Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/26/14. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

PROBABILITY BASED LOAD CRITERIA: ASSESSMENT

OF CURRENT DESIGN PRACTICE 3
Discussion by Alasdair N. Beal5

As a practicing engineer in Britain, the writer finds it interesting to

see the same enthusiasm for probability based limit state design pro-
claimed in the U.S.A. as is evident in European code-writing circles;
however the writer feels considerable sympathy for any working engi-
neer who might have to put it all into practice. In Britain, limit state'
codes of practice have run into problems 10 years after the appearance
of the first code (30). British engineers still await acceptable compatible
documents for the design of steel, timber, and foundations. This code
is still only used for a minority of structural concrete work. Most de-
signers prefer its allowable stress alternative, code (31).
Its unpopularity with engineers stems mainly from the complication
it brings to calculations resulting in increased design time and increased
incidence of calculation errors. It also seems to suffer from a variety of
theoretical weaknesses in its method (29), its treatment of loads (28), and
its application in material specifications (27). It is clear that these are
common to work on both sides of the Atlantic and thus are worth con-
sidering here. They stem from:

1. The assumption that the primary theory which governs structural

design, which should be considered above all others, is the probability
theory of random statistical variations, rather than classical mechanics.
2. Errors in the application of statistical ideas to the real world.

In the present paper: (1) The authors have considered only the 'ulti-
mate limit state' (p. 980) although other limit states' must also be con-
sidered (p. 979); and (2) they have only considered one possible cause
of failure, extreme statistical variations of normal loads being combined
with similar variations in the material properties. Collapse from this cause
is almost unheard of since most collapses arise from errors in design or
construction, decay of materials, damage, misuse or alteration of the
structure, or from extraordinary loads (such as explosions) which bear
little or no relationship to ordinary design loads. Most failures are not
collapses but service problems such as excessive deflections or subsidence.
Because of these points, the paper's proposals are not suitable for di-
rect application in design; they may be altered or completely overridden
when the other factors are taken into account. However, even within
these limits, some points should be reconsidered:
a
May, 1982, by Theodore V. Galambos, Bruce Ellingwood, James G. Mac-
Gregor, and C. Allin Cornell (Paper 17067).
5
Engr., R. H. Thomason & Partners, Leeds, Great Britain.

1085

J. Struct. Eng. 1983.109:1085-1086.

 1. The proposed calculation format is only appropriate for collapse due
to statistical variations of normal loads and materials. It does not seem
appropriate for some of the more common causes mentioned earlier.
2. During its life of perhaps 100 years, a structure may experience many
changes of loading and use. Indeed the items which impose loads,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Queen's University Libraries on 08/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

whether to houses, offices, shops, factories, or bridges, have changed

so much during the life of many existing structures that it is hard to
believe the loads applied to a structure through its life should all have
the same (or even similar) statistical parameters.
3. Probabilistic analysis of load combinations may be interesting but
it can be quite wrong when not considering physical reality. For ex-
ample, in a British shop, maximum floor loads occur in winter (due to
the Christmas shopping) but this is often the most likely time for high
winds and also for snow. Thus, the chance of the three combining is far
higher than the probability theory suggests. Similar conclusions hold true
for many other structures.
4. Probabilistic design is concerned with "how often?," rather than
"by how much?" a design load is exceeded, although the latter usually
matters more.
5. Uniform reliability of components is set as an objective, although
it is clear that failure of some components would be much more serious
than others. The more important ones tend to be those which carry mainly
dead load. This is one reason why low dead load factors down to 1.2
or 1.1 are not advisable or acceptable to the profession (p. 985).
6. The authors may be interested to know that computational sim-
plicity is important (p. 981).
7. For counteracting loads it is important to consider whether maxi-
mum and minimum dead load factors are to be applied locally (e.g. span-
by-span) or generally to the structure. If they are applied locally, the
rational design of balanced structures can become impossible.

Although the authors proclaim their belief that probabilistic limit state
design is a great improvement on other methods (such as allowable stress),
this has yet to be proven either in theory or in practice. The idea that
design should be defined probabilistically is now less enthusiastically
proclaimed in Britain than it once was and limit state design is still not
popular. There may still be life in allowable stress methods yet.

APPENDIX.—REFERENCES

27. Beal, A. N., "Concrete Cube Strengths—What Use are Statistics?" Proceed-
ings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, London, Great Britain, Dec, 1981,
pp. 1037-1048.
28. Beal, A. N., "Secondary Dead Load and the Limit State Approach," Concrete,
The Concrete Society, London, Great Britain, Sept., 1981, pp. 31-32.
29. Beal, A. N., "What's Wrong With Load Factor Design?," Proceedings, Insti-
tution of Civil Engineers, Part 1, London, Great Britain, Nov., 1979, pp. 595-
604.
30. "The Structural Use of Concrete," CP110 Part 1, British Standards Institution,
London, Great Britain, 1972.
31. "The Structural Use of Reinforced Concrete in Buildings," CP114, British
Standards Institution, London, Great Britain, 1969.

1086

J. Struct. Eng. 1983.109:1085-1086.