56

DESIGN LOADINGS

G.W. Butcher*

1. SYNOPSIS whether limit state was just a stage in the

development of a fully probabilistic design
This paper covers those parts of the method. If this was true then to adopt
loadings code NZS 4203 which relate to dead, limit state for the loading code and follow-
live and snow loads. Seismic and wind ing on from this all structural materials
loads are dealt with in other papers. codes could result in delays in embracing
a fully probabilistic design method in the
The parts of the code discussed are future.
Part 2 and that section of Part 1 dealing
with design load equations and load factors. The probabilistic method presents
many difficulties of implementation in a
2. INTRODUCTION practical code for design office use,
particularly with regard to the treatment
NZS 4203 is intended to provide a basis of earthquake and wind.
for the design of all buildings irrespective
of the type of structure and materials used. The decision was made to retain a
The design philosophy and the resulting deterministic approach for this code
principles laid down by the code will form revision but to keep both design methods
the basis for future revisions of structural under review and where possible encourage
material codes produced by S.A.N.Z. further studies.

The building bylaw section of the draft One direct result of this is the study
is of particular importance since it clearly recently carried out by Reid currently
states the requirements for safety and under review by members of the Committee.
serviceability to be considered in the
design process. Covering these aspects , Other significant developments have
NZS 1900.8 states: been the introduction of BSCP110 (2) and
ISO 2394 (3) together with the circulation
The design and construction of any building of drafts of ISO 25E (4) and SAA DR 74056 < ) 5

shall be such that : all relating to the limit state design

method.
(a) All loads likely to be sustained
during the life of the building will 3. DESIGN LOADS
be sustained with an adequate margin
of safety; Design loads may be defined as the
(b) Deformations of the building will relevant service loads (dead, live or other
not exceed acceptable levels; loads) or in limit state terminology the
characteristic loads multiplied by an
At an early stage of code revision appropriate load factor.
consideration was given to adopting
This is a perfectly general definition
probabilistic design methods rather than
which applies to ultimate strength or
the deterministic methods (using strength
ultimate limit state and serviceability
or the alternative design) which had been
requirements or serviceability limit states
used up to that time. Alternative design
methods examined were: as well as the design method adopted whether
strength design or alternative design or
limit state. For strength or load factor
1. The semi-probabilistic method (limit
design load factors are generally greater
state).
than 1.0 except for load combinations for
2. The probabilistic method.
reversal.
" The limit state method has certain For the alternative design method and
attractions from a design office point of for checking serviceability requirements
view since some of the concepts have load factors of 1.0 or less are used.
already been introduced in the strength
method of design. The concepts referred Design load equations from Part 1
to are those relating to strength such as covering various combinations of loading
a statistical approach to concrete strengths for both the strength and alternative design
and capacity reduction factors together with methods are summarised in Table A. It
load factors (even though these had been should be noted that in the table design
evaluated deterministically i.e. on the load equations for the alternative design
basis of experience and engineering judge- method are treated somewhat differently from
ment) applying to service loads. the draft in that a load factor of 1.0 is
included where appropriate.
However, at that time it was not clear
4. LOAD FACTORS
* Civil Engineer; Partner, Morrison, Cooper
and Partners, Wellington. Load factors cannot be compared alone

B U L L E T I N OF THE NEW Z E A L A N D N A T I O N A L SOCIETY FOR E A R T H Q U A K E ENGINEERING, VOL.9, N0.1. M A R C H 1976

 57
since they are just one part of an overall basis for load factors and design load
or global factor of safety which also equations in the draft code.
includes consideration of member strength.
5. DISCUSSION ON THE DESIGN LOAD REQUIRE-
The load factor may be related to the MENT OF DZ 4203 PART 1
capacity reduction factor as follows:
Design Load Combinations; Strength Method
Y S = <j)R
The existing Chapter 8 "Basic Design
Where y is the load factor Loads" is based upon the use of the working
S is the load effect stress method of design (now called the
4> is the capacity reduction factor and alternative m e t h o d ) . Apart from Clause 8.8
R is the nominal strength of the relating to stability there are no provisions
member. for load factors and design load equations
for loading combinations. Strength design
Using load factors and <j) factors from AC I of reinforced concrete is covered by
318-71 < ) the following values of the
6
NZS 3101P (8) and load factors and design
overall or global factor of safety may be load equations are included in this document.
calculated.
As stated earlier it is intended that
D = L D = 2L NZS 4203 cover all structural materials so
that the provisions of Clause 1.3.2 will
<j> = 0.9 1.72 1.67 supercede the requirements of NZS 3101P ^ )
<f> = 0.7 2.21 2.14
m

