CARD International Journal of Engineering and Emerging Scientific Discovery

ISSN: 2536-7250 (Print): 2536-7269 (Online)

Volume 2, Number 4, December 2017
http://www.casirmediapublishing.com

Ultimate Limit State (ULS) to Serviceability Limit State

(SLS) Load Conversion Factors for Building Foundation
Design

Akolo Peter Enjugu1, Yohanna D. Izam2 & Audu Isa Ibrahim Dakas3
1,2,3
Department of Building,
Faculty of Environmental Sciences, University of Jos, Nigeria
Email: [email protected]
Corresponding Author: Akolo Peter Enjugu

ABSTRACT
The need to evolve new concepts for converting aggregated ultimate loads back to
service loads has become pertinent. This is due to the existence of shortcomings
inherent in existing load conversion factors, the need to ensure speedy and less
cumbersome service load computation process and the need for cost effective
foundation design. This study thus aims at addressing these shortcomings and
evolving suitable and practicable options of computing service loads. Research
design adopted for this study was observational studies (particularly modelling
and simulation).Reinforced concrete structural models were developed and
simulated for differing live load values using Orion 18 software to obtain
foundation loads(ultimate (factored) loads and service (unfactored) loads) from
which the load conversion factors were computed. New values of load conversion
factors were evolved and a relationship between the live load and load conversion
factor was also established and detailed. The study concluded that the load
conversion factors obtained and the relationship established are suitable and
applicable. The application of these new load conversion factors in building
foundation design and its inclusion in design codes and standards is
recommended. The implication of this is timely delivery of design jobs and a cost
effective foundation design.
Keywords: Load conversion factor, ultimate load, service load

INTRODUCTION not aggregated at the ultimate

Conversion of ultimate (factored) limit state. Most codes such as BS
loads back to service (unfactored) 8004(1986), ACI 318-11(2011), Euro
loads is an alternative concept code 1997 Part 1(2004) among
employed in obtaining service others require that the base area of
loads for foundation design footings or the number and
purposes. According to Oyenuga arrangement of piles be
(2001), loads from the determined from unfactored forces
superstructure are more often than and moments transmitted by

107
Akolo Peter Enjugu1, Yohanna D. Izam2 & Audu Isa Ibrahim Dakas3
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) to Serviceability Limit State (SLS) Load Conversion Factors for
Building Foundation Design

footing to soil. Since re- Quimby (2008) who referred to the

computation of loads to obtain factor as composite load factor i.e.
service loads are relatively the ratio of load combination
cumbersome and time consuming, result to the algebraic sum of
a load conversion factor is individual load components.
employed to convert these
aggregated column ultimate loads In the revised Acceptance Criteria
back to service loads before being for Anchor Bolts i.e. AC 193, the
used for serviceability limit state International Code Council-
foundation design purposes. Evaluation Service(ICC – ES)(2012)
Values of conversion factors are a detailed a conversion factor,
function of the magnitude of viewing it as a weighted average
different types of loads and as of load factors for any given
such, a singular value may not be controlling load combination. It is
relied upon. It is thus important computed only when individual
that appropriate conversion factor load components are known and a
values be sought for or evolved load combination equation is
where possible so as to provide the defined. This concept seems more
much needed data for load cumbersome as service loads will
conversion purposes. have to be known first before the
conversion factor can be obtained.
LITERATURE REVIEW This concept is ideal for data
Oyenuga(2001) discovered generation purposes, but not for
through experience that the immediate application during
ultimate load could be divided by design.
a factor of 1.46 to convert to
service load, finding this to be So far, Values of load conversion
within reasonable practical limits factors were only specified by
and further adding that this value Oyenuga (2001) and BS 5950 Part
may increase to 1.49 as the 1(2000) and the values of load
structure’s live load increases to conversion factor specified by
5.0kN/m2. Oyenuga (2001) falls within the
limit(i.e. 1.40 ≤ ratio ≤ 1.5)
Also, BS 5950 Part 1(2000) detailed contained in BS 5950 Part 1(2000).
in Clause A6 a ratio ((factored Quimby (2008) and AC 193 (2012)
load)/(service Load)), stating that only specified methods of
the factor is generally about 1.50 computing the factor.
with a minimum of 1.40. The ratio
specified here is similar to that of

