Hindawi Publishing Corporation

e Scientific World Journal

Volume 2014, Article ID 456826, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/456826

Research Article
An Efficient Approach to Obtain Optimal Load Factors for
Structural Design

Juan Bojórquez and Sonia E. Ruiz

Institute of Engineering, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Coyoacan, 04510 Mexico City, DF, Mexico

Correspondence should be addressed to Juan Bojórquez; [email protected]

Received 8 May 2014; Accepted 27 June 2014; Published 15 July 2014

Academic Editor: Joseph Assaad

Copyright © 2014 J. Bojórquez and S. E. Ruiz. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.

An efficient optimization approach is described to calibrate load factors used for designing of structures. The load factors are
calibrated so that the structural reliability index is as close as possible to a target reliability value. The optimization procedure is
applied to find optimal load factors for designing of structures in accordance with the new version of the Mexico City Building Code
(RCDF). For this aim, the combination of factors corresponding to dead load plus live load is considered. The optimal combination
is based on a parametric numerical analysis of several reinforced concrete elements, which are designed using different load factor
values. The Monte Carlo simulation technique is used. The formulation is applied to different failure modes: flexure, shear, torsion,
and compression plus bending of short and slender reinforced concrete elements. Finally, the structural reliability corresponding
to the optimal load combination proposed here is compared with that corresponding to the load combination recommended by
the current Mexico City Building Code.

1. Introduction a design code. The choice of an appropriate method is not

usually an easy task. In this paper, an efficient optimization
The structural design guidelines can be based on different procedure is described to find the optimal load factors that
reliability formats [1], for example, (a) the semiprobabilistic will appear in the new version of the Mexico City Building
approach [2], (b) first-order and second moments, FOSM [3– Code. The reliability index 𝛽 [20] is used to derive the
5], and (c) load and resistance factor design (LRFD) [6, 7], load factor combination that should be used for designing
based on hazard analysis [8, 9] or based on optimization [10– structures under flexure, shear, torsion, and compression plus
13]. Most of the design codes in the world, including the bending. The load factors are calibrated so that the reliability
Mexico City Building Code 2004 (RCDF from its acronym indexes are as close as possible to a target reliability index.
in Spanish), use the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) The basic combination of dead and live loads is considered.
approach. Load and resistance factors play a significant role It is proposed that the load factors obtained here be included
in determining the structural reliability. Excessive safety in the new version of the Mexico City Building Code (RCDF-
margins increase the construction costs, while insufficient 04) [21].
conservatism increases the risk of structural failure. In the The study contains three sections. The first reviews the
past, the calibration of these partial factors was derived from reliability (associated with different limit states) implicit in
experience and expert judgment. The recent tendency is to the Mexico City Building Code. In the second, the calibration
preview the design goals, which can be focused on as an opti- procedure is applied to estimate the optimal combination
mization problem where the control variables are the partial of load factors corresponding to the RCDF-04, based on a
safety factors. Calibration procedures have been described target reliability value. A comparison between the reliability
since the 70s, for example, in [14] and also in [15–19]. The of structural sections designed with the combination of loads
calibration procedure can be seen as a specific optimization proposed here and those specified by RCDF-04 is presented
process where the control variables are the partial factors of in the third section.
2 The Scientific World Journal

Table 1: Load factors, 𝛾.

Type of load RCDF-04

Dead 1.4∗
Live 1.4∗

PDF
∗
𝛾 values should be equal to 1.5 for the design of important constructions.

𝜎S 𝜎R
Table 2: Resistance factors, 𝜙.

Limit state RCDF-04

Flexure 0.9 S R
SD RD
Shear 0.8
Torsion 0.8 Figure 1: Load-resistance model for structural reliability assess-
Compression plus bending 0.8, 0.9 ment.

f(z)
𝛽𝜎z

2. Reliability Analysis Failure Safety

Z<0 Z>0
The load and resistance factor design [22] criterion considers
that a structural design is satisfactory if the internal forces
acting are smaller than or equal to the design resistance of Z = (R − S)
each structural element, which is represented as Pf

𝑆𝑑 = 𝛾𝑆𝑛 ≤ 𝜙𝑅𝑛 = 𝑅𝑑 , (1)

