956

Eighteenth Canadian Geotechnical

Colloquium: Limit States Design For
Foundations. Part I. An overview of the
foundation design process
Dennis E. Becker

Abstract: This paper examines the foundation design process in terms of level of safety associated with current
state-of-practice, sources of uncertainty and how they are handled, importance of engineering judgement and
experience, and the role of codes of practice. Working stress, limit states, and reliability-based design approaches
are described and discussed in terms of their historical development, fundamental bases and differences, advantages,
and limitations. Limit states are conditions under which a structure no longer performs its intended function.
Limit states design considers separately the two classes of ultimate and serviceability limit states using partial
factors of safety. The European factored strength approach and the North American factored overall resistance
approach are compared and discussed. The factored resistance approach is a logical extension of working stress
design and has the significant advantage that it reflects not only uncertainty in strength, but also in theoretical
models, site conditions, construction tolerances, and failure mechanisms. The partial load and resistance factors
are interrelated and are a function of characteristic values. A consistent, rational basis for the selection of the
geotechnical characteristic value is required. The use of a conservatively assessed mean value is recommended,
and an approach for its interpretation is presented.
Key words: limit states design, working stress design, characteristic value, partial factors, factored resistance,
load and resistance factor design.

Resume : Cet article examine le processus de conception des fondations en termes de niveau de securite
decoulant de l'etat actuel de la pratique, des sources d'incertitudes et comment on en tient compte, de !'importance
du jugement et de l'experience de l'ingenieur et du role des codes de pratique. Les approches basees sur Jes
notions de contrainte de travail, d'etats limites et de fiabilite sont decrites et discutees selon leur histoire, leurs
fondements, leurs differences, leurs avantages et leurs limites. Les etats limites sont les conditions dans lesquelles
une structure ne remplit plus la fonction demandee. Les calculs aux etats limites considerent separement deux
classes d'etats limites, ultimes et de service, avec des coefficients de securite partiels. lei on compare et discute
l'approche europeenne par resistance ponderee et l'approche nord-americaine par force moyenne ponderee.
L'approche par force moyenne ponderee est un prolongement logique du calcul par contrainte de travail et
possede l'avantage significatif de refleter non seulement !'incertitude sur la resistance mais aussi sur Jes modeles
theoriques, Jes conditions en place, Jes tolerances de construction et Jes mecanismes de rupture. Les coefficients
partiels de charge et de resistance sont relies et dependent de grandeurs caracteristiques. On recommande I' usage
d'une valeur moyenne, estimee de maniere conservatrice, et on presente une approche pour son interpretation.
Mots cles : calculs aux etats limites, calcul par contrainte de travail, grandeur caracteristique, coefficients de
securite partiels, resistance ponderee, calcul par facteur de charge et de resistance.
[Traduit par la redaction]

Foreword is an ever-increasing demand on the geotechnical engineer­

Limit states design (LSD) has been the general design
approach used by structural engineers in Canada since the
mid l 970's. However, most geotechnical design continues
to be based on traditional working stress design (WSD).
Over the last 2 decades or so, LSD has received increasing
attention in the geotechnical engineering literature. There
Received June 7, 1996. Accepted July 24, 1996.
D.E. Becker. Golder Associates Ltd., 2180 Meadowvale
Boulevard, Mississauga, ON LSN 5S3, Canada.
ing community to adopt LSD. The geotechnical engineering
profession in Canada is in the process of evaluating LSD
for its incorporation into codes of practice for foundation
engineering to provide a consistent design approach between
structural and geotechnical engineers.
LSD for foundations is not new. It was first introduced
in Europe in the mid 1950's and has been practiced for
over 30 years in Denmark. In Canada, LSD for foundations
was first introduced in the second edition of the Ontario
Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC; Ministry of Trans­
portation and Communication 1983). The OHBDC was

Can. Geotech. J. 33: 956-983 (1996). Printed in Canada/ Imprime au Canada

Becker
based on factored strength concepts consistent with the
development of LSD in Denmark. Nevertheless, there has
been a general reluctance by geotechnical engineers in
Canada to adopt LSD as originally introduced into the
OHBDC. Lack of familiarity with and incomplete under-
standing of LSD concepts, together with the experience
of the OHBDC and apparent deficiencies identified through
its use of LSD, were responsible for the general reluctance
of geotechnical engineers to embrace LSD. It was antici-
pated that LSD would result in economy of design. Foun-
dations and retaining walls should have become smaller
and thinner; however, they became larger and thicker.
This initial introduction of LSD in Canada was not well
accepted by geotechnical engineers; it has generated a fair
amount of confusion and controversy. Based on the Author's
review of the literature and his experience and discussions
with engineering colleagues, it became apparent that LSD
means different things to different people. It was also
apparent that the transfer of the fundamental principles
and the kernel concepts of LSD to geotechnical (foundation)
engineers was not successful, and certainly not well under-
stood. It is important that the fundamental principles of
LSD be conveyed to and understood by geotechnical engi-
neers if they are to accept the new LSD design format.
Further, the initial transition to LSD should be as gradual
and smooth as possible.
To add to the confusion, the concept of LSD with the use
of partial factors of safety developed differently in the
United States and in Europe. A factored strength approach
forms the basis of the European practice, while a factored
overall resistance approach is the basis of the American
approach. In 1991, the third edition of OHBDC (Ministry
of Transportation of Ontario 1991) also adopted a factored
overall resistance approach. In Ontario, geotechnical engi-
neers who were still struggling with the factored strength
approach, used in the second edition of OHBDC, suddenly
had to adopt a new version of LSD. At the same time, it
was planned to introduce LSD for foundations into the
National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) and a Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code was under preparation. It
became apparent that consistency needed to exist between
the various codes in Canada. The decision was made to
adopt a factored overall resistance approach for both the
NBCC and the Canadian Bridge Code. The rationale for
this decision will be outlined and discussed in this
colloquium.
An objective of this colloquium is to review and sum-
marize fundamental LSD concepts in order to define a
consistent meaning and basis upon which geotechnical
engineers can not only readily understand and apply LSD
concepts, but also so that they will embrace them and rec-
ognize the inherent advantages of LSD. Hopefully, it will
leave the reader with a basic understanding of the essence
of not only LSD, but also of the overall foundation design
process and traditional design methods such as WSD.
The colloquium is presented as a two part paper. Part I
examines the overall geotechnical (foundation) design
process and presents an overview of WSD, LSD, and reli-
ability-based design approaches. The fundamental bases
and differences of each of these three design approaches are
described and discussed. Further, the differences between
957
LSD development in North America and in Europe are
compared and discussed. The colloquium outlines the
advantages of the factored overall resistance approach and
the reasons for its selection for code development in the
NBCC. Part II describes the work carried out, based on
Part I, for the initial development of LSD for foundations
in the 1995 National Building Code of Canada.
Introduction
The primary objectives of engineering design are safety,
serviceability, and economy. Safety and serviceability can
be improved by increasing the design margins or levels
of safety to reduce the probability of failure. However,
this increases the cost of the structure. Considerations of
overall economy in design involves balancing the increased
cost associated with increased safety against the potential
losses that could result from unsatisfactory performance
(i.e., failure). Regardless of the design philosophy and
approach used, the basic design criteria is that the capacity
or resistance of the system must be greater than the demand
or loads on the system for an acceptable or required level
of safety. In equation format, the design criterion is given by
[I] Resistance (R) > Loads (S)
Failure or unsatisfactory performance occurs when the
demand on a system exceeds the capacity of the system.
This statement can be expressed in graphical form, as
shown in Fig. 1. The term system is general; it could be a
building, a bridge, a dam, a transportation network, and
the like. This paper deals with systems or structures that are
common to both structural and geotechnical engineering.
Throughout the paper the general term structure is used.
The term structure, whether it is a building or a bridge,
includes the parts designed by structural engineers (e.g.,
the building or bridge) and the parts designed by geo-
technical engineers (e.g., foundation bearing capacity).
The basis of design is to achieve a state that lies in the
"safe" region shown in Fig. 1 during the lifetime of the
structure. As pointed out by Oliphant (1993), the terminol-
ogy of safe and unsafe is misleading. The terms "satisfying"
or "not satisfying" the design criteria is considered to be
more appropriate than safe and unsafe. The precise position
of the failure surface (i.e., R = S) is not known as a result
of uncertainty. Therefore, measures of safety such as factor
of safety, safety margin, reliability index, and probability
of failure are not true or absolute. Rather, in a relative
sense, they provide an aid or tool in the overall design
process for managing safety in view of the uncertainty
inherent in the design process.
Design criteria for safety lie above the failure boundary
surface; they define levels of safety as a measure of the
distance from the failure surface, as shown in Fig. 1. The
reserve capacity in excess of the required capacity represents
the safety margin or level of safety. However, for different
applications, the offset distance from the failure surface
(i.e., safety margin) will vary. For example, the mining
industry tends to use lower levels of safety; whereas, in
civil engineering application a higher level of safety is
used. The level of safety used depends on the class and
importance of the structure and the consequence of failure.
958 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996