The load factors and load equations

In determining overall safety the commentary have been derived from ACI 318-71 (6). A
to ACI 318-63 > suggests the following
(7

load combination probability factor of 0.75

items need to be evaluated or assessed. has been applied to load combinations
involving dead and live loads and wind or
A. Those Factors which can Produce Overload earthquake while for dead and snow loads
and wind a factor of 0.85 has been used.
1. Inaccuracies in the design load
For both snow and wind the design loads are
assumption.
based upon return periods of 50 years.
2. Variation from assumed load distrib-
ution.
For the deterministic approach to
3. Future changes in loads.
gravity loads adopted by the code, only
4. Frequency of loading and impact.
dead and live loads are separated. From a
5. Inaccuracies in the analysis.
probabilistic viewpoint further subdivision
of loads is necessary. If live loads were
B. Factors which can Produce Understrength
classified into short and long term loads
Members
a more rational treatment of the small
probability of short term loads being
1. Design inaccuracies in sizing and
present during earthquake attack is possible.
proportioning of members.
2. Lower than assumed material strength.
The present procedure of reducing the
3. Variations in member sizes.
live load to either D/10 or L/3 or 2L/3 as
4. Other construction variations.
the contribution of live load to the seismic
load has no rational basis and presumably
C. Factors which can Influence the Degree
can only be justified by experience.
of Required Safety
An important change has been made with
1. The importance of members in relation
the elimination of the load factor to be
to the overall stability of the
applied to E. The basic seismic coefficient
structure.
(given in Fig. 3) has been increased by 25%
2. The behaviour of a member at ultimate
so that E as calculated is the design
load.
earthquake load for use in strength design.
3. The occupancy and type of structures.
4. The seriousness of failure from a
safety of life or financial loss Clause 1.3.2.6 covers loading where
viewpoint. the effects of differential settlement,
5. The economics of additional safety. creep, shrinkage and temperature may be
significant insofar as the serviceability
requirements of the structure are concerned.
Consideration of these items leads to an
The same clause in the original draft was
allocation between load factors and 4> with
based upon Clause 9.3.7 of A . C . I . 318-71
some overlap as follows:
but this has been drastically altered in
the final version of the code.
Load Factors Al-5, Bl & B4
Capacity Reduction Factor 4> Bl-4, CI & C2
For both reinforced concrete and for
structural steel these effects do not
In the end, however, load factors for
significantly influence the ultimate strength
strength design in most codes have been
of a section (apart from buckling loads)
based upon the criterion of achieving approx-
since deformations produced by these causes
imately the same degree of overall or global
are usually much less than those at collapse.
safety as that achieved by working stress
design.
In combining these effects with service
loads to determine their affects on the
A comparison of load factors and design
serviceability of the structure realistic
load equation for various codes is set out
values for the actual dead live and other
in Table B.
loads should be used. This may mean
coefficients of 1.0 or less.
ACI 318-71 ( 6
* has been used as the
58

Similar requirements are set out in for moveable and future partitions is
Clause 1.3.3.6 applying to the alternative however made in the same way as in the
method. previous code using an equivalent distributed
load. The reason for treating partitions
Design Load Combinations: Alternative Method in this way is to save computational work
since it can be argued they should be
This clause sets out in logical order treated as live load for gravity and dead
the design loads to be used in the altern- load for seismic load.
ative or working stress method of design.
Because of the probable relationship
A significant change is the inclusion between partition loads and occupancy loads,
of equations to cover reversal of load the whole question of whether a load allow-
under wind and earthquake where only dead ance should be made for moveable and
load is available to stabilise the members. future partitions requires further research
and detailed study.
As E is now calculated as a design load
for strength design a load factor of 0.8 6.4 Earth Pressure
is necessary.
The requirements covering earth
Higher working stresses are permitted pressures have been rewritten to allow the
by the material codes for combinations of use of strength design based upon the load
loads with wind, or earthquake. factors included in Part 1.