Z Z
where 𝑆 and 𝑅 stand for the load and resistance forces and
subscript 𝑛 denotes the nominal and subscript 𝑑 the design Figure 2: Safety margin distribution.
values; 𝛾 and 𝜙 are the factors accounting for the uncertainties
of load and resistance, respectively. The values of 𝛾 and 𝜙
specified in RCDF-04 are shown in Tables 1 and 2. (2) The design resistance (𝑅𝑑 ) is calculated (see (1)). It is
In Figure 1 the load-resistance model for reliability anal- assumed that 𝑅𝑑 is equal to the design load 𝑆𝑑 . Here,
ysis is presented. In this figure the vertical axis represents the
the mean value 𝑆 is taken equal to 𝑆𝑛 because it is
probability density function (PDF), and the horizontal axis
assumed that the nominal loads have a 50% probabil-
is the structural resistance (𝑅) or the loads (𝑆) acting on the
ity of exceedance corresponding to areas of approxi-
structure. 𝑅 and 𝑆 are their mean values, respectively, and 𝜎𝑅 mately 36 m2 [26], and the coefficient of variation 𝐶𝑠
and 𝜎𝑆 their corresponding standard deviations. of the loads is obtained as follows [27]:

2.1. Reliability Index 𝛽. The calibration procedure used here 𝐶𝑆2 = 𝐶𝛾2 + 𝑟𝑐2 𝐶𝐷
2
+ (1 − 𝑟𝑐 ) 𝐶𝐿2 ,
2
(2)
for the selection of optimal partial load factors is based on the
structural reliability theory. The reliability index 𝛽 [20], which
has proved to be a practical and appropriate link between tra- where 𝐶𝛾, 𝐶𝐷, and 𝐶𝐿 are coefficients of variation associated
ditional design procedures and explicit probabilistic design, is with model uncertainty for dead and live loads, respectively.
used as a measure of the structural reliability. The calibration The following values were assumed in this study: 𝐶𝛾 = 0.1,
procedure includes the following steps. 𝐶𝐷 = 0.08, and 𝐶𝐿 = 0.18; and 𝑟𝑐 is the load ratio given by

(1) Properties of structural materials and the character- 𝐷𝐿

𝑟𝑐 = , (3)
istics of the different cross-sections are simulated by 𝐷𝐿 + 𝐿𝐿
means of a Monte Carlo simulation [23]. The concrete
strength 𝑓𝑐󸀠 , steel yield stress 𝑓𝑦 , width 𝑏, height ℎ, where 𝐷𝐿 represents the dead load and 𝐿𝐿 the live load. The
and cover of the structural sections 𝑟 are considered reliability index 𝛽 is defined as [20]
random variables. Their probability density functions
are assumed to be Gaussian [24, 25]. The resistance 𝑅−𝑆
(𝑅) associated with each of the simulated cross- 𝛽= . (4)
√(𝜎𝑅2 + 𝜎𝑆2 )
sections is calculated for each limit state (flexure,
shear, torsion, and compression plus bending of short
and slender columns); then, the mean value 𝑅 and the Figure 2 shows that the 𝛽 value is the distance between
standard deviation 𝜎𝑅 are estimated. the failure region and the mean of the safety margin (𝑍).
The Scientific World Journal 3