Fig. 1. General design criteria for capacity versus demand past experience and judgement, different engineers will
systems (after Oliphant 1993). arrive at and use different values of shear strength or com-
"SAFE" REGION pressibility, even for the same site.
DESIGN CRITERIA SATISFIED The calculation procedure or design equation for ultimate
~ (R>S) resistance is usually based on plasticity theory. However,
different theories produce different bearing capacity factors
INCREASING LEVEL ~ and, thus, different answers. The bearing capacity of foot-
OF SAFETY /R=S ings is often determined from the Terzaghi bearing capacity
,
,I
,I formulae. Even though this method is widely accepted and
,I
,I
,I
applied throughout the world, a large number of questions
SAFETY ; ;
,I
arise concerning the bearing capacity factor (Ny), the
MARGIN/ shape, depth, and inclination factors, and others. Even for
FOR s,, ✓
,I
a single friction angle ( cp') of 30°, a range in values for
B ; "UNSAFE" REGION Ny between 8 and 20 can be found in codes of practice
C A,,,,,,,,✓ DESIGN CRITERIA NOT SATISFIED from eight countries (Ovesen and Orr 1991).
(R<S) In addition, ultimate bearing capacity and virtually all
,I

,I
,I
other types of geotechnical design parameters may also
,I

,I
,I
be selected on the basis of performance correlations to
,I

,I
,I in situ tests such as the standard penetration test (SPT) or
,I
,I piezocone penetration test (CPTU). These correlations
" involve inherent uncertainty and may be site specific. Such
empirical correlations need to be applied judiciously. Phoon
DEMAND(S)
et al. ( 1993) caution their use and suggest that the geo-
technical community move away and avoid reliance on
these types of models. Nevertheless, these empirical cor-
The more important the structure and the more serious the relations are expected to remain in use and continue to be
consequence of failure, the higher the level of safety used an integral part of design practice for some time because the
in the design process. geotechnical professional heritage is embodied in such
empirical correlations.
Geotechnical design process For the calculation model and load effects, codes will
specify safety factors aimed at producing a design with
The geotechnical design process, as it relates to foundation an acceptable risk or level of safety. The safety factors
design, is schematically summarized in Fig. 2. The design specified help to account for and to mitigate uncertainties
process starts off with the project description (e.g., a build- in the design process, such as those related to loads, material
ing with specific capacity and serviceability requirements properties, design equations, and inherent variability in
based on the client's needs). A basic design issue, from the ground conditions at the site.
the perspective of geotechnical engineers, is related to As shown in Fig. 2, the geotechnical model of the site,
determining the most appropriate type and size of foun- calculation model, and load effects are considered in the
dation units (e.g., what width of footing is required to geotechnical analysis of load carrying capacity and settle-
safely and economically support the building and satisfy the ment of the foundation materials. The results from the
design criteria). analysis, when appropriately tempered or modified by engi-
To assist in the design process and to ensure compliance neering judgement and experience, are then used in the
with a minimum specified level of technical quality, engi- decision making process as to what constitutes the most
neers refer to a jurisdictional code of practice. The purpose appropriate type and size of foundation unit for the building.
of codes is to assist engineers in making appropriate deci-
sions to produce a safe and economical design. Codes usu- Uncertainties in design
ally provide general guidance for site investigation require- Significant and varying degrees of uncertainty are inherently
ments. From an interpretation of the results from the involved in the design process. Allowances must be made
investigation, geotechnical engineers formulate a geo- for these uncertainties. The source of uncertainty in foun-
technical model of the site in terms of stratigraphy, soil dation design can be grouped into four main categories:
and groundwater conditions, and engineering properties. (1) uncertainties in estimating the loads;
Codes also usually provide guidance for the choice of (2) uncertainties associated with variability of the ground
appropriate geotechnical parameters, present a discussion conditions at the site;
on appropriate theory and calculation models or equations (3) uncertainties in evaluation of geotechnical material
for geotechnical resistances, and specify load combinations properties; and
and load effects for design. (4) uncertainties associated with the degree to which the
The geotechnical parameters are dependent on many analytical model represents the actual behaviour of the
factors and are subject to significant inherent variability foundation, structure, and the ground that supports the
and uncertainty. There is no unique answer to questions structure.
such as which shear strength and deformation parameters To some extent, the above uncertainties can be reasonably
are most appropriate for design purposes? Depending on quantified either explicitly or implicitly; they are generally
Becker
Fig. 2. Components of foundation design and role of codes of practice (after Ovesen
1981, 1993).
I1N1ERPRETA110N
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
►
DESIGN CRITERIA CALCULATION MODEL
(CLIENT'S NEEDS) Rn= O.SYBNy+ qNq+cNc
LOAD EFFECTS
B- ?
DESIGN ISSUE
referred to as objective uncertainties (Eisenstein 1989).
The uncertainties associated with the natural variability
of ground conditions and with the evaluation of the geo-
technical properties are usually the greatest, as a conse-
quence of the complex geological processes involved with
the deposition and formation of soil and rock (Tan et al.
1991; Phoon et al. 1993; Bolton 1981).
In contrast, gross errors including human errors or omis-
sions that occur in practice are seldom quantified in design.
These errors are usually handled by, or mitigated through,
design quality control and assurance programs, and inde-
pendent (i.e., third party) design review (Simpson et al.
1981; Eisenstein 1989; Tan et al. 1991 ). Simpson et al.
( 1981) also point out that gross or human errors are prob-
ably responsible for the majority of failures in practice.
Bolton (1981) implies that 90% of failures occur because the
design calculations are inappropriate for the design situation.
No level of safety, which is economically acceptable, can be
expected to cover situations where the site conditions or
material properties have been completely misunderstood,
959
~
I
GEOTECHNICAL MODEL
!
GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS FOR
CAPACITY AND SEmEMENT
ENGINEERING
EXPERIENCE
AND JUDGEMENT
B =1.Sm
~
~l.5m
DESIGN DECISION
a major load effect has been forgotten, or an inappropri-
ate design calculation or analysis has been carried out.
Tolerable risk and safety considerations
Design must assure an acceptable risk or a required level
of safety; but how does one rationalize what is an acceptable
risk?
The design needs to be based on a probability of failure
that is comparable to the risks that people (i.e., society)
are willing to accept in specific situations or from natural
and man-made works. This is referred to as tolerable risk.
Boyd (1994) notes that tolerability does not necessarily
mean acceptability. Tolerable risk refers to a willingness to
live with a risk so as to secure certain benefits and in the
confidence that risk is being properly controlled or managed.
To tolerate a risk means that it is not regarded as negligible
or something that can be ignored. Rather, risk needs to be
kept under scrutiny and reduced if required and if possible.
For risk to be acceptable, society must be willing to live
with the risk for purposes of life or work.
960
Fig. 3. Risks for selected natural events and engineering
projects designed in keeping with current practice (after
Whitman 1984; Boyd 1994).
rTOTAL NATURAL EVENTS
10-1
FOUNDATIONS '··,·(.~ETEORS
"N>GUGIBJ,,,
RISK(Boyd 1994) ',,, ··,..,
COMMERCIAL AVIATION ',,,,
1o-
6
--1-----,-----,---~~~~----_::··,~--'~
LOST LIVES 10 100
COSTIN$ lmil. 10 mil. 100 mil. lbil.
CONSEQUENCE OF EVENTS / FAILURES
MacGregor ( 197 6) has summarized levels of acceptable
risk as:
Avoidable risks connected with daring people:
10- 3 per year
Avoidable risks connected with careful people:
10- 4 per year
Unavoidable risks: 5 X 10- 5 per year
MacGregor (1976) rationalizes that most occupants of
buildings would consider a structural collapse an unavoid-
able risk; thus the design probability of failure should be of
the order of 5 X 10- 5 per year. This risk level corresponds
to the target reliability index used in the calibration of the
National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) for structural
design.
Figure 3 summarizes observed risks associated with
both natural events and engineering projects. In essence, the
figure represents current levels of safety or probability of
failure associated with the current state-of-practice in engi-
neering. It is seen that the risk of death from engineering
structures is significantly less than that for natural disasters.
In all cases, engineering works pose a risk that is less than
generally acceptable risk, but greater than negligible risk as
defined by Boyd (1994). The probability of dam failures is
similar to that of meteor hits. Dams tend to be designed
or perform with higher levels of safety (i.e., less risk) than
foundations and mine pit slopes. This is because the con-
sequence of failure in terms of lives lost is much higher for
dams. The probability of failure associated with earth-
works and foundations generally lies in the range of 10- 2
to 10- 3 per year. The observations summarized on Fig. 3
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996
generally agree with those reported by Meyerhof (1970,
1993, 1995). However, based on a survey of failures of
foundations in conjunction with semiprobabilistic methods
and considerable judgement, Meyerhof considers that the
lifetime probability of failure for foundations on land is
as low as 10- 4 per year.
Role of codes of practice and standards
Codes of practice have been described as documents for
quality assurance of the design of civil engineering struc-
tures (Ovesen and Orr 1991; Ovesen 1993). According to
the International Standards Organization (ISO 1986), a
code of practice is a document that recommends practices
or procedures for the design, manufacture, installation,
maintenance, or utilization of equipment, structures, or
products.
ISO defines a standard as a document, established by
consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides
for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines, or char-
'~c';DAMS\ acteristics for activities or their results aimed at the achieve-
',,/ ment of the optimum degree of order. In geotechnical engi-
neering, standards are usually used in the form of testing
··,.., •.,.. '',,
standards or product standards (i.e., American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), British Standards Institute
(BSI), Canadian Standards Association (CSA), and
1000 10 000 Deutsches lnstitut fuer Normung (DIN)). Standards are
10 billion useful tools for engineers as reference documents to assist
in achieving an optimum degree of order, accuracy, and
repeatability in measurement. Standards also enable engi-
neers to "speak the same language" (Ovesen 1993).
The term "standard" is sometimes used interchangeably
with the term "code." However, conceptually a code is
different from a standard. A code of practice is a legal
document that strives to obtain or ensure a specific mini-
mum level of technical quality; whereas, a standard aims to
achieve a specific degree of order and consistency.
In the present context, a code of practice describes rec-
ommended good engineering design practice by defining a
set of requirements or provisions that are aimed at reaching
a reasonable technical level of quality and the desired or
specified level of safety. Code requirements are normally
written as performance requirements and are based on sci-
entific or technical principles. Codes of practice will usually