108
 CARD International Journal of Engineering and Emerging Scientific Discovery
Volume 2, Number 4, December 2017

Most reinforced concrete design values of live loads by Oyenuga

codes were mute on load (2001) suggests the existence of
conversion factors. A thorough unknown issues which might
and critical view into the British hamper outcomes of its
Standards (BS 8110 part 1(1997), application if not known and
BS 6399 part 1(1984) and BS 8004 controlled. Also, the existing
(1986)), the Eurocodes ( EN values of load conversion factors
1990(2002), EN 1991-1-1(2002), EN are inconclusive and also not
1992-1-1(2004), EN 1993-1-1(2005) specific as they were either
and EN 1997-1(2004)), Canadian discovered through experience or
Standards Association’s A23-3- not definite. It is thus pertinent to
04(2004), Bureau of Indian seek for appropriate, reliable and
Standards’ IS 456:2000, Joint suitable Load conversion factors
Australia/New Zealand’s AS-NZS that will be globally acceptable
1170-2(2000), New Zealand and applicable to help address the
Standard NZS 3101-1(2006), ACI short comings of the existing ones.
318-11(2011) and ANSI/AISC 303-
16(2016) will reveal the absence of METHODOLOGY
load conversion factors. Also, Observational studies, modelling
Hong Kong’s Building and simulation in particular, was
Department Codes of Practice for adopted as the primary method of
Structural use of steel (2011), data collection. Modelling and
Structural Use of Concrete(2013) simulation scheme proposed by
and Foundations(2004) as well as Velten (2009) was adopted for this
the Japanese Society of Civil work and it involves problem
Engineers’ ‘JSCE (2010) Standard definition, system analysis,
Specification for concrete modelling, simulation and
Structures – 2007’ contained no validation.
details on load conversion factors.
This development suggests that Problem Definition
load conversion factors have not Two sets of aggregated loads
been considered relevant design which are the major data for this
parameters. purpose were required. The first
set of aggregated loads are the
The call for caution in the factored loads or ultimate loads
application of the conversion i.e. loads at the ultimate limit state
factor of 1.46 alongside the while the second set of aggregated
recommendation for generation of loads are the unfactored loads or
load conversion factors for various working loads i.e. loads at the

109
 Ultimate Limit State (ULS) to Serviceability Limit State (SLS) Load Conversion Factors for
Building Foundation Design

serviceability limit state. Theseiv. Columns – 230mm x 230mm.

loads were obtained at the
foundation level i.e. foundation The loads on the system consist of
loads (ground column loads) dead loads (from slabs, beams,
computed and collated at both the walls, columns, roof and finishes)
ultimate limit state and and live loads. These loads were
serviceability limit state. factored by their appropriate
factors of safety to obtain values at
System Analysis the ultimate limit state. A value of
The system is a network of 1.4 and 1.6 was adopted for dead
reinforced concrete structural loads and live loads respectively.
members comprising of beams, The unfactored loads were taken
slabs columns and walls. as values for the serviceability
Dimensions of structural members limit state.
adopted are
i. Slab – 150mm thick. Basic weights of various materials
ii. Beams – 230mm x 450mm. adopted are as detailed by
iii. Walls (sandcrete block) – 230mm Oyenuga(2001) and are as follows:
thick.
i. Concrete………………………………….…24.00 KN/m3
ii. Screed (floor)……………………………….0.225KN/m2
iii. 225mm partition block wall …………….... 2.87KN/m2
iv. 150mm partition block wall……………….. 2.27KN/m2
v. Roof live load………………………………1.50KN/m2
vi. Wall finishes (both sides)………………….…….. 0.60KN/m2
vii. 13mm rendering ……………………………...…. 0.30KN/m2
viii. 37mm screeding………………………….......….. 0.80KN/m2
ix. Roofing felt and screed…………………………. 2.00 KN/m2
x. Roof live loads –with access………………...….. 0.25 KN/m2
xi. Wood (average)………………………………..... 8.00 KN/m2
xii. Asbestos roofing sheet, sheeting rails and nails…. 0.40 KN/m2
xiii. Amiatus and nails………………...………………0.30 KN/m2