The index 𝛽 can be used to estimate the probability of failure Table 3: Characteristics of the elements analyzed.
(𝑃𝑓 ) [28]:
Specified value Mean value Standard deviation
Dimension
(m) (m) (m)
𝑃𝑓 = Φ (−𝛽) , (5)
Width (𝑏) 0.3 0.304 0.0041
where Φ(⋅) is the cumulative distribution function of a Width (𝑏) 0.4 0.396 0.0064
Gaussian distribution. The value of 𝛽 indicates the level of Width (𝑏) 0.45 0.446 0.0064
structural safety; the higher the value of 𝛽 index is, the lower Depth (ℎ) 0.6 0.596 0.0064
the probability of failure is.
Depth (ℎ) 0.75 0.746 0.0064
Depth (ℎ) 0.9 0.896 0.0064
3. Calibration Procedure Depth (ℎ) 1.3 1.298 0.0064
Most current design guidelines are largely based on engi- Depth (ℎ) 1.6 1.64 0.0062
neering experience and judgment and lead to designs with Cover (𝑟) 0.038 0.032 0.011
a generally satisfactory behavior; the structural reliability
implicit in those designs is undefined and unknown. The
objective of the calibration of codes based on a LRFD format Table 4: Characteristics of transverse reinforcement.
is to provide optimal partial factors for the design of a type
of structure, which lead to designs as close as possible to the Specified Transverse reinforcement
code objective. The calibration procedure for obtaining the dimension Stirrup Separation Inclination angle
(m) number of stirrups (s) (grades)
load factors can be seen as an optimization process where the
control variables are the factors. In the present study the load 2 ℎ/2 90
factors were calibrated so that the reliability indexes were as 0.3 × 0.6 2.5 ℎ/4 90
close as possible to a target reliability index 𝛽𝑜 . This can be 3 ℎ/6 90
formulated by means of the following optimization problem
3 ℎ/2 90
[29, 30]:
0.3 × 0.75 3 ℎ/4 90
2
min 𝑊 (𝛾) = ∑∑𝑤𝑗 (𝛽𝑘 (𝛾) − 𝛽𝑜 )𝑗 , 3 ℎ/6 90
(6)
𝑘 𝑗 3 ℎ/2 90
0.3 × 0.9 3 ℎ/2 60
where 𝑤𝑗 are factors indicating the importance of the limit
states of interest. For each limit state 𝑗, 𝛽𝑘 (𝛾) represents the 3 ℎ/2 45
reliability of the element 𝑘 given the partial safety factor 𝛾; 3 ℎ/2 90
𝛽𝑜 is the reliability target index and 𝑊(𝛾) represents different 0.4 × 0.9 4 ℎ/2 90
combinations of load factors. The optimal load factors are 5 ℎ/2 90
obtained by the numerical solution of the minimization 3 ℎ/2 90
problem given by (6). 0.45 × 1.3 4 ℎ/2 60
5 ℎ/2 45
4. Material Characteristics 3 ℎ/2 90
4.1. Concrete Strength. Two types of concrete are considered: 0.4 × 1.6 4 ℎ/2 90
ordinary and high-strength. The mean compressive strength 5 ℎ/2 90
𝑓𝑐 of the ordinary concrete (in the field) is taken as 24.51 MPa,
and the standard deviation 𝜎𝑓𝑐 is 3.37 MPa. For the high-
strength concrete the values of 𝑓𝑐 and 𝜎𝑓𝑐 are considered to
deviation for each section analyzed are shown in Table 3
be 59.50 MPa and 5 MPa, respectively [25].
[32, 33]. Table 4 shows the transverse reinforcement adopted.

4.2. Steel Yield Stress. A bilinear stress-strain relationship

is assumed, and Young’s modulus is equal to 195,811 MPa. 5. Reliability Indexes
The mean value 𝑓𝑦 is considered equal to 458.8 MPa, the In this section the compatibility and consistency between the
coefficient of variation 𝐶𝑓𝑦 = 0.096, and the nominal value 𝛽 values associated with different limit states are reviewed.
𝑓𝑦 = 413.70 MPa [24, 31]. The reliability evaluation was carried out for the load ratios
𝑟𝑐 (see (3)) commonly used in practice [6]. The intervals of
4.3. Cross-Section Characteristics. A set of eighteen rein- values are from 0.30 to 0.70 for flexure, shear, and torsion
forced concrete elements designed for live plus dead loads was and from 0.40 to 0.90 for flexure plus bending. The analysis
analyzed. Each element was designed with the RCDF-04. The was performed for a set of eighteen cross-sections, and then
limit states under consideration were flexure, shear, torsion, the mean value of the 𝛽 index was calculated. The geomet-
and compression plus bending. The mean and standard ric characteristics of sections and material properties were
4 The Scientific World Journal

6 6

5 5

Reliability index 𝛽
Reliability index 𝛽

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
rc rc

Ordinary concrete Ordinary concrete

High-strength concrete High-strength concrete

Figure 3: Reliability corresponding to flexure failure mode. Figure 5: Reliability corresponding to shear failure mode.