avoid standardizing certain methods or procedures of design
and construction. It is the responsibility of the design engi-
neer to select design parameters which used in conjunc-
tion with appropriate analytical techniques will produce a
design that is in compliance with the defined set of require-
ments or criteria within the code.
Ovesen (1993) states that it is important to understand
that a code of practice, at its very best, represents a fine
balance between the components of design shown in Fig. 2.
A code needs to address all components because the com-
ponents cannot be treated separately in a vacuum. The
design calculation can only be judged or assessed in com-
bination with the safety factors, loads, and material prop-
erties used for design.
A code does not represent "the truth" or an absolute;
rather, it represents a tool by means of which rational deci-
sions can be made. The proof of a good code is if it works
in practice. The code should provide sufficient guidance
Becker
in a clear, consistent, and concise manner to assist the
design engineer in making the "right" decisions. The right
decision means that the design produces a structure that
is sufficiently safe and economical. A good code leads to
design situations where only a few structures fail from
time to time (Ovesen and Orr 1991). That is, the concept
of tolerable risk is satisfied.
Risk is an inherent part of all engineering works. Dif-
ferent types of risk exist for different types of works or
projects; there are different ways to evaluate and manage
such risks. Amongst geotechnical engineers, the following
sentiments generally exist and were expressed at the Inter-
national Symposium on Limit State Design in Geotechnical
Engineering held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in May 1993
(Steenfelt 1993):
• The best way to reduce risk is to give the design engi-
neer sufficient freedom to do a good job.
• Judgement is indispensable to the successful practice of
geotechnical engineering.
• There is a strong need to keep the format for managing
safety simple.
A good code, therefore, needs to incorporate the above
sentiments.
Role of engineering judgement and experience
Engineering judgement and experience are, and always
will be, an essential part of geotechnical engineering and
are vital for controlling safety of geotechnical structures.
There will always be a need for judgement, tempered by
experience, to be applied to new technologies and tools.
Further, many aspects of geotechnical design are still heav-
ily reliant on engineering judgement and experience. It is
very important, if not essential, that calibration of various
design procedures be carried out so that they are consistent
with the geotechnical, empirical experience base. As stated
by Mortensen (1983), the intent of the limit states design
philosophy, for example, is not to replace engineering
judgement and experience, nor to quantify them.
The spirit of the limit states design concept, as it was
originally conceived and described later in this paper, is
particularly important in geotechnical engineering. The
proper identification of potential modes of failure or limit
states of a foundation, which is the first step in design, is
not always a trivial task. This step generally requires a
thorough understanding and appreciation of the interaction
between the geological environment, loading characteristics,
and foundation behaviour. Useful generalizations as to
which limit states (i.e., modes of failure) are likely to con-
trol the design in typical foundation design cases are cer-
tainly possible, similar to those made in structural design.
However, the role of an experienced geotechnical engineer
in making adjustments to these generalizations based on
site-specific information is essential.
For the geotechnical engineer to check if any of the
limit states or failure modes have been violated, it is nec-
essary to use a model or theory to predict the performance
of the system using measured geotechnical parameters. In
geotechnical engineering this is not a straightforward task.
In addition to the uncertainty associated with the models
themselves, geotechnical materials are not manufactured
961
to a specified set of engineering properties, as is the case
for structural materials. The behaviour of soil under loading
is also dependent on many variables, including boundary
conditions, stress path, stress history, loading rate effects,
and others (Been 1989 and Bolton 1993). The need to deal
with natural rather than man-made materials, the reliance
on engineering judgement to interpret limited and sometimes
meagre site information, and the effect of sampling and
construction on geotechnical properties are examples of
components specific to the geotechnical design process
(Phoon et al. 1993).
Despite these difficulties, reasonable analyses can be
made using relatively simple models if the essence of geo-
technical behaviour and soil-structure interaction are cap-
tured in such models. There must also be a sufficient data
and experience base to calibrate these models properly.
Empirical-based models are only applicable within the
range of specific conditions reflected or included in the
calibration process. Extrapolation beyond these conditions
can potentially result in erroneous predictions of performance.
In summary, engineering judgement and experience play
an integral role in geotechnical engineering analysis and
design. The role of the geotechnical engineer through his
or her judgement and experience, and that of others, in
appreciating the complexities of geotechnical behaviour
and recognizing the inherent limitations in geotechnical
models and theories is clearly of considerable importance.
The management of safety in geotechnical engineering
design is distributed amongst the many aspects of the over-
all design process, including experience and judgement.
Uncertainties in loads, material strengths (resistance),
models, identification of potential failure modes or limit
states, and geotechnical predictions all need to be considered
collectively in controlling or ensuring an adequate level
of safety in the design. These aspects are equally important
and applicable to all design philosophies and methods.
Design philosophies and methods
To predict performance and make assessments of safety,
the engineering profession has developed various design
philosophies and approaches. The design approaches have
not remained stagnant, but have changed or evolved over
the years in response to a changing social environment,
higher public awareness and expectations, and advancements
in technology.
The basic design criteria, regardless of method used, is
that the resistance must be greater than the summation of
the load effects for an acceptable or required level of safety
(eq. [l]). The comparison between the load effects and
resistance for an assessment of safety can be carried out in
various ways, including the following: (1) A single global
factor of safety as embodied in working stress design meth-
ods; (2) partial factors of safety as embodied in limit states
design methods; and (3) reliability-based and probabilistic
methods.
The basis for establishing the values of design parameters
and assessing or managing the level of safety constitute
the fundamental differences in the above three design meth-
ods. Each of these methods are described and discussed
in the following sections of the paper.
962
Table 1. Ranges of global factor of safety commonly used for foundation design.
Failure type Item
Shearing Earthworks
Earth retaining structures, excavations
Foundations
Seepage Uplift heave
Exit gradient, piping
Ultimate pile Load tests
Loads Dynamic formulae
Note: Data after Terzaghi and Peck (I 948, 1967).
Working stress design
Working stress design (WSD) was one of the first rational
design bases to develop. Prior to its introduction, structures
were designed by experience alone. Design by experience
worked well because changes in construction methods and
materials were, at that time, very slow (Allen 1994). How-
ever, the industrial revolution soon changed the approach
based on experience because materials and construction
methodologies started to change rapidly. To accommodate
these rapid changes, civil engineers had to develop more
rational design procedures.
WSD has been the traditional design basis in civil engi-
neering since it was first introduced in the early I 800's.
It is also referred to as allowable stress or permissible
stress design. The basis of the design is to ensure that
throughout the structure, when it is subjected to the "work-
ing" or service applied load, the induced stresses are less
than the allowable stresses. A single, global factor of safety
is used, which collectively considers or lumps all uncertainty
associated with the design process into a single value with
no distinction made as to whether it is applied to material
strength and resistances or to load effects. The assessment
of the level of safety of the structure is made on the basis
of global factors of safety, which were developed from
previous experience with similar structures in similar envi-
ronments or under similar conditions. The values of the
global factor of safety selected for design reflect past expe-
rience and the consequence of failure. The more serious
the consequence of failure or the higher the uncertainty,
the higher the factor of safety. Similar values of global
factor of safety became customary for geotechnical design
throughout the world. The ranges of customary global fac-
tors of safety, as stated by Terzaghi and Peck ( 1948, 1967),
are shown in Table I.
A global factor of safety represents a relationship
between allowable and applied quantities. Although this
concept is simple and useful, it is also accompanied with
difficulties and ambiguity. Problems arise when factors of
safety are used without firstly defining them and under-
standing why they were introduced. A single global factor
of safety would have unambiguous meaning if carefully
prescribed standard procedures for selecting capacity, for
defining loads, and for carrying out the analysis or calcu-
lations were always used in design. However, these steps
are usually not well defined, nor followed uniformly or
consistently by all engineers. Different engineers will use
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996
Factor of safety, FS
1.3-1.5
1.5-2
2-3
1.5-2
2-3
1.5-2.0
3
different approaches and select different values of strength
for design, even for the same site. For example, some engi-
neers may use a mean value for strength, while others will
use a much more conservative value such as minimum or
lower bound values in measured strength. Therefore, for
the same numerical value of global safety factor, the actual
margin of safety can be very different. Further, the value of
the factor of safety tells us very little quantitatively as to
the possibility or probability of failure.
Definitions of global factor of safety
The global factor of safety (FS) can be defined in many
ways. FS is commonly defined as the ratio of the resistance
of the structure (R) to the load effects (S) acting on the
structure:
[2] FS = R
s
For FS = 1, a limiting condition theoretically exists where
the resistance equals the load effects (i.e., a state of failure).
The traditional FS is defined as the ratio of ultimate
resistance to the applied load:
[3]
FS = Ultimate resistance = Ru
Applied load Sa
The above equation can be rearranged into:
[3a] Ru == FS s.
or
[3b] S == Ru
a FS
In eq. [3a] the uncertainty is implicitly associated with
loads; the loads are multiplied by FS. This forms the basis
of the load factor method, which is discussed in a subse-
quent section of this paper. This method has merit if the
greatest uncertainty in the design is loading; however, the
method is not so useful or rational in design cases where the
design is sensitive to changes in material strength (resistance).
Traditionally, the global factor of safety is applied to
resistance as in eq. [3b]. This method gives sensible results
when material strength (resistance) represents the greatest
uncertainty in design (Simpson et al. 1981) . In many geo-
technical problems this is the case; the method has worked
well and can be used successfully.
In WSD, both the loads and geotechnical resistances are
generally considered to be deterministic and characterized
Becker 963

