NRC Publications Archive

Archives des publications du CNRC

Limit states design

Allen, D. E.

For the publisher’s version, please access the DOI link below./ Pour consulter la version de l’éditeur, utilisez le lien
DOI ci-dessous.

Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:

https://doi.org/10.4224/40000759
Canadian Building Digest, 1982-01-01

NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC :
https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=3c346f2e-8c56-44c5-8bc7-ec9258c8bb61
https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=3c346f2e-8c56-44c5-8bc7-ec9258c8bb61

Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at
https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright
READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE.

L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site
https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits
LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.

Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at

[email protected]. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the
first page of the publication for their contact information.

Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la
première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez
pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à [email protected].
Canadian Building Digest
Division of Building Research, National Research Council Canada

CBD-221

Limit States Design

Please note
This publication is a part of a discontinued series and is archived here as an historical reference. Readers should
consult design and regulatory experts for guidance on the applicability of the information to current construction
practice.

Originally published January 1982.

D.E. Allen

This Digest describes the gradual replacement of allowable stress design by limit states design
as a basic calculation tool for designing and evaluating civil engineering structures. It also
explains the principles and advantages of limit states design.
Background
The successful design of structures goes back to ancient times. For many centuries, structures
were designed using common sense, trial and error, and rules of proportion acquired through
experience. Their effectiveness depended on the knowledge and skills of master craftsmen.
Industrialization and the mass-production of iron and steel in the nineteenth century led to
rapid changes in construction types. This in turn provided an impetus to replace the traditional
trial-and-error approach for designing structures, which was slow to adapt to innovations by
calculations based on scientific principles. The only scientific tools available at that time for
designing structures were Newton's laws of motion and the theory of elasticity. As time went
on, these scientific principles were developed into a unified, practical tool for structural
calculations called allowable stress design.
In allowable stress design, the adequacy of a structure is checked by calculating the elastic
stresses in it due to the maximum expected loads, and comparing them with allowable
stresses. The allowable stress is equal to the failure stress of the material divided by a safety
factor. Safety factors were first determined by applying allowable stress design methods to
successful structures existing at that time. The safety factors for new materials were estimated
in comparison with those for traditional materials by taking into account the nature of failure
for the new material and its uncertainty or variability. Allowable stress design has formed the
basis of structural codes and standards for most of this century.
Limitations of Allowable Stress Design -- Changes in Practice
The allowable stress design method, however, has a number of limitations. These are
illustrated by means of an example of a reinforced concrete column under axial force shown in
Figure 1. The force in the column is equal to a compression due to the weight of the building
plus either a compression or a tension due to the wind load. The column must be designed to
resist the total compression, or any net tension if the tension due to wind is greater than the
compression due to the weight of the building.
Figure 1. Column forces in a tall building.
Years ago, before much was known about reinforced concrete, the total compression applied to
the column was assumed to be carried by elastic stresses in both the concrete and the steel,
and the column was designed by comparing these stresses with the allowable values. However,
since concrete shrinks after it is cast and creeps under the sustained weight of the building, a
large portion of the stress is transferred from the concrete to the steel. Theoretically, then,
much more steel must be added to keep the stress below the allowed limit. In practice,
however, the yielding of the steel does not cause failure, and the load-bearing capacity of the
column is determined simply by adding the crushing strength of the concrete portion to the
yield strength of the steel. This, then, is an example in which allowable stress design results in
considerable overdesign.
In the case of net tension or uplift, allowable stress design requires that the anchorage steel
connecting the column to the foundation be designed to resist the difference between the
tension due to wind and the compression due to the weight of the building. The safety factor is
therefore applied to this difference. If this difference is small, then a wind load only slightly
greater than predicted will cause failure. The risk of failure is therefore high. Thus, there are
also instances in which allowable stress design is not safe enough.
Because of limitations such as these, several changes have taken place in design standards
over the years. First of all, formulas for calculating stresses based on member strength rather
than stress analysis were introduced into standards. Secondly, special rules were established to
provide adequate safety for anchorage against wind uplift and overturning. Thirdly, to
economize on material, allowable stress design was replaced by methods based on strength
theory for specific types of construction and applications. Finally, as structures became lighter
and thinner, new serviceability requirements for deflection, cracking and vibration were
introduced. All these modifications have resulted in deviations from the unified basis provided
by the allowable stress design method for the design of civil engineering structures.
Still other changes are taking place. There is a growing variety of construction types, especially
of composite structures made with two or more basic structural materials. In addition,
structures are being used for a greater number of purposes and under a wider range of
environmental conditions than before. These changes have engendered an exponential growth
of structural codes and standards containing a multitude of criteria. The need for a unified basis
for design is therefore even greater now than it was in the past. Limit states design has been
introduced to satisfy this need.
Limit States Design
All structures have two basic requirements in common: safety from collapse and satisfactory
performance of the structure for its intended use. The limit states define the various ways in
which a structure fails to satisfy these basic requirements. Ultimate limit states relate to safety
and correspond to strength, stability and very large deformation. Serviceability limit states
relate to satisfactory performance and correspond to excessive deflection, vibration and local
deformation.
Limit states design refers to the calculations made by the designer to ensure that these failures
do not occur. The steps involved in checking a structure or its components for any limit state
are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Limit states design method.