4.5
can be seen that when the percentage 𝜌𝑔 increases, the reli-
4 ability index 𝛽 becomes higher. The maximum 𝛽 differences
for this case are about 10%.
Reliability index 𝛽

3.5
5.2. Shear. Results of the reliability index 𝛽 for shear designs
3 are shown in Figure 5. The reliabilities for these designs are
consistent with the corresponding flexure designs because
2.5 the reliability associated with shear designs is larger than
that corresponding to flexure. The increase in the reliability
2 levels for brittle failure modes is achieved by setting a lower
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 resistance factor than that associated with ductile failure
rc modes. It can be seen in Figure 5 that for RCDF-04 the
0.002 0.015 reliability index values 𝛽 increase as the 𝑟𝑐 ratio also increases
0.008 (similar to the case of flexure). As it was described before,
this behavior is not desirable because the failure probability
Figure 4: Influence on the structural reliability of the longitudinal tends to increase for higher values of live load. Also it can be
reinforcement 𝜌𝑔 . observed that the reliability corresponding to high-strength
concrete sections is smaller than the one corresponding to
ordinary concrete.
Figure 6 shows the behavior of the index 𝛽 for elements
obtained from typical Mexican constructions. The influence designed using ordinary concrete and three-different-stirrup
of some parameters on the reliability of the elements is spacing, which are indicated as a fraction of the specified
discussed in the next sections. It is noticed that the designs ℎ value. It can be appreciated that as the spacing of the
were performed using the factors 𝛾 and 𝜙, listed in Tables 1 stirrups decreases, the reliability of the element increases, as
and 2, respectively. expected. The lower reliability curve (indicated by continuous
line) corresponds to stirrup spacing equal to ℎ/2, while the
5.1. Flexure. In Figure 3 the mean 𝛽 values corresponding curve with the greatest values of 𝛽 corresponds to structural
to flexure are presented. The figure shows that the 𝛽 values elements designed with the minimum spacing (ℎ/6).
increase as 𝑟𝑐 grows, which means that 𝛽 increases for smaller
values of live loads (see (3)). It is noticed that this behavior 5.3. Torsion. The values of the reliability index 𝛽 for elements
is undesirable because the uncertainties implicit on live load designed for resisting torsion forces are congruent with the
are higher than those corresponding to dead loads. Also, it values obtained for the failure modes previously analyzed
can be noticed in Figure 3 that the reliability associated with (flexure and shear). Ductile failure is associated with higher
high-strength concrete sections is smaller than the reliability failure probabilities (flexure), while brittle failure is associated
associated with ordinary concrete sections. with lower probability of failure (shear and torsion). As
The influence of the transversal steel reinforcement using observed in Figure 7, the reliability index 𝛽 is smaller for
ordinary concrete is shown in Figure 4. Three longitudinal the RCDF-04 as the load ratio (𝑟𝑐 ) decreases, which is
steel percentages were used: 𝜌𝑔 = 0.002, 0.008, and 0.015. It undesirable. Similar to flexure and shear modes, the reliability
The Scientific World Journal 5

5 6

5
4.5
Reliability index 𝛽

Reliability index 𝛽
4

4 3

2
3.5

1
3
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0
rc 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
rc
h/2 h/6
h/4 s = h/6 s = h/2
s = h/4
Figure 6: Influence on the structural reliability of the transversal
reinforcement. Figure 8: Influence on the structural reliability of the transversal
reinforcement.
6