Fig. 4. Definition of global factor of safety for WSD. Fig. 5. Variation of loads and resistances.

FS
ULTIMATE RESISTANCE
=- - - - - - - - -Ru /
r DISTRUBUTION
OF LOADS, S
w APPLIED LOAD - Sa
u
zw w
0
c,:
c,:
z
w
:::::, c,:
u SAFETY MARGIN = Ru - Sa c,:
:::>
u DISTRIBUTION
0 1.0
u..
80 / OF RESISTANCE, R
0 LL
~ 0
::::i
ii:i 0
z
~ w
0
c,:
:::::,
a.. Sa Ru a,
w
c,:
LL
RESISTANCE OR LOADS (R, S)

RESISTANCE OR LOADS (R, S)

in calculation or analysis by a single value, called the
nominal or characteristic value. The random nature of the
Fig. 6. Design values for loads and resistances.
loads and resistances is usually implicitly taken into con-
sideration when selecting nominal values. As shown in MEAN SAFETY
Fig. 4, eq. [3] implies that both loads and resistances are ~IN-R·S
well defined, each with a unique value. However, resis-
tances and load effects are dependent upon a number of
variables or parameters. In reality, ranges in loads and
resistances exist as shown in Fig. 5; unique values do not ~
LJ.J
MEAN FS = R / S
c,::
exist for loads and resistances. c,::
::::, R
u NOMINAL FS = Rn/Sn
The general frequency distribution diagrams, as shown u j
in Fig. 6, can be assigned specific values, such as the mean 0
LL