6. DISCUSSION ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF A partial safety factor of 1.5 should

NZS 4203 PART 2 AND CHANGES FROM CHAPTER be applied to the average measured soil
8 CLAUSES 8.11 - 8.26 strengths when using strength design.

6.1 General: Design methods for lateral loads on

earth retaining structures during earthquakes
This part of the code has been expanded are given in the paper by Seed & Whitman
significantly not only to cover additional referred to in Commentary Clause C2.1.3.1.
loading cases but also for greater clarity An additional reference is "Retaining Wall
and ease of use. Design Notes" prepared in the office of
the Chief Designing Engineer, MWD ( H ) .
6.2 Dead Loads
Clause 1.2.6 Part 1 now covers stability
There is no New Zealand standard and the previous working stress requirement
relating to weights of materials and con- that retaining walls should have a factor
struction. Suitable overseas standards of safety of 1.5 against overturning or
which may be used in lieu are BS 648: 1964 sliding instability has been dropped.
< > and AS 1170 Fart 1-1971 U ° ) Appendix
9
Clause C3.7 of part 3 in dealing with
A. horizontal support for retaining walls
comments that "passive pressure of the
It has always been assumed that dead ground or by friction between foundation
loads can be calculated with accuracy. and the soil can be adequate"!

The commentary on ACI 318-71 for The surcharge due to traffic loading
instance states "A greater factor is applied on public footpaths has been reduced to
to live load than to dead load since dead the more realistic figure of 5kPa (previously
load can be determined with reasonable it was lOkPa) while for public roadways the
accuracy " loading remains lOkPa. Note that private
roadways and footpaths are treated separately
It should be recognised that variations on the basis of anticipated traffic loadings.
in the dead load of the structure can occur
from that assumed by the designer (the An important aspect now required to be
variation may be of the order of 20 to 25 considered in the design is the construction
per c e n t ) . These may occur due to: method (see also Clause 2 . 1 . 5 ) . Consideration
must be given to the effects of exceptional
1. Estimates made from incomplete drawings. loadings and surcharge due to methods of
2. Changes in materials used. compaction and backfill.
3. Construction alterations .
4. Changes in moisture content. 6.5 Temperature Effects
5. Differences between assumed and as
built dimensions. Except for the rewording of the first
sentence and the inclusion of temperatures
The dangers of being too conservative in degrees celcius the clause is as the
in estimating dead loads should also be previous code.
realised when dealing with reversal of load
with stability dependent on the level of 6.6 Loads During Construction
dead load.
This is a new clause of a rather
Regular reappraisal and correction if general nature which covers loads during
necessary should be carried out as the construction and requires precautions to be
calculations proceed. taken to protect the building from damage
or distortion during construction. There
6.3 Partitions: appears to be no good reason to include
this type of load under the general heading
All types of partitions are now to be of a dead load.
treated as dead load instead of only fixed
partitions as in the past. The allowance 6.7 Live Loads
 59