5 eccentricities that correspond to three different zones: zone

A corresponds to elements failing in compression (𝑒 = 0),
Reliability index 𝛽

4 zone B to elements failing at the balanced condition (𝑒 = 𝑒𝑏 ),

and zone C to those failing under flexure (𝑒 = ∞). Figure 9
3 illustrates the reliability indexes 𝛽 related to zone B, for a
cross-section of 0.4 × 0.75 m. The longitudinal reinforcement
2
is 1.5 percent of the section area, distributed in 4 rod layers.
1 It was observed that the higher the load ratio is, the larger
the magnitude of 𝛽 is. Also it can be observed that, for high-
0 strength concrete sections, the structural reliability becomes
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 smaller (about 7%).
rc
The influence of the eccentricity 𝑒 is analyzed in Figure 10
Ordinary concrete which corresponds to elements designed with ordinary con-
High-strength concrete crete. In zone A (corresponding to pure compression failure
Figure 7: Reliability corresponding to torsion failure mode. 𝑒 = 0) designs have the highest reliability index 𝛽. In zone
B, corresponding to the balanced condition (𝑒 = 𝑒𝑏 ), the 𝛽
reliability index is 6% lower than that corresponding to zone
A, and for the case in zone C (controlled by pure bending
𝑒 = ∞) reliabilities present smaller values (80% of that
associated with high-strength concrete is smaller (about 5%)
corresponding to zone A).
than the reliability associated with ordinary concrete.
Figure 8 shows the reliability index 𝛽 for elements
designed with ordinary concrete and with stirrup spacing 6. Slenderness Ratio
equal to ℎ/2, ℎ/4, and ℎ/6. Reliability increases as the stirrup
spacing decreases, as shown in Figure 8. The curve with the The influence of slenderness ratio on reinforced concrete col-
greatest reliability index corresponds to a spacing 𝑠 = ℎ/6, umn reliability has been studied by several authors [34, 35].
while the curve with the smallest reliability level corresponds In the present study, the effects of slenderness in the strength
to the maximum value (𝑠 = ℎ/2). were considered by means of the following expression, using
a numerical integration technique [36]:
5.4. Compression plus Bending. The resistance 𝑅 of the ele- 𝑙2 (𝜙𝑚 + 0.25𝜙𝑒 )
ment subject to flexure plus bending is obtained as follows: Δ𝑚 = , (8)
10
𝑀 2 in which Δ 𝑚 = lateral deflection at midheight of the column;
𝑅 = √ 𝑃2 + ( ), (7) 𝜙𝑚 = curvature at midheight of the column; 𝜙𝑒 = curvature at
ℎ𝑛
the column ends; 𝑙 = height of the column.
where ℎ𝑛 is the nominal depth of the section, 𝑃 is the Here, the influence of the slenderness ratio on the relia-
resisting axial load, and 𝑀 is the resisting bending moment bility index 𝛽 was evaluated as a function of the eccentricity.
associated with an eccentricity 𝑒. This study considers three In Figures 11, 12, and 13 results are presented for elements
6 The Scientific World Journal

6 5.5

5 5
Reliability index 𝛽

Reliability index 𝛽
4
4.5
3
4
2

1 3.5

0 3
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
rc rc
Ordinary concrete 1/h = 0 1/h = 15
High-strength concrete 1/h = 10
Figure 9: Reliability corresponding to compression plus bending Figure 11: Influence of the slenderness; 𝑒 = 0.01.
mode (𝑒 = 𝑒𝑏 ).

5.5
4.5
Reliability index 𝛽

4
Reliability index 𝛽

4.5
3.5

3.5 3

2.5
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
2.5 rc
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
rc 1/h = 0 1/h = 15
1/h = 10
Compression Tension
Balanced Figure 12: Influence of the slenderness; 𝑒 = 𝑒𝑏 .
Figure 10: Influence of eccentricity on the structural reliability.

the difference of 𝛽 between all cases related to slenderness

ratios is smaller than 1%.
designed with ordinary concrete and slenderness ratios equal
to 𝑙/ℎ = 0, 𝑙/ℎ = 10, and 𝑙/ℎ = 15, respectively, where 𝑙/ℎ = 0 7. Calibration of the Code
represents a short column and 𝑙/ℎ = 15 represents a slender
column. In order to obtain the optimal load factors (using (6)), the
Figure 11 shows the variation for the three slenderness first step is to calculate the reliability target index 𝛽𝑜 , which
ratios when the element fails in compression. It can also be is calculated as the average of the indexes within the interval
seen in Figure 11 that as the load ratio increases, the reliability of 𝑟𝑐 values commonly used in practice. The intervals are 0.30
becomes higher. The reliability of slender columns is higher to 0.70 for flexure, shear, and torsion, while for flexure plus
than that corresponding to short columns by about 4% for bending they are 0.40 to 0.90. The values of (𝛽𝑜 )𝑗 calculated
𝑙/ℎ = 15 and 2% for 𝑙/ℎ = 10. The results for elements failing for RCDF-04 are shown in Table 5.
close to the balanced condition are shown in Figure 12. Again, Then, it is necessary to calculate the values of the index
it can be observed that the reliability of slender columns is 𝛽𝑘𝑗 corresponding to different structural elements (𝑘) and
greater than the reliability of short columns; however, this different limit states (𝑗) and assuming different load ratios
difference is reduced to 2% for columns with 𝑙/ℎ = 15 (𝑟𝑐 ).
and less than 1% for columns with slenderness ratio 𝑙/ℎ = In order to find the optimal values of the load factors,
10. When the eccentricity tends to be large (pure bending, different combinations of dead load factors (𝛾𝐷) and live
see Figure 13), the slender and short columns have similar load factors (𝛾𝐿 ) were assumed in (6). The load factor
reliability. The influence of the slenderness ratio decreases as combinations analyzed were increased from 1.1 to 1.5 for 𝛾𝐷
the eccentricity tends to the flexure failure. It is noticed that and from 1.1 to 1.9 for 𝛾𝐿 , and the step interval was 0.1. It is
The Scientific World Journal 7