of the distribution curves (Sand R) or nominal values of 0

loads and resistances (Sn and Rn) to assist in characterizing
the frequency diagrams. The design values do not neces-
sarily need to be taken as the mean values, although this is
common geotechnical design practice. The design process
may also involve overestimating the mean load effects
(i.e., Sn ~ S) and underestimating the mean resistance (i.e.,
Rn:,; R).
Two alternative definitions of the factor of safety can be
defined as follows:
R are well-defined and controlled. There is a relatively low
[4] Mean factor of safety -
s probability of failure, as shown by the small overlap of
Rn
[5] Nominal factor of safety =
Sn
Limitations of working stress design
The numerical values for FS as defined in eqs. [4] and [5]
do not equal each other, but both are greater than one. The
mean FS is higher than the nominal FS. The intersection of
the S and R curves shown by the shaded area in Fig. 5
represents a condition where, under some combinations
of loads and resistances, the resistance is less than the
load effect. This intersection indicates that a chance or
probability of failure exists for some combinations of loads
and resistances. For given distributions of loads and resis-
tance, different numerical values of FS can be computed,
yet the actual level of safety or probability of failure
remains the same for these different definitions and numer-
ical values of global FS. Therefore, the global FS in the
WSD approach does not provide an unambiguous measure
or indication of the level of safety or probability of failure.
0
z
w
~
c,:
LL
RESISTANCE OR LOADS (R,S)
This shortcoming is best illustrated through consideration
of the distribution curves shown in Fig. 7. The upper dia-
gram represents the case where the loading and resistance
the S and R distribution curves. The middle diagram cor-
responds to a common case in foundation design where
the loads are reasonably well defined, but geotechnical
resistance is not. The lower diagram corresponds to a case
where both loadings and resistances are not well defined nor
controlled, as represented by the broad distribution curves.
Although the values of S and R are the same and, thus,
FS is the same for all three cases, the probability of failure
is much higher for the second and third cases, as shown
by the relatively large overlap in the R and S curves shown
in Figs. 7 b and 7c. It is noted that the area of this overlap,
as shown by the shaded areas, is not equal to the probability
of failure; however, it is related to the probability of failure.
The risk or level of safety associated with a value of
FS depends on its definition and application (Smith 1981,
1985). Further, it is known or has been demonstrated that
a computed value of global FS greater than one does not
necessarily ensure safety. Earth structures have failed even
though the computed FS was greater than one. Similarly,
failure does not necessarily occur when the computed FS
964
Fig. 7. Possible load and resistance distributions (after
Green 1989): (a) very good control of R and S; (b) mixed
~[a)IAA
control of R and S; (c) poor control of R and S.
V5
z
LU
RS
0 It would be foolish and inconceivable to ignore this sub-
j::'.:
::J (b) S -
~ ~
~ limit states design in codes using partial factors has utilized
0 the WSD experience to calibrate itself in order to produce
~
0....
~
0 in previous design codes based on WSD.
() R,S
z
i (c)~r:
LU
::J
S : : R
' '
. and practitioners) have published papers on this topic.
R, s 1993, 1995), Ovesen (1981, 1993), Ovesen and Orr (1991),
MAGNITUDE OF RESISTANCE AND LOADS (R, SJ
is less than one. In general, the actual level of safety or
safety margin is not specifically known to the engineer.
WSD is largely deterministic in nature and does not
lend itself readily to probabilistic assessments of level of
safety and probability of failure. There is no rational explicit
method of quantifying the probability of failure. The
expected probability of failure or level of safety comes
from, or is derived from, experience, as shown in Fig. 3. In
general terms, the design engineer has a sense of the level
of safety, based on experience and an existing data base;
however, the degree of safety is not explicitly known for the
project in question. The general public demand better quan-
tification of the level of safety or probability of failure.
The engineer increasingly comes under the critical scrutiny
of the general public. The public will no longer accept a
statement from engineers that it is safe. They demand to
know how safe the structure is and what is its risk or prob-
ability of failure.
WSD and a global FS approach generally does not
encourage the design engineer to think about and explicitly
differentiate between the behaviour of the structure under
ultimate and serviceability conditions. The distinction
between safety and deformation (serviceability) analysis,
while implicity made, is not explicitly made. In some cases,
the global FS developed from experience and used in foun-
dation design is to limit settlement to generally acceptable
limits; its value was not derived for the separate consid-
eration of soil rupture or collapse under bearing capacity
considerations. Further, a global FS makes no attempt to
separate or distinguish between the various sources of
uncertainty. All uncertainty is lumped under a single factor;
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996
there is no attempt to distinguish between system or model
uncertainty and parameter uncertainty.
Despite all its apparent limitations, as discussed above,
he global FS and WSD approach is a simple approach
that has worked well in geotechnical engineering design.
WSD has been the traditional design method for over a
100 years. Consequently, an extensive data base and expe-
rience has been assimilated over the years towards the
development of good engineering practice. Improvements
and refinements have been incorporated as the need arises.
stantial data base and experience gained in WSD. It is
noted that despite its shortcomings, the development of
designs with comparable levels of safety as those existing
Limit states and limit states design
Over the last 2 decades or so, limit states design (LSD)
has received increasing attention in the geotechnical and
structural engineering literature. Many authors (researchers
Notable examples include Meyerhof (1970, 1982, 1984,
Allen (1975, 1991), MacGregor (1976), Green (1991, 1993),
and Barker et al. ( 1991 ). In addition, in May 1993, an
International Symposium on Limit State Design in Geo-
technical Engineering was held in Copenhagen, Denmark.
This symposium, organized by the International Society
for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMFE)
Technical Committee TC23, Danish Geotechnical Institute,
and Danish Geotechnical Society, included 68 papers and
discussions on a variety of topics related to LSD.
What are limit states?
Limit states are defined as conditions under which a struc-
ture or its component members no longer perform their
intended functions. Whenever a structure or part of a struc-
ture fails to satisfy one of its intended performance criteria,
it is said to have reached a limit state.
In the LSD process, each potential limit state is con-
sidered separately, and its occurrence is either eliminated
or shown to satisfy the design criteria. The original concept
of limit states refers to a design philosophy that essentially
involves the following:
• Identification of all potential "failure" modes or limit
states that a structure may experience. Failure is used
in the sense of unsatisfactory performance and represents
general conditions of a structure in which the structure
ceases to fulfil the function for which it was designed.
It does not necessarily mean rupture or exceedance of
capacity.
• Consideration of and application of separate checks by
the design engineer on each limit state or failure mode.
• Demonstration that the occurrence of the limit states
is sufficiently improbable or within acceptable risk
(i.e., levels of safety or probability of failure) so as to
minimize the loss to society or to the owner.
Becker
Fig. 8. Ultimate limit states for foundation design.
s
\
(a) BEARING CAPACllY
(b) SLIDING
♦
(d) LARGE DEFORMATION OF
FOUNDATION RESULTING IN
(c) UPLIFT AN ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE
OF SUPERSTRUCTURE
REDUCTION IN BEARING CAPACITY
-ssc--'l!'""""L.._ DUE TO PROXIMITY TO SLOPE CREST
'<:::~ - ~ A B I L I T Y
(e) OVERTURNING (f) LOSS OF OVERALL STABILllY
In LSD, two main classes of limit states are normally
considered: (1) ultimate limit states and (2) serviceability
limit states.
Ultimate limit states (ULS) pertain to structural safety
and in a sense define things that are dangerous (Allen
1994); they involve the total or partial collapse of the
structure (e.g., strength, ultimate bearing capacity, over-
turning, sliding, etc.). Schematic representations of ULS
for foundation design are shown in Fig. 8. The ULS con-
ditions are usually checked using separate partial factors of
safety on loads and strengths (resistances). Because of
their relationship to safety, ULS conditions have a low
probability of occurrence for well-designed structures
(Duncan et al. 1989).
Serviceability limit states (SLS) represent those condi-
tions which affect the function or service requirements
(performance) of the structure under expected service or
working loads. They include conditions that may restrict the
intended use of the structure, such as deformation, cracking,
excessive total or differential settlement, excessive vibra-
tions, local damage, and deterioration. Deformation or set-