Live loads values considered were KN/m2, 12.0 KN/m2 and 20.0
obtained from BS 6399 Part1:1984 KN/m2. (BS 6399 Part 1. 1984)
and are 1.5 KN/m2, 2.0 KN/m2, 2.5
KN/m2, 3.0 KN/m2, 4.0 KN/m2, 5.0 The self weight and dimensions of
KN/m2, 7.5 KN/m2, 9.0 KN/m2, 10.0 the foundations elements were
ignored at this stage because it

110
 CARD International Journal of Engineering and Emerging Scientific Discovery
Volume 2, Number 4, December 2017

was assumed they are not known The data enumerated in the
and are functions of the system analysis were used in
aggregated loads from the beams, generating the model. The model
slabs walls and columns. which incorporated the details
above is presented in 2D and 3D as
show in the figures 1, 2 and 3
below.
Modelling

Figure 1: Typical Three Dimensional View of Reinforced Concrete

Structural Model

Figure 2:
Typical Floor Plan of Reinforced Concrete Structural Mode

111
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) to Serviceability Limit State (SLS) Load Conversion Factors for
Building Foundation Design

Figure 3: Typical Cross Section of Proposed Reinforced Concrete

Structural Model

The model was developed using developed for different values of

CSC Orion 18 Software, reinforced live loads and are as shown in
concrete design software. In table 1 below.
general, eleven models were

Table 1: Summary of Models

MODEL LIVE(IMPOSED) LOAD
Q01 1.50KN/m2
Q02 2.00KN/m2
Q03 2.50KN/m2
Q04 3.0KN/m2
Q05 4.0KN/m2
Q06 5.0KN/m2
Q07 7.5KN/m2
Q08 9.0KN/m2
Q09 10.0KN/m2
Q10 12.0KN/m2
Q11 20.0KN/m2

112
 CARD International Journal of Engineering and Emerging Scientific Discovery
Volume 2, Number 4, December 2017

Simulation excel Software where the load

Each model enumerated in table 1 conversion factor for each column
above was simulated using CSC was computed. The average load
Orion Software. conversion factor for all 81
columns in a model was taken as
Data Collation and Load load conversion factor for the
Conversion Factor Computation model in consideration.
and Collation
The loads, ultimate (factored) The load conversion factor is the
loads and service (unfactored) ratio of the ultimate load to the
loads, on all 81 foundation service loads and the equation is
columns were collated for each as shown below.
model and exported to Microsoft

Where LCF=load conversion at their actual state or unfactored

factor, loads).
FULS = loads computed at Ultimate
limit state using load factor of 1.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
and 1.6 for dead and imposed From the Data analysis the load
loads respectively, conversion factors obtained for
FSLS = loads computed at each model is summarised in
serviceability limit state (i.e. loads Table 2 below.

Table 3: Load Conversion Factors for Various Live Loads and Pearson’s
Product Moment Correlation Coefficient
Models Live load (kN/m2) Load Conversion Factor (LCF)
Q01 1.50 1.418
Q02 2.00 1.419
Q03 2.50 1.423
Q04 3.00 1.427
Q05 4.00 1.434
Q06 5.00 1.441
Q07 7.50 1.455
Q08 9.00 1.462
Q09 10.00 1.472
Q10 12.00 1.474
Q11 20.00 1.499