Table 5: 𝛽𝑜 values for RCDF-04. and the 𝛾 values recommended by RCDF-04 (𝛾𝐷 = 1.4 and
𝛾𝐿 = 1.4, shown in solid line). Figure 15(a) corresponds to
𝛽𝑜 flexure designs; this figure shows that the load factors com-
Limit state
Ordinary High-strength bination proposed in this study gives place to an almost
Flexure 3.57 3.37 uniform reliability index with respect to different load ratios
Shear 4.34 4.17 𝑟𝑐 . A similar behavior is obtained for the other failure
Torsion 4.38 4.21 modes. The reliability index 𝛽 obtained using the load
Flexure plus bending factors proposed in this study gives place to similar levels of
Compression 4.87 4.72 probability of failure regardless of the load ratio 𝑟𝑐 , which can
Balanced 4.55 4.37 be observed in Figures 15(b), 15(c), and 15(d), corresponding
Pure flexure 3.93 3.81
to the limit states of shear, torsion, and compression plus
bending, respectively.

4.5 9. Conclusions
(1) The values of 𝛽 implicit in structural sections
4 designed for different limit states in accordance with
Reliability index 𝛽

the Mexico City Building Code (RCDF-04) were

reviewed. For the cases analyzed, it is concluded that
3.5 the reliability indexes of the RCDF-04 are consistent
for the limit states analyzed, which means brittle
failure modes are of more safety than ductile failure
3
modes.
(2) It is proposed that the next version of the Mexico City
2.5 Building Code changes the load factor combination
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
values corresponding to dead load and live load. The
rc proposal is to use 𝛾𝐷 = 1.3 and 𝛾𝐿 = 1.5 instead of
1/h = 0 1/h = 15 𝛾𝐷 = 1.4 and 𝛾𝐿 = 1.4.
1/h = 10
(3) The load combination factors recommended in this
Figure 13: Influence of the slenderness; 𝑒 = ∞. study have the following advantages.

(i) The reliability of structures is nearly uniform for

different load ratios when using the proposed
noticed that the factors 𝛾𝐷 = 1.4 and 𝛾𝐿 = 1.4, recommended combination; however, when using the combi-
by RCDF-04, are included in this range. nation of 𝛾𝐷 = 1.4 and 𝛾𝐿 = 1.4 the structural
The factors 𝑤𝑗 (see (6)) were selected as follows: flexure reliability tends to decrease as the values of
0.75, shear 1.0, torsion 1.0, and compression plus bending load ratios 𝑟𝑐 (high live load) decrease, which is
0.9. These factors were assumed taking into account that undesirable.
the consequence of a brittle failure (shear or torsion) is (ii) The factor combination proposed here gives
more important than that corresponding to ductility failure more importance to the variable actions (live
(flexure and compression plus bending). load) by means of the factor 1.5 than the factor
The results of evaluating (6) for different load com- 1.4 which is now recommended by RCDF-04.
binations are illustrated in Figures 14(a) and 14(b), in
which Figure 14(a) corresponds to a perspective view and
Figure 14(b) represents the same results seen in plan. The hor- Conflict of Interests
izontal axes in Figure 14 represent the load combinations con-
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests
sidered, and the vertical axis is the result of (6). From Figures
regarding the publication of this paper.
14(a) and 14(b) it can be observed that the minimum value of
the summation corresponds to the load combination of 𝛾𝐷 =
1.3 and 𝛾𝐿 = 1.5, which means that this is the optimal com- Acknowledgments
bination.
The authors wish to thank R. Meli, L. Esteva, and C. J. Men-
doza for their valuable comments during the development
8. Reliability Obtained with of the study. The observations and suggestions made by G.
the Proposed Factors and with Aguilar Ramos, J. M. Rioboó Martin, O. González Cuevas,
Those Specified by RCDF-04 and J. C. Arce Rioboó are also appreciated. The scholarship
given by El Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a to
Figures 15(a)–15(d) show a comparison of the proposed load the first author is appreciated. This study was financed by
combination (𝛾𝐷 = 1.3 and 𝛾𝐿 = 1.5, indicated by dotted line) Secretarı́a de Obras y Servicios del Gobierno del Distrito
8 The Scientific World Journal