Basic minimum uniformity distributed people to the point where shuffling ceases
live loads are set out in some detail in and the area occupied per person is 0.26m^.
Table 1. It is believed that by setting
out the types of loads to be found under 6.8 Ceiling Joists and Supporting Members
each occupancy heading the choosing of loads
is made more easily (and possibly more The requirement that ceiling joists
accurately) than in the previous code. and supporting members to ceiling spaces
with access for maintenance only be designed
As discussed earlier the loads in the for a point load of 1 kN is new. This is
table are deterministic and the original a logical requirement as it allows for the
basis for some is not clear nor completely loading due to a man in any likely position
rational. carrying out routine maintenance work.
Where appropriate this clause would require
It seems extraordinary that so much is the bottom chords of roof trusses to be
known on the ultimate strength of members, designed accordingly. The fact that this
on material properties and on the statistical requirement did not apply in the past
evaluation of these properties and yet so without any apparent ill effects should not
little is known of the loads and variations be used as a criteria for the future when
of load that the same members will be more realistic design methods and new
required to safely carry during its life. materials may be available.
This is highlighted by the introduction of
BSCP110 which is based upon a limit state 6.9 Grandstands
design basis but because of a lack of
statistical information in loading the The present code has no requirement
potential of the limit state approach covering the horizontal loads to be applied
cannot be fully utilised. to the seats of grandstands and similar
buildings nor to platforms without seats.
The levels of loading currently used These have now been included. It should
for various occupancies have been arrived be noted that these loads are to be treated
at over the years presumably on the basis separately and are not additive to the
of experience and engineering judgement. seismic horizontal loads.
Apparently the level of loading currently
adopted together with present methods of 6.10 Storage Loads
design and construction produce structures
which are safe and have sufficient stiffness Clause 8.14.5 in the existing code has
to meet serviceability requirements. been retained apart from minor changes in
wording. The clause covers extra heavy
Very few soundly based floor loading loads and goods causing loadings in excess
surveys have been carridd out. Notable of 10 kPa which are not included in Table
exceptions are those by Mitchell & Woodgate 1.
( '
13
and the current surveys at present
nearing completion for NBS in U.S.A. As The heading 'Storage L o a d s 1
is somewhat
far as is known only one or two loading inappropriate I
surveys have been carried out on office
buildings in New Zealand and these were 6.11 Reduced Live Loads
carried out by the M . W . D .
This is a new clause and is based
The level of live loads has been based upon the reduction of live load procedures
upon BSCP3 Chapter vd2) , AS1170.1 - 1971 ( 1 0 )
of the National Building Code of Canada
and the existing Chapter 8: 1965. (1970) .

An important reduction in live load The reason for adopting this approach
included in Table 1 is that applying to is that the reductions appear to be more
offices. The loading for floors (apart reasonable when compared to load survey
from ground floors) has been reduced to results than other current reduction formulae
2.5kPa from the previous 3.0 kPa. This now used in overseas codes such as AS 1170 Part
brings New Zealand into line with overseas 1 - 1971
codes such as Britain and U.S.A. Continental
countries use even lower values. The use of R applies to live loads on
tributary areas of all types of structural
An important consideration noted in the members but the reduction is not intended
commentary Clause C2.2.1.1 is that generally to apply to snow load or to roof loads
the loads do not allow for possible change applied to roofs without access. (Type 2
of occupancy nor do they allow for high loads of Table 2 Clause 2.2.2.1.)
density mobile storage. These are matters
which should be given detailed consideration A comparison of the proposed reduction
by the designer in consultation with the formula with other methods including Clause
client at an early stage in the planning of 8.19. Chapter 8 and the results of load
the project. surveys is given in Fig. 1.

For the office occupancy ground floor 6.12 Concentrated Loads

offices and public areas are allocated higher
floor loadings than offices on the other As well as uniformly distributed loads
floors. Load surveys justify such a Table 1 also includes concentrated loads
differentiation. Whether public areas need for each occupancy. Such loads appear to
to be designed for such levels of loading is be necessary to provide for the greater and
questionable. Mitchell & Woodgate ( >
13
more extended use of lightweight floors of
referring to the crowding which could occur various types in the future. Whether such
during fire practice drill arrive at a concentrated loads are justified as such is
loading of 2.4 kPa based upon the packing of questionable. In the loading surveys carried
60

out by Mitchell and Woodgate it was this has been incorporated in the code. To
not possible to identify an alternative be consistent, however, lateral force' has
1

concentrated load suitable for use in design. been altered to 'horizontal force'.
Loading concentrations were found to vary in
intensity and in area occupied according to 6.18 Total Reduced Gravity Load
the size of bay considered. As a result
Mitchell & Woodgate ' advocate the use
( 1 3
As in Clause 8.22 of Chapter 8 a
of Load Concentration Factors which take reduced live load may be used for calculating
into account such variations and their the horizontal seismic force. An important
effects on moments and shears. change, however, is that this reduced load
is not now to be used as the live load
6.13 Live Loads for Roofs and Verandahs acting concurrently with earthquake and
dead load in the design of a member. The
The provisions for live loads to roofs live load to be used in the appropriate
and verandahs with and without access are design load equation is the reduced live
new. For roofs without access the provisions load L determined in clause 2.2.4.
R

