and Collins 2000;
Madsen, Krenk, and Lind 1986; and Melchers 1987). In
general, the larger the expected cost of failure, the larger T
is. However, T also depends on the financial considerations.
If additional reliability can be achieved at a low cost, then T
can be larger than an otherwise acceptable minimum level,
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003
Fig. 10Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S load
combination (snow is dominating load); reinforced column
made of ordinary concrete (spiral).
Fig. 11Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S + W
load combination (wind is dominating load); reinforced beam
made of ordinary concrete (flexure).
Fig. 12Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S + W
load combination (wind is dominating load); reinforced beam
made of ordinary concrete (shear).
and if it is very costly to increase , then even T that is lower
than an otherwise required value can be acceptable. The
selection of the optimum T, however, requires a considerable
database. The code provisions in ACI 318 apply to various
types of structural components, and it is assumed that T is to be
selected for primary members (important components), and the
failure of a component can cause failure of other components.
For secondary members, T can be reduced. There is practically
no basis available to determine the consequences of failure
and cost of safety for the structural components considered
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003
Fig. 13Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S + W
load combination (wind is dominating load); reinforced slab
made of ordinary concrete (flexure).
Fig. 14Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S + W
load combination (wind is dominating load); reinforced column
made of ordinary concrete (tied).
Fig. 15Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S + W
load combination (wind is dominating load); reinforced column
made of ordinary concrete (spiral).
in this study, however. Because of insufficient input data in
this study, the target reliability levels were selected on the
basis of the existing code (ACI 318-99).
The calculated reliability indexes, presented in Table 3 and
Fig. 1 to 20, represent element reliability as opposed to the
system reliability. The relationship between the element
reliability index e and system reliability index s depends on
type of the system (parallel, series, or mixed) and degree
of correlation between the elements. In general, statically
determinate structures can be treated as series systems, and s
389

Fig. 16Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S load
combination (live load is dominating load); reinforced beam
made of ordinary concrete (flexure).
Fig. 17Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S load
combination (live load is dominating load); reinforced beam
made of ordinary concrete (shear).
Fig. 18Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S load
combination (live load is dominating load); reinforced slab
made of ordinary concrete (flexure).
< e. For parallel systems, s > e. The difference between
s and e depends on the coefficient of correlation ; and s
increases for increased and for series systems, and s
decreases for increased for parallel systems.
It is assumed that the reliability indexes for components
designed using the ACI-318-99 Code are acceptable. The
Code provisions have been used for over 30 years. Therefore,
the corresponding values of are calculated using the old
material data, as shown in Table 3. These reliability indexes
are assumed to be a lower limit for acceptable values of T.
For each type of component, a large variation of s as a function
390
Fig. 19Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S load
combination (live load is dominating load); reinforced column
made of ordinary concrete (tied).
Fig. 20Reliability indexes calculated for D + L + S load
combination (live load is dominating load); reinforced column
made of ordinary concrete (spiral).
of load ratio is an indication that the load factors are not
properly selected.
The new material data represents the material properties
determined in conjunction with this study, as also shown in
Table 3. For most cases, the new parameters are improved
compared to old data. The target reliability indexes selected
based on the old material data and ACI 318-99 Code design
formula are shown in Table 4. These values are conserva-
tively selected as upper rather than lower limits of the range
of obtained in calculations.
The target is 3.5 for most of the components except of
columns. Special consideration is required for slabs. In cast-
in-place slabs, there is a considerable degree of load sharing,
and the system reliability is much larger than for a segment of
1 ft (0.305 m). This justifies a reduced value of T = 2.5. For
precast slab panels, the degree of load sharing can be similar
to beams.
Further consideration is required for columns. In this study,
only axially loaded columns were included. Table 4 presents the
range of reliability index based on selected D/(D + L) ratios
typical for particular types of structure, calculated for proposed
new resistance factors. These values can be compared with
target reliability indexes selected for considered structural
types and design cases.
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTORS
The reliability indexes corresponding to various categories of
structural types and materials were reviewed and compared to
the target values. Based on that analysis, the recommended
values of the resistance factor are given in Table 5.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003
Table 4Selected target reliability indexes Table 5Recommended resistance factors
Structural type and limit state Range of T Structural type and limit state Resistance factors
RC beam cast-in-place, flexure 3.4 to 3.6 3.5 RC beam cast-in-place, flexure 0.90
RC beam plant-cast, flexure 3.2 to 3.4 3.5 RC beam plant-cast, flexure 0.90
RC beam cast-in-place, shear 3.8 to 4.0 3.5 RC beam cast-in-place, shear 0.85
RC beam plant-cast, shear 4.1 to 4.2 3.5 RC beam plant-cast, shear 0.85
PS beam plant-cast, flexure 4.2 to 4.4 3.5 PS beam plant-cast, flexure 0.90
PC beam plant-cast, shear 4.3 to 4.4 3.5 PC beam plant-cast, shear 0.85
RC slab cast-in-place 2.3 to 2.5 2.5 RC slab cast-in-place, flexure 0.90
RC slab plant-cast 3.8 to 3.9 3.5 RC slab plant-cast, flexure 0.90
PS slab plant-cast 4.7 to 5.0 3.5 PS slab plant-cast, flexure 0.90
Post-tensioned slab cast-in-place 2.3 to 2.5 2.5 Post-tensioned slab cast-in-place, flexure 0.90
RC slab cast-in-place, tied 3.8 to 4.1 4.0 RC column cast-in-place, tied 0.75
RC column plant-cast, tied 3.9 to 4.2 4.0 RC column plant-cast, tied 0.75
RC column cast-in-place, spiral 4.0 to 4.4 4.0 RC column cast-in-place, spiral 0.80
RC column plant-cast, spiral 4.2 to 4.5 4.0 RC column plant-cast, spiral 0.80
PS column plant-cast, tied 5.0 to 5.3 4.0 PS column plant-cast, tied 0.75
PS column plant-cast, spiral 5.8 to 6.2 4.0 PS column plant-cast, spiral 0.80
Plain concrete, flexure, shear 5.7 to 6.2 4.0 Plain concrete, shear 0.65