1.5

1.4

W(𝛾)
1.3

𝛾D
1.2 1.2
1.4
𝛾D 1.6 1.5 1.1
1.4
1.8 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9
1.2
1.1 𝛾L 𝛾L

(a) Perspective view (b) Plan view

Figure 14: Calculation of optimal load factors.

4.5 5

4
4.5
Reliability index 𝛽
Reliability index 𝛽

3.5
4
3

3.5
2.5

2 3
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
rc rc

1.4D + 1.4L 1.4D + 1.4L

1.3D + 1.5L 1.3D + 1.5L
(a) Flexure (b) Shear
5 6

5.5
4.5
Reliability index 𝛽

Reliability index 𝛽

4 4.5

4
3.5
3.5

3 3
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
rc rc

1.4D + 1.4L 1.4D + 1.4L

1.3D + 1.5L 1.3D + 1.5L
(c) Torsion (d) Compression plus bending

Figure 15: Reliabilities obtained with the 𝛾 combination recommended by RCDF-04 and with the 𝛾 combination proposed in this study.
The Scientific World Journal 9

Federal and by Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México [19] M. Szerszen and A. S. Nowak, “Calibration of design code for
under Project PAPPIT-IN102114. buildings (ACI 318): part 2—reliability analysis and resistance
factors,” ACI Structural Journal, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 383–391,
2003.
References [20] A. C. Cornell, “A Probability-based structural code,” ACI Jour-
[1] S. E. Ruiz, “Evaluating seismic reliability of building structures,” nal Proceedings, vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 974–985, 1969.
in Earthquake Engineering. Honoring Luis Esteva, ISBN, J. J. [21] “Reglamento de Construcciones para el Distrito Federal,” Offi-
Pérez Gavilán, Ed., pp. 555–574, Instituto de Ingenierı́a, UNAM, cial Bulletin of the Federal District Department 11, Mexico City,
2006. October 2004, (Spanish).
[2] E. Rosenblueth, “Code specification of safety and serviceability,” [22] AISC, Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Struc-
in Proceedings of the International Conference on Planning and tural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Design of Tall Buildings, Technical committee 10, pp. 23–51, Chicago, Ill, USA, 3rd edition, 2001.
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1972. [23] R. Y. Rubinstein and D. P. Kroese, Simulation and the Monte
[3] C. A. Cornell, “A probability-based structural code,” ACI Jour- Carlo Method, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, John
nal, vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 974–985, 1969. Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2nd edition, 2007.
[4] N. C. Lind, “Deterministic formats for the probabilistic design [24] S. A. Mirza and J. G. MacGregor, “Variability of mechanical
of structures,” in An Introduction to Structural Optimization, properties of reinforcing bars,” Journal of the Structural Division,
Solid Mechanics Division, University of University of Waterloo, ASCE, vol. 105, no. 5, pp. 921–937, 1979.
Waterloo, Canada, 1969. [25] R. Meli, “Statistical study of reinforced concrete structures in
[5] M. K. Ravindra, A. C. Heany, and N. C. Lind, “Probabilistic eval- Mexico City,” Internal Report, Instituto de Ingenierı́a, Universi-
uation of safety factors,” in Proceedings of the IABSE Symposium, dad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico, 1985.
pp. 35–46, London, UK, 1969. [26] S. E. Ruiz and A. Soriano, “Design live loads for office buildings
[6] T. V. Galambos and M. K. Ravindra, “Tentative load and resis- in Mexico and the United States,” Journal of Structural Engineer-
tance factor design criteria for steel buildings,” Research Report ing, vol. 123, no. 6, pp. 816–822, 1997.
18, Structural Division, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo, [27] R. Meli, Basis for Structural Design Criteria of the Building
USA, 1973. Code of Mexico City, vol. 375, Bulletin of Instituto de Ingenierı́a
[7] J. G. MacGregor, “Load and resistance factors for concrete , Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City,
design,” ACI Journal, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 279–287, 1983. Mexico, 1976.
[8] C. A. Cornell, “Calculating building seismic performance relia- [28] E. Rosenblueth and L. Esteva, “Reliability basis for some