are based upon AS 1170 Part 1 - 1971 ( >. 10

The loads for verandahs with no access but As comparison of the effect of this
over public spaces are the same as roofs and change on moment envelopes for ground floor
verandahs with access. This provision was and second floor beams of a 3 storey and
included as a result of a survey of local 14 storey RC building has already been made
bodies who produced evidence and argument by Glogau ( ) .
1 6

that all such verandahs could be loaded with

spectators many times during their life. To simplify calculations the reduced
gravity load Wt may be taken as D for
The point load of 1.0 kN specified in live loads up to and including 1.5 kPa for
Table 2 should be applied over a square with all types of buildings and as 1.ID for
a 0.1 metre side. ordinary buildings with normal weight
distribution and with normal weight concrete
6.14 Snow Loads floors for live loads up to and including
5kPa.
The section on snow loads is completely
new and is based upon work by Pinnell 7.0 CONCLUSION
at NZAEI and subsequent information on snow
loads supplied by the N . Z . Meteorological The provisions of the code covering
Service. dead, live, snow loads etc. deal with these
loads in much more detail than the existing
The provisions attempt to provide code. It is believed that they will clarify
useable and complete as possible information a number of areas which have caused diffic-
on snow loads effects while retaining ulties in the past as well as giving more
simplicity of application to design. For realistic loadings such as roofs.
m o r e important or unusual or large buildings
designers are referred to the National Hopefully, this will be the last
Building Code of Canada (197 0) for additional revision of this part of the code on a
data on accumulation of snow. purely deterministic basis.

A distinct departure from overseas APPENDIX I.

practice is the use of the 'open field snow
load' f as the basic design load. References

It should be noted that snow load is 1. Reid S. G. (1975), "Probability - Based

not defined as a live load in 1.1.3. Design and a Probabilistic Code Format",
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University
6.15 Ponding of Canterbury.
2. (1972) "The Structural Use of Concrete",
This is a completely new clause which CP110: Part I BSI.
draws the designers attention to the problem 3. (1972) "General Principles for the
o f retention of water due to deflection when Verification of the Safety of Structures"
inadequate falls or stiffness are built into ISO.
a roof structure or verandah. There have 4. (1974) Draft on Serviceability Limit
been a number of failures of structures in State Deformation. ISO 25E.
the U.S.A. due to this cause which is not 5. (1974) "The Principles of Limit Stage
restricted to a single material or roofing Design". DR 74056 SAA.
system. The problem could be of greater 6. (1971) "Building Code Requirements for
significance now that the live load on Reinforced Concrete" ACI 318-71 A C I .
roofs has been reduced significantly by 7. (1963) "Building Code Requirements
clause 2.2.2. Methods of dealing with pond- for Reinforced Concrete". ACI 318-63
ing are given in clause 1.13 of the 1969 ACI.
Specification and Commentary of the A.I.S.C. 8. (1970) "Reinforced Concrete Design".
( >
15
and clause 9.5.2.4 of A . C . I . 318-71 < > .
6
NZS 3101P SANZ.
9. (1964) "Weights of Building Materials".
6.16 Live Loads for Balustrades and Parapets BS 648.
10. (1971) "SAA Loading Code". AS 1170
Clause 8.17 of the existing code has Part I SAA.
been retained without alteration. 11. (1973) "Retaining Wall Design Notes".
MWD.
6.17 Moving Live Loads 12. (1967) Dead and Imposed Loads CP3:
Chapter V Loading Part I B S I .
There appeared to be no reason to change 13. Mitchell, G. R. & Woodgate, R. W. (1971),
clause 8.18 as promulgated in amendment 3 and "Floor Loadings in Office Buildings -
 61

the Results of a Survey", BRS C P 3 / 7 1 . Steel for Buildings", A I S C .