In Figure 2 the loads are defined as the dead weight, wind, snow, temperature change, etc.,
which are expected to act on a structure during its projected life. They are generally specified
in codes. Loads generally tend to cause failure, but sometimes they resist failure as in the case
of dead weight holding a structure in place during a windstorm.
For the ultimate limit states, the loads are multiplied by load factors which take into account
the probability of deviations of the load from the value specified in the code. For example, dead
weight is more predictable than wind or snow load so its load factor is closer to 1.0. When a
load is combined with other loads, its load factor is decreased by means of a load combination
factor to take into account the reduced probability of different loads acting simultaneously.
Finally, the load factor may be adjusted by an importance factor to increase the safety of the
structure when the consequences of failure are very severe and to decrease it when they are
not. Nuclear containment structures, for example, are designed for much greater safety than
storage sheds.
All load factors for the serviceability limits states are made equal to 1.0 since these limit states
relate to performance under normal use.
Once the loads are factored, the designer then calculates forces or deformations within the
structure. These calculations are based on a theory of structural behaviour which appropriately
reflects the behaviour of the structure as the limit state is approached. For example, simple
elastic theory, which takes into account shrinkage and creep, is appropriate for most structures
for the serviceability limit states, whereas simple strength or stability theories are appropriate
for most structures for the ultimate limit states.
In the case of the ultimate limit states, the component forces obtained are then compared
(Figure 2) with calculated component resistances. These resistances are determined by
analyzing the strength of the component as a function of the material properties and
dimensions specified in the design. A component may be a member, a connection or a material
component in a composite structure, or it may be a mode of failure such as shear or
compression. Resistance factors are applied to the component resistances and take into
account the variability of material properties and dimensions, workmanship, type of failure, and
uncertainty in the strength analysis. For example, the yielding of steel is more gradual and
more predictable than the crushing of concrete; therefore, its resistance factor is closer to 1.0.
The resistance factor may be further adjusted for certain members to take into account the
importance of these members or the greater uncertainties involved in their application.
Foundation piles, for example, are associated with greater uncertainties in application than
columns in buildings.
 In the case of the serviceability limit states, a deflection, stress or acceleration due to the loads
is compared (Figure 2) with an allowable deflection, stress or acceleration. The latter are based
on user acceptability and specific requirements such as for the operation of equipment.
In order to unify future structural codes and standards and to minimize their number and size,
it is planned to adopt the following principle. The loads, load factors and main serviceability
requirements depend only on the use of the structure and will therefore be given in the use
codes (National Building Code, CSA Standards for bridges, towers, etc.). The resistances,
resistance factors and structural theory depend only on the material and type of structure and
will therefore be contained in the material design standards (CSA Standards for concrete, steel,
etc.).
Reliability
The load and resistance factors in the codes and standards are chosen to ensure a level of
reliability (safety) consistent with the consequences of failure for a broad range of loads and
materials. Methods for doing this are given in Reference (1). Instead of adopting the load and
resistance factors stipulated in the codes, the designer may in some cases calculate the safety
factor for an appropriate level of risk. This approach has recently been introduced in the
evaluation of existing bridges, where a more precise estimate of strength and reliability is
required as a result of the substantial increase in truck loads.
The reliability of structures in service, however, depends not only on design safety factors but
also on quality assurance procedures to counteract human error in the design, construction and
use of the structure (2). Human error in structural design is most effectively counteracted by
an adequate consideration of the way in which a structure behaves and the loads and
influences it may be required to withstand (3).
Advantages of Limit States Design

1. The limit states provide a checklist of the basic structural requirements for which design
calculations may be required.
2. Limit states design, by providing consistent safety and serviceability, ensures an economical use
of materials and a wide range of applications.
3. Limit states design provides both a basic calculation tool for designing and evaluating civil
engineering structures and a means for unifying structural codes and standards.

References

1. Guidelines for the Development of Limit States Design. Canadian Standards Association Special
Publication CSA S408, Rexdale, Ontario, 1981.
2. Allen. D. E. Structural Safety. Division of Building Research, National Research Council of Canada
(CBD 147), Ottawa, 1972.
3. Gordon, J. E. Structures (or Why Things Don't Fall Down), Penguin Books, New York, N.Y., 1978.