tlement of foundations could also cause loss of service-
ability in the building. According to Allen (1994 ), SLS
may be viewed as those things that make life difficult.
SLS have a higher probability of occurrence than ULS
(Duncan et al. 1989).
Empirical damage criteria for SLS are generally related
to soil-structure interaction, relative rotation, angular dis-
tortion ratio, and other structural and operational con-
straints. These criteria are different for different types of
structures depending on the relative settlement after the
end of construction. The allowable movements and defor-
mations of structures can only be determined on a project
by project basis or in each particular case. For common
types of buildings, however, tentative safe limits of the
965
Fig. 9. Design basis for spread footings on sand (after
Peck et al. 1974).
DESIGN CONTROLLED
BY SETTLEMENT
\
LU DESIGN
"'::,
Cf) CONTROLLED
Cf)
LU
BY BEARING
"'
a..
CAPACITY
-'
6
Cf)
LU
-'
cc
~ INCREASING N VALUES
g
-'
<!
WIDTH OF FOOTING
relative rotation have been suggested as a guide. The cri-
teria proposed by various researchers (e.g., Skempton and
MacDonald 1956; Bjerrum 1963; Burland et al. 1977) have
been summarized by Meyerhof (1982).
The SLS conditions are checked using unfactored loads
and unfactored geotechnical properties. A partial factor of
one is used on all specified or characteristic loads and
load effects, and on the characteristic values of deformation
and compressibility properties of soils, which are generally
based on conservative mean values obtained from in situ or
laboratory tests. In this sense, the methodology of calcu-
lation in connection with SLS in LSD is virtually identical
to that of WSD. According to Meyerhof (1995), this
approach gives a nominal reliability of about 80% and a
corresponding estimated lifetime reliability index of about
one, which should be adequate for SLS design in practice.
The distinction between safety (ultimate) and deformation
(serviceability) analyses and the classification of perfor-
mance requirements that flow from this distinction is the
kernel concept of the LSD approach.
For most structures, adequate capacity or strength is
the key limit state. In some cases, other limit states become
primary. MacGregor ( 1989) cites the case of a water tank
where the primary or key limit state is watertightness;
strength, while important, is a secondary issue or criterion.
In geotechnical design, a serviceability condition or set-
tlement criterion frequently constitutes the primary limit
state. Accordingly, the design would be based on specific
SLS; the ULS would be checked subsequently. The design
of spread foundations in loose to compact sand is an exam-
ple where settlement or serviceability governs design. In
WSD, however, the ultimate bearing capacity is generally
not explicitly checked. Geotechnical engineers know from
experience and design charts, such as that shown in Fig. 9,
that the settlement criterion will govern the design; ultimate
bearing capacity (i.e., ULS) usually will not be checked.
966
An advantage of LSD is that it provides a clearer
methodology for the separation of the ULS and SLS. In
WSD, the term "allowable soil bearing pressure" may be
controlled by either bearing capacity (ULS) or by settlement
(SLS) considerations. WSD implicitly accounts for these two
key limit states, but generally does not do so explicitly.
An example of this is shown in Fig. 9, which presents a
standard WSD basis for spread footings on sand, which
is familiar to all geotechnical engineers. The initial portion
of the design curve for small footing width is controlled by
bearing capacity or ULS considerations. The horizontal
portion of the design curves is controlled by settlement or
SLS to restrict total settlement to 25 mm or less. The
allowable soil bearing pressure calculated from nominal
capacity (resistance) using a single global FS lumps both
of these limit states together. The traditional FS of three on
ultimate bearing capacity developed from experience also
generally limits deformations to acceptable values.
Confusion is generated between structural and geo-
technical engineers when the term "allowable" is used in
WSD with no explicit reference as to whether it is based on
capacity (ULS) or settlement (SLS) considerations. When
using WSD, the geotechnical engineer should use the
wording "allowable soil pressure to limit settlement" to a
specified value. When design is controlled by capacity,
the term "allowable soil bearing capacity" should be used.
Limit states are based on things that go wrong (i.e., do
not perform satisfactorily). However, recognition of the
potential limit states associated with any given structure
is, in itself, not sufficient. The limit states must be pre-
dictable within a reasonable level of accuracy. The design
engineer needs to use realistic models and theories to make
reliable predictions of limit states. Perhaps even more
important, the design engineer needs to have a thorough
understanding of the mechanism of failure and knowledge
of the material behaviour of the structure.
The above discussion supports the sentiment of
Mortensen (1983) who in his 1982 Laurits Bjerrum Memo-
rial Lecture stated: "Limit states design represents a logical
calculation principle. It is not in itself a radically new
method compared to earlier design practice, but represents
a clearer formulation of some widely accepted principles."
Based on the above, there is nothing really new about the
LSD approach. It may be regarded as a calculation tool
in a design process where satisfactory performance is the
primary objective of design. LSD represents a methodical
approach to design; its principles are embodied in all the
design methodologies discussed in this paper. LSD is an
evolution of WSD, with the emphasis shifted from elastic
theory and material strength to failure of the structure to
perform its intended function. The essential difference in
limit states methods is not in the definition of the limit
state condition, but in how the level of safety or safety
margin is calculated for any given limit state. The level
of safety required will vary according to the severity of
each limit state. LSD in itself does not imply anything
about the way in which safety will be ensured. The level of
safety may be provided through partial safety factors or
by other means. LSD is not to be only associated with a
probabilistic interpretation, although frequently this has
been the case. Further, LSD is a useful aid to the clarity of
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996
thought and communication between structural and geo-
technical engineers.
While the essence of LSD with its emphasis on satis-
factory performance may be viewed as simple and elegant,
problems developed with the attempts to formalize the
LSD process in the early 1970's. The precedent development
of reliability-based design in structural engineering resulted
in a significant overshadowing of the fundamental concept
and role of LSD. Much attention was focused on the con-
sistent determination of level of safety using probabilistic
techniques. Although the achievement of consistent levels
of safety is an admirable goal, it should not be overem-
phasized to the point that the importance of other key
aspects of LSD become unduly diminished. The crucial
concept of considering each limit state in turn has been,
at times, lost due to the fixation on probability-derived
partial factors for the ultimate limit states (MacGregor
1989).
When LSD was first introduced, concern was also
expressed that it is too complicated for practice. However,
as pointed out by Allen (1994), LSD can be as simple or
complicated as required "to do the job." Emphasis is placed
on the project requirements and a good understanding of
fundamental behaviour, not on the analytical capability of
the design engineer. Design calculations and analyses can
range all the way from mental estimates and back-of-the-
envelope calculations to three-dimensional finite element
analysis. Simple calculations that capture the essence of
the behaviour and promote thinking are preferred for pre-
liminary design and checking, rather than complex computer
programs (Allen 1994 ). Regardless of the complexity of
analysis and calculation, all limit states designs are carried
out to satisfy the following criteria:
Ultimate limit states (ULS):
[6] Factored resistance 2:: Factored load effects
Serviceability limit states (SLS):
[7] Deformation ~ Tolerable deformation to remain
serviceable
Limit states design development
The historical development of LSD in structural engineer-
ing (steel and reinforced concrete) is reviewed and dis-
cussed by Allen (1975, 1994) and MacGregor (1976). LSD
can be traced back to the 17th century to the work of
Hooke, Newton, Euler, and others. European countries
started developing LSD in the l 960's. The International
Standards Organization (ISO) adopted LSD as the basis
for international structural design standards in 1973. In
Canada, LSD was adopted as an alternative to WSD for
structural design for buildings in 197 5.
The historical development of geotechnical limit states
design has been summarized by Meyerhof ( 1970, 1984,
1993, 1995), Ovesen (1981, 1993), Ovesen and Orr (1991),
and by others. The first uses of limit states concepts in
geotechnical engineering include the work of Coulomb in
1773 who, based on limit states consideration, derived the
critical height of a vertical embankment in a cohesive soil,
and Rankine's work in 1857 when he established limit
states of active and passive earth pressures. Therefore,
limit state problems in soil mechanics such as theories of
Becker 967