Pearson’s Pearson’s r = +0.977

product

113
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) to Serviceability Limit State (SLS) Load Conversion Factors for
Building Foundation Design

moment
correlation
coefficient, r

From Table 3, it will be observed 20.0kN/m2, the highest value of

that at 1.50kN/m2, the Load live load employed so far, a load
Conversion Factor obtained was conversion factor of 1.499 was
1.418 and at a live load of obtained. Practically, values of live
5.0kN/m2, a Load Conversion loads will not exceed 20kN/m2
Factor of 1.441 was obtained. thus it is certain that the range of
These Load Conversion Factor values specified in BS 5950 part
values negate those proposed by 1:2000 are realistic though not
Oyenuga (2001) i.e. Load specific.
conversion factor values of 1.46
and 1.49 at live load values of The relationship between the live
1.50kN/m2 and 5.0kN/m2 load values adopted for this work
respectively. The load conversion and the Load Conversion Factors
factor of 1.462 was obtained at live obtained was determined using
load of 9.0kN/m2, though at live Pearson’s product moment
load value of 7.50kN/m2, load correlation coefficient. The value
conversion factor 1.455 was of Pearson’s r obtained was +0.977.
obtained. It is thus obvious that This indicates a perfect positive
the Load Conversion Factor value relationship between the two
of 1.46 was obtained at a live load items. This also implies that the
value greater than 7.50kN/m2 but value of load conversion factor is
less than 9.0kN/m2 as against directly proportional to the live
1.50kN/m2 detailed by Oyenuga (imposed) load. As live load
(2001). However, the values of values increases, the load
Load conversion factors obtained conversion factor also increases.
as detailed in Table 3 fall within
the range specified in BS 5950 Part The Load Conversion Factors
1:2000 i.e. 1.40 ≤ LCF ≤ 1.50. obtained were plotted against their
corresponding live (imposed)
At a live load of 10.0kN/m2, load loads. This is detailed in the graph
conversion factor of 1.474 was in fig. 4
obtained while at a live load of

114
 CARD International Journal of Engineering and Emerging Scientific Discovery
Volume 2, Number 4, December 2017

Figure 4: Graph showing Load Conversion Factor versus Live (Imposed)

Load

The equation of a straight line graph is given by

Y = mx + c ------------------------------------------------------------ equation 1
Where Y = values along the vertical axis,
m = slope or gradient
x = values along the horizontal axis

From the graph above, Y = load conversion factor and x = live (imposed)
load values.
Slope, m= (y2-y1)/(x2-x1) --------------------------------------- equation 2

From the graph above, if x2 = 9.0kN/m2, then y2 = 1.462 and if x1 = 2.0kN/m2

then y1 = 1.4209 and c = 1.4092. Therefore substituting these values in
equation 2,
m = 0.00587
Thus equation 1 can be rewritten as

115
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) to Serviceability Limit State (SLS) Load Conversion Factors for
Building Foundation Design

Load conversion factor (LCF) = 0.00587qk +1.4092 ------- equation 3

Where qk is the live (imposed) load.

Equation 3 can be employed to This study therefore recommends

compute load conversion factor for the use of the load conversion
a given live load value. However, factor values for the various
it should be noted that the load corresponding live loads or the
factor applies to load combinations equation, LCF = 0.00587qk + 1.4092
involving dead and live loads only derived in this study as an
with load factors of 1.4 for dead alternative. The inclusion of load
loads and 1.6 for imposed loads. conversion factors in structural
Wind load nor its effects was not design codes and standards is
considered in this work. imperative considering its benefits
in foundation design. Further
CONCLUSION research aimed at enhancing the
From the above discussion, it was application, relevance and
concluded that Load conversion reliability of load conversion
factor values of 1.418, 1.419, factors is also encouraged as this
1.423,1.427, 1.434, 1.441, 1.455, will not only help in establishing a
1.462, 1.472, 1.474 and 1.499 are vast and robust data base on this
applicable when live load values design parameter but will greatly
of live load values of 1.50kN/m2, assist in enhancing its efficacy.
2.0kN/m2, 2.5kN/m2, 3.0kN/m2,
4.0kN/m2, 5.0kN/m2, 7.5kN/m2, REFERENCES
9.0kN/m2, 10.0kN/m2, 12.0kN/m2 American Concrete Institute
and 20.0kN/m2 are adopted. (2011). Building Code
Alternatively, the equation, LCF = requirements for Structural
0.00587qk + 1.4092 can be used to Concrete (ACI 318 – 11) and
compute the load conversion Commentary. New York:
factor for any given value of live American Concrete
(imposed) load. Also, the non- Institute.
inclusion of load conversion
factors in most major concrete and American Institute of Steel
steel design codes and standards Construction (2016). Code of
suggests it has not been Standard Practice for Steel
considered a relevant design Buildings and Bridges
parameter. (ANSI/AISC 303-16). Illinois:
American Institute of Steel
Construction.