bility: a basis for multilevel design norms,” in Proceedings of the Mexican codes,” American Concrete Institute, Paper SP 3–1, 1–
11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper 2122, 41, 1972.
pp. 5707–5712, 1996. [29] Y. K. Wen, “Reliability-based design under multiple loads,”
[9] C. A. Cornell, F. Jalayer, R. O. Hamburger, and D. A. Foutch, Structural Safety, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp. 3–19, 1993.
“Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency man- [30] N. Gayton, A. Mohamed, J. D. Sorensen, M. Pendola, and
agement agency steel moment frame guidelines,” Journal of M. Lemaire, “Calibration methods for reliability-based design
Structural Engineering, vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 526–533, 2002. codes,” Structural Safety, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 91–121, 2004.
[10] D. M. Frangopol, “Structural optimization using reliability
[31] J. M. Villanueva and R. Meli, Análisis Estadı́stico de Propiedades
concepts,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 111, no. 11, pp.
Mecánicas de Aceros de Refuerzo Producidos en México, Instituto
2288–2301, 1985.
de Ingenierı́a, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
[11] S. A. Burns, Recent Advances in Optimal Structural Design, Mexico City, Mexico, 1984.
ASCE, Reston, Va, USA, 2002.
[32] S. A. Mirza and J. G. MacGregor, “Variations in dimensions
[12] Y. K. Wen, “Reliability and performance-based design,” Struc- of reinforced concrete members,” Journal of the Structural
tural Safety, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 407–428, 2001. Division, ASCE, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 751–766, 1979.
[13] L. Esteva, “Design general,” in Design of Earthquake Resistant [33] A. G. Rangel, Influencia en la confiabilidad sı́smica estructural de
Structures, E. Rosenblueth, Ed., Pentech Press, 1980. las incertidumbres en las propiedades mecánicas de los materiales
[14] M. K. Ravinda and N. C. Lind, “Theory of structural code y en las cargas vivas máximas [M.S. thesis], Programa de
calibration,” Journal of Structural Division ASCE, vol. 99, pp. Maestrı́a y Doctorado en Ingenierı́a, Instituto de Ingenierı́a,
541–553, 1973. UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico, 2011.
[15] T. V. Galambos, B. Ellingwood, J. G. MacGregor, and C. A. [34] S. Mirza and J. G. MacGregor, “Slenderness and strength
Cornell, “Probability based load criteria: assessment of current reliability of reinforced concrete columns,” Tech. Rep. 86-S40,
design practice,” Journal of Structural Division ASCE, vol. 108, ACI Structural Journal, 1989.
no. 5, pp. 959–977, 1982.
[35] S. E. Ruiz and C. J. Aguilar, “Reliability of short and slender
[16] B. Ellingwood, J. G. MacGregor, T. V. Galambos, and C. A. reinforced-concrete columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
Cornell, “Probability based load criteria: load factors and load vol. 120, no. 6, pp. 1850–1865, 1994.
combinations,” Journal of Structural Division ASCE, vol. 108, no.
[36] U. Quast, Geeignete vereinfachungen für die losung des traglast-
5, pp. 978–997, 1982.
problems der ausmittig gedrückten prismatischen stahlbetonsti-
[17] P. Thoft-Christensen and M. B. Baker, Structural Reliability itze mit rechteckquerschnitt [Ph.D. dissertation], Fakultät für
Theory and Its Applications, Springer, 1982. Bauingenieurwesen, Technischen Universitiit Carolo-Wilhel-
[18] A. S. Nowak and M. Szerszen, “Calibration of design code for mina, Braunsweig, Germany, 1970.
buildings (ACI 318): part 1—statistical models for resistance,”
ACI Structural Journal, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 377–382, 2003.
 International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

International Journal of
The Scientific
Engineering Distributed
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of

International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of
International Journal of Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014