Table 2. Summary of partial factors for foundation design.

Brinch Hansen Denmark

DS 415 Eurocode 7
Item (1953) (1956) (DI 1965) (CEN 1992)"

Loads
Dead loads, soil weight 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 (0.9)
Live loads 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 (0)
Environmental loads 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 (0)
Water pressures 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 (0)
Accidental loads 1.0 1.0 1.0 (0)
Shear strength
Friction (tan <!>') 1.25 1.2 1.25 1.25
Cohesion (c)
Slopes, earth pressures 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4-1.6
Spread foundations 1.7 1.75 1.4-1.6
Piles 2.0 2.0 1.4-1.6
Ultimate pile capacities
Load tests 1.6 1.6 1.7-2.4
Dynamic formulae-penetration tests 2.0 2.0
Deformations 1.0 1.0 1.0
Note: Data after Meyerhof (I 993, 1995).
"Values in parentheses indicate minimum factors for certain load combinations.

earth pressure and bearing capacity, stability of slopes,
and seepage were already treated in the 18th and 19th cen-
turies. In 1943, Terzaghi pointed out two principal groups
or classes of problems in geotechnical limit states, namely,
stability problems and elasticity problems. The stability
class deals with conditions immediately before ultimate
failure by plastic flow without consideration of strain; the
elasticity class deals with soil deformation either under
self-weight or external forces without consideration of
stress conditions for failure. The above two groups of
problems coincide with ULS and SLS, respectively, in
limit states design. The first LSD standard was the 1956
Danish Standard for foundations. It appears that in earlier
days, geotechnical engineering was ahead of structural
engineering in the knowledge and application of the limit
states philosophy.
Through the years, the term LSD with its emphasis on
satisfactory performance has come to represent different
things to different people, mainly because of the diversity
in the manner in which the limit states design philosophy
was developed and implemented into various codes through-
out the world. In North America, for example, it appears
that most geotechnical engineers usually associate or think
of LSD as ULS design using separate, partial load and
resistance factors.
LSD using partial factors of safety
Taylor (1948) introduced separate or partial factors of
safety for the cohesive and frictional components (c and tan
<!>', respectively) of the shear strength of soil for the stability
analysis of slopes. This approach was subsequently for-
malized by Brinch Hansen (1953, 1956) who established a
philosophy of geotechnical design based on separately
applying partial factors of safety to loads and strength.
Values of partial factors of safety applied to loads were
different from those applied to strength parameters. Partial
factors were also developed for piles and earth-retaining
structures.
In this approach, the specified or characteristic loads
are multiplied by their respective partial factors to obtain
design loads, and the strength parameters are divided by
their respective partial factors to arrive at the design strength
parameters for the calculation of geotechnical resistance:
[8] Design (factored) load = Specified (unfactored)
load X Partial load factor (f)
[9] Design (factored) strength
Characteristic (unfactored) strength
Partial strength factor Uc or J4,)
The values of the partial factors are summarized in
Table 2. Meyerhof (1993, 1995) notes that these partial
factors were chosen to give about the same design as con-
ventional or traditional WSD. The numerical values of the
partial factors in Table 2 have undergone only minor
changes during the last 40 years. These changes reflect
experience gained through the use of the LSD principle
using partial factors. They have also been refined by semi-
probabilistic methods on the basis of the variabilities of
the loads, soil strength parameters, and other design data
available in practice.
Factored strength approach versus factored
resistance approach (the European versus the
North American approach)
Over the past 10 years or so there has been a concerted
effort to persuade the geotechnical engineering community
at large to adopt the philosophy of LSD and to use a con-
sistent set of partial factors. However, the concept of
LSD with the use of partial factors of safety has developed
968 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996

Fig. 10. Comparison of limit states design approaches for ultimate limit states (after Ovesen
and Orr 1991).
EUROPEAN APPROACH :
(factored strength approach)
RESISTANCES LOAD EFFECTS
◄ ►
Factored Factored
Unacore
f t d . Factored
Strength (i.e. Reduced) Res1sta~ce (i.e. Increased) ~ Characteristic
Parameters_____. Strength __. for Design, > Load Effects, Load Effects, S
Parameters Rd
sd
Sd

.._ --
LOAD
FACTORS,
- .s
X
Yt

NORTH AMERICAN APPROACH :

(factored resistance approach)
RESISTANCES LOAD EFFECTS
◄ ►

Unfactored Unfactored Factored Factored Characteristic

Strength ....... (nominal) ......_ (i.e.. Reduced) > (i.e. Increased)
. . - (nominal)
Parameters Resistance Resistance Load Effects Load Effects,
R ' for Design for Design,
(c,~) n Sn
Rn aSn
- - - - - - <I>R!' - - - -aSn
@I]
IMODEL I
.. RESISTANCE
--.._ -- - - Sn
.
X FACTOR, ....... LOAD
FACTORS X
<I>
a