116
 CARD International Journal of Engineering and Emerging Scientific Discovery
Volume 2, Number 4, December 2017

British Standard Institution,

(1984).B. S. 6399, Code of Bureau of Indian Standards (2007).
Practice for Dead and Imposed IS 456:2000: Plain and
Loads. British Standards reinforced concrete – code of
Institution, UK practice(CED2 : Cement and
concrete, Fourth Revision.
British Standard Institution, Bureau of Indian Standards,
(1986).B. S. 8004, Code of New Delhi 110002.
Practice for Foundations.
British Standards Canadian Standards Association
Institution, UK (2004). Design of Concrete
Structures (CSA Standard
British Standard Institution, (1997). A23.3 – 04). Ontario:
B. S. 8110, Structural Use of Canadian Standards
Concrete. British Standards Association.
Institution, London, UK
European Committee for
British Standard Institution (2000). Standardization (2002).
BS 5950, Structural Use of Eurocode 1: Actions on
Steelwork in Building – Part Structures- Part 1: General
1: Code of Practice for Design- Actions – Densities, self
Rolled and Welded Sections. weights and imposed loads on
London: British Standards buildings (EN 1991-1-1
Institution. (2002) (English)). European
Committee for
Buildings Department (2004). Code Standardization.
of Practice for Foundations.
Hong Kong Building European Committee for
Department. Standardization (2002).
Eurocode: Basis of Structural
Buildings Department. (2011). Code Design (EN 1990-1 (2002)
of practice for dead and (English)). European
imposed loads 2011. Hong Committee for
Kong Building Department. Standardization.

Buildings Department. (2013). Code European Committee for

of practice for the structural Standardization (2004).
use of concrete2013. Hong Eurocode 2: design of concrete
Kong Building Department structures – Part 1-1: General

117
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) to Serviceability Limit State (SLS) Load Conversion Factors for
Building Foundation Design

Rules and Rules for Buildings New Zealand Standards Council

(EN 1992-1-1 (2004) (2006). Concrete Structures
(English)). European Standard – the Design of
Committee For Concrete structures (NZS
Standardization. 3101 part 1:2006).
European Committee for Wellington: New Zealand
Standardization (2004). Standards Council.
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical
Design Part 1: General rules Oyenuga, V. O. (2001). Simplified
(EN 1997-1 (2004) Reinforced Concrete Design.
(English)). European Vasons Concept Limited.
Committee For
Standardization. Quimby, B. (2008). A beginner’s
guide to the structural
European Committee for engineering. Basic
Standardization (2005). engineering concepts
Eurocode 3: Design of Steel
Structures-Part 1-1: General Standards Australia
rules and rules for buildings Limited/Standards New
(EN 1993-1 (2005) Zealand (2004). Structural
(English)). European design actions – Part 0:
Committee for General principles (AS-NZS
Standardization. 1170 – 2).

International Code Council Velten, K. (2009). Modelling and

Evaluation Service (2012). Simulation: Introduction for
Acceptance Criteria for Engineers and Scientists.
Mechanical Anchors in WILEY-VCH Verlag GmBH
Concrete Elements (AC193). & Co. KGaA, Weinheim,
Birmingham: ICC Germany.
Evaluation service.

Japan Society of Civil Engineers

(2010). Standard Specification
for Concrete Structures –
2007. Tokyo:JSCE
Guidelines for Concrete.

118