It was observed that the reliability indexes are low for the
load combinations with dead load being approximately 80 to
90% of the total load, and with live load being 10 to 20%. To
achieve uniform values of , it is recommended to replace
the first load combination in Eq. (2) (1.4D < R), with
1.4 ( D + L ) < R (7)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported in this paper (PCA R&D Serial No.2634) was
conducted by the authors, with the sponsorship of the Portland Cement
Association (PCA Project Index No. 99-10) and the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute. The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors,
who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented. The
contents do not necessarily reflect the views of the Portland Cement Association
or the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES

The reliability-based calibration was performed for structural
types and materials covered by the ACI 318-99 Code. The
objective was to calculate the resistance factors for the design of
concrete structures corresponding to load and load combination
factors specified by the ASCE 7-98 Standard.
Three categories of concrete: ordinary, high strength, and
lightweight; and two categories of steel: reinforcing bars and
prestressing strands, were considered. Statistical parame-
ters were determined for the new material test data provided
by the industry. By comparison with previous studies, it was
observed that the quality control of material has improved in
the last 20 to 30 years. In particular, this applies to concrete
and reinforcing bars. Prestressing strands continue to exhibit
a very low degree of variation.
The reliability indexes were calculated for a wide variety
of structural types and limit states (beams in flexure, shear,
slabs, tied and spiral columns, tension members, cast-in-
place, and plant-cast). A variation of s is observed for various
design cases. In general, s are lower for concrete slabs.
Reliability indexes are also lower for load combinations
involving wind and earthquake.
The final selection of resistance factors for ACI 318 Code
is based on the results of the reliability analysis, comparison
with previous practice, and simplicity of the code (convenience
of the designer). Therefore, there is a need to minimize the
number of different resistance factors in the code.
In addition to the change in resistance factors, it is recom-
mended to change the load combination factors for dead load
and live load, as shown in Eq. (7).
ACI Committee 318, 1999, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 391 pp.
ASCE 7-98, 1998, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington, D.C., 352 pp.
Ellingwood, B.; Galambos, T. V.; MacGregor, J. G.; and Cornell, C. A.,
1980, Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American
National Standard A58, NBS Special Report 577, U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, 222 pp.
Ellingwood, B., and Rosowsky, D., 1996, Combining Snow and Earthquake
Loads for Limit States Design, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
V. 122, No. 11, pp. 1364-1368.
Madsen, H. O.; Krenk, S.; and Lind, N. C., 1986, Methods of Structural
Safety, Prentice-Hall, N.J., pp. 403.
Melchers, R. E., 1987, Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction,
Ellis Horwood Limited, 400 pp.
Nowak, A. S., 1999, Calibration of LRFD Bridge Design Code,
NCHRP Report 368, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Nowak, A. S., and Collins, K. R., 2000, Reliability of Structures, McGraw-
Hill New York, 360 pp.
Nowak, A. S., and Szerszen, M. M., 2001, Reliability-Based Calibration
for Structural Concrete, Report UMCEE 01-04, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., Nov.
Nowak, A. S., and Szerszen, M. M., 2003, Calibration of Design Code
for Buildings (ACI 318): Part 1Statistical Models for Resistance,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 3, May-June, pp. 377-382.
Thoft-Christensen, P., and Baker, M. J., 1982, Structural Reliability Theory
and Its Applications, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, New York, 267 pp.
Turkstra, C. J., 1970, Theory of Structural Design Decisions, Solid
Mechanics Study No. 2, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Turkstra, C. J., and Madsen, H. O., 1980, Load Combinations in Codified
Structural Design, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 106,
No. ST12, Dec., pp. 2527-2543.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003 391