Glogau, 0. A. (1972), "The Objective
14. Pinnell, G. C. (1974). "Snow Damage
of the New Zealand Seismic Design Code"
to Buildings", NZAEI Internal Report
Structural Design for Earthquakes,
No. 48 (Unpublished).
University of Auckland.
15. (1969) "Specification of Structural

TABLE A

DESIGN LOAD EQUATIONS FOR COMBINATIONS OF LOADING

From Clauses 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 of NZS 4203 Part 1

LOADING COMBINATION ^X^^ITfiP M ^ ^ B O O

1. Dead & Live Loads u 1 4D + 1 . 7 L R A 1 .OD + 1.0L R

2. Dead, Live & Wind Loads u 1 0D + 1.3L R + 1.3W A 1 • OD + 1.0L R + LOW

or u 0 .9D 1.3W or A 0.7D LOW

3. Dead, Live & Earthquake u s 1 0D + 1.3L + E A 1 • OD + 1.0L.. + 0.8E

Loads K K
0 9D
or u - E or A
- 0 .7D 0.8E
4. Dead, Snow & Wind Loads u = 1 4D + 1.4S A 1 OD + l.OS
or u - 1 2D + 1.2S + 1.1W or A 1 OD + l.OS + L O W

5. Dead, Live & Lateral Earth u 1 4D + 1.7L + 1.7Q A 1 OD + 1.0L + 1.0Q

-
R R

Pressure K
or u 0 9D + 1.7Q or A 1 OD + 1.0Q

6. Dead, Live & Liquid u 1 4D 1.7L + 1.4F A _ 1 OD + 1.0L„ + l.OF

Pressure K rv
or u 0 9D + 1.4F or A — 1 OD + l.OF

TABLE B

COMPARISON OF DESIGN LOAD EQUATIONS FROM VARIOUS CODES

CODE AISC NZ3101P CEB ACI 318-71 BSCP110 SEAOC

DATE 1969 1970 1970 1971 1972 1973

MATERIAL STEEL R.C. R.C. R.C. R.C. R.C.

I. DESIGN METHODS

Plastic Strength Ultimate Strength Ultimate Strength

Design Method Limit State Method Limit State Method
Dead & Live 1.7D+1.7L 1.5D+1.8L 1.4D+1.6L 1.4D+1.7L 1.4D + 1.6L

Dead, Live & 1.3D+1.3L+1.3E 1.25D+1.25Le 1.25D+1.6E 1.05D+1.27L 1.4D+1.4L+1.4E or

Earthquake +1.2 5E +1.4E 0.9D+1.4E
Shear & Diagonal
Tension (Except
K=0.67)
1.4D+1.4L+2.8E or
0.9D+2.8E

Dead, Live & 1.3D+1.3L+1.3W 1.25D+1.25L 1.25D+1.25L 1.05D+1.27L 1.2D+1.2L+1.2W

Wind +1.25W or +1.25W or +1.27W or or 0.9D+1.4W ACI
0.9D+1.25W 1.0D+1.6W 0.9D+1.3W

II. SERVICEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OR LIMIT STATES DEFLECTION, CRACKING, VIBRATION

Dead & Live 1.0D + 1.0L Service loads 1.0D + 1.0L

Dead & Wind 1.0D+0.8L+0.8W (Clause 9.5.1) 1.0D + L O W

Dead, Live & or L or 1.0D+0.8L+0.8W

Wind sustained load
Clause 9.5.2.4.
 F I G U R E 1 : C O M P A R I S O N OF V A R I O U S LIVE LOAD R E D U C T I O N F O R M U L A - O F F I C E FLOOR L O A D S

0'

4 99% Of f ice Loc ding frc>m Ref. 13

other trlan grou nd floo r.
I
v
\ N Z S 5 1900 Chapter 8 1965
bearns only
• \x— I
"1 _ ,
, \ |— NZS 4203_ P art 2
0
— AS1 170 par t 1 19 71

0 _ (35% off* ce loading

i rom Ref. 13 other
:
[_ANSI A58.3 \k
1:han gro und floor. 1st D raft 302

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

TRIBUTARY AREA 2