differently in North America and in Europe, mainly in the
manner for calculating factored resistance for ULS.
In the factored strength (European) approach, partial
factors are applied directly to only the strength parameters
contributing to overall resistance for each applicable limit
state. This approach follows the original work of Brinch
Hansen and the Danish Code where specified partial factors
are applied to the individual soil strength properties of
cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction (tan <!>') prior
to using them in the model or calculation for factored
resistance. In the factored resistance (North American)
approach, an overall resistance factor is applied to the
resistance for each applicable limit state. With this approach,
the calculated ultimate resistance for a given limit state is
firstly calculated using "real" or unfactored strength para-
meters; the calculated ultimate resistance is then multiplied
by a single resistance factor to obtain the factored resistance
for design.
A comparison of the European and North American
approaches is shown in Fig. l 0. For both approaches, the
factored resistance must be greater than or equal to the
factored load effects. The primary difference in concept
lies in the resistance side of the limit states criteria. The load
effects side of the equation is identical in concept; the
characteristic load effects are multiplied by appropriate
load factors to produce the factored (i.e., increased) load
effects for design as per eq. [8]. However, different values
of load factors and load combinations are used in the two
approaches.
In the factored strength (European) approach, the strength
parameters are divided by partial factors fc and f<t> to produce
factored (i.e., reduced) strength parameters, as per eq. [9].
Becker
The factored strength parameters are then used directly in
geotechnical models, such as bearing capacity, to calculate
the factored resistance for design, Rd. The value of Rd must
be greater than or equal to the factored load effects, Sd
for design (Fig. 10).
In the factored resistance (North American) approach, the
unfactored strength parameters are used directly in similar
geotechnical models to calculate an unfactored or nominal
geotechnical resistance, similar to calculating ultimate
resistance in WSD. The nominal resistance, R 0 , is then
multiplied by a resistance factor, cf>, to calculate the factored
resistance, <t>R 0 , for design, which must be greater than or
equal to the factored load effects, aS 0 (Fig. 10). The North
American approach is embodied in the load and resistance
factor design (LRFD) method, which is described in detail
in a subsequent section in this paper.
Comparison of factored strength and factored
resistance approaches
The factored resistance approach combines all uncertainty
associated with the calculation of resistance into one term,
a resistance factor, cf> (<P < 1). The value of a resistance
factor reflects the chance or probability that the actual
resistance may be smaller than the calculated nominal
resistance using characteristic (i.e., unfactored) values of soil
strength as a result of the uncertainties associated with the
strength parameters, geometry and construction tolerances,
the theoretical model or analysis used to calculate resistance,
and the consequence of failure. Different cf> values are
used for different types of resistance and failure modes.
Selection of the value of cf> depends on the quality of data
and the method of calculation. The higher the degree of
uncertainty, the lower the value of cf>. The values of cf> lie
in the range of about 0.3 to about 0.9. In general, values
between 0.5 and 0.85 are normally used or recommended
in foundation design.
The major advantages of the factored resistance approach
are its simplicity in application and familiarity to geo-
technical engineers. Only one factor needs to be considered
instead of potentially many partial factors on material
strength, geometry, theoretical model, and others. In concept,
the single resistance factor, cf>, is similar to the global FS
used in WSD, which also lumps the effects of all uncer-
tainty into a single factor. It may also be slightly more
pleasing statistically from the viewpoint of properly com-
bining the variations of one particular set of variables to
derive a factor that reflects the combined effect of that
family of variables (MacGregor 1976).
The factored strength approach has the potential of
being more sophisticated because the partial material factors
are related directly to the parameters that are the sources of
variability in strength. For example, the effective strength
parameter <I>' can be determined with greater confidence
than undrained shear strength, cu. Consequently, it is logical
for the value of the partial factor on tan <!>' to be smaller
than the partial factor on cu. A potential advantage of this
approach is that it may allow for a more precise calibration
over a wide range of soil types; therefore, it should lead to
a more uniform reliability (Meyerhof 1993, 1995). A key
disadvantage of the factored strength approach is that it
does not allow for the sources of other uncertainty to be
969
taken into account in the calculation of factored resistance.
That is, the factored strength approach inherently assumes
that the only sources of uncertainty are associated with
soil strength parameters. There is no explicit means to
account for other factors that affect resistance, such as
geometry, effect of approximations in the design equations,
or the analytical model used, the consequences of failure,
and the type of failure.
While the fundamental principle underlying design using
a set of unique and constant partial factors is easy to grasp
and understand, its implementation in a rational and con-
sistent manner is not so easy or straightforward. Design
using partial factors has worked well in structural engineer-
ing primarily because a sufficient quality control on the
manufacturing process of structural materials exists and
design calculations are based on a specified theory or
approach. On the other hand, for geotechnical materials,
the implementation of the concept runs into considerable
difficulty. The reasons for this include the inherent vari-
ability of natural geological materials; the fact that many
different methods exist for measuring soil strength param-
eters and different values will be obtained from different
tests; that different theories are available to calculate the
same type of resistance (e.g., bearing capacity of spread
footings, vertical and horizontal pile capacities); and that
much geotechnical design is based on empirical or semi-
empirical methods. Furthermore, in a large country such
as Canada, different geotechnical design methods are com-
monly preferred and used in different regions based on
the specific conditions in any given region. This creates
additional problems for consistent implementation of design.
The use of a unique set of material strength factors f,t,
and fc has been critically questioned by many geotechnical
engineers, both researchers and practitioners (Bolton 1981,
1993; Semple 1981; Fleming 1989, 1992; Gutierrez et al.
1993). From a review of these papers and others, a common
theme of criticism emerges. Concern is expressed from
the viewpoint that factored material strengths alone do not
capture all sources of uncertainty in the calculation of
resistance. There is a need to also take into account the
factors discussed above and others such as the development
of excess pore-water pressure and stress-strain behaviour.
The mere application of partial factors on c and <I>' to han-
dle such cases is not sufficient. Eurocode 7, (CEN 1992)
states that all factors or variables that influence soil strength,
such as rate efforts, stress path, stress-stain behaviour,
etc., and the inaccuracy in the design model are to be con-
sidered in the determination and selection of the charac-
teristic strength values. However, no instructions or sub-
stantial guidance on how to do this are provided (Bengtsson
et al. 1993 ).
Another criticism or a potential shortcoming in the fac-
tored strength approach is that it does not capture the true
mechanism of failure when failure is influenced by soil
behaviour (Been 1989). Inconsistencies may arise because
many geotechnical problems are nonlinear; the effect of
a factored load or strength is not the same as the factored
effect of an unfactored load or resistance calculated using
unfactored (i.e., characteristic) strength. For example, the
mechanism of failure in the bearing capacity calculation
(i.e., the shape of the plastic zone) is controlled by the
970
friction angle, <I>'. Because the failure mechanism changes
when the soil strength changes, the resistance based on
factored strength is not the same as a factored resistance.
Another example is related to the design of piles. The rela-
tionship between shaft resistance and soil strength is non-
linear. Different values in pile capacity will be obtained
depending on whether shaft resistance is based on unfac-
tored or factored strength parameters.
A significant portion of geotechnical engineering design
is based on empirical correlations and performance testing
such as pile load tests. The most common correlations
involve the standard penetration test (SPT) and the piezo-
cone penetration test (CPTU). Geotechnical resistance such
as bearing capacity of footings and pile capacities have
been correlated directly to these in situ tests. In WSD, dif-
ferent values of global FS are customarily used in geo-
technical design based on these in situ correlations and
performance tests. Within the framework of the factored
strength approach, empirical design methods and perfor-
mance (load) tests need to be considered separately. The
design equation for the calculation of resistance for these
cases does not contain the strength parameters tan <I>' and
c. Other partial factors need to be applied to obtain an
appropriate design resistance (i.e., factored resistance).
For this case, the European approach uses a "perfor-
mance" factor. The nominal capacity of a foundation based
on empirical correlations or load tests is modified by multi-
plying it by a performance factor that has a value less than
unity and accounts for uncertainties associated with the
design process and methodology. This can be expressed as
[10] Design resistance
= Performance factor X Nominal resistance
The right-hand side of the above equation is essentially
equivalent to ¢Rn, where the performance factor may be
viewed, for all practical purposes, as equivalent to the
resistance factor, ¢. Similar to the resistance factor, the
performance factor combines all uncertainty associated
with the design calculation for overall resistance into a
single term. Therefore, it is essentially a factored resistance
approach. The performance or resistance factor, ¢, appro-
priately adjusts the design calculation to produce a design
that is essentially equivalent to WSD. Therefore, the fac-
tored resistance (North American) approach can be used
in a consistent manner in geotechnical design regardless
of whether the design calculation is based on theoretical
considerations explicitly using soil strength parameters of
<I>' and c, empirical correlations with SPT, CPTU, and
other in situ tests, or by performance testing such as pile
load tests.
The resistance factor, ¢, is similar in concept to the
global FS. The factored resistance approach is similar to
conventional WSD and may be viewed as a logical exten-
sion to WSD. Because of its comparative simplicity and
the other reasons discussed above, the factored resistance
approach would be familiar to geotechnical engineers.
Therefore, it should be better received by the geotechnical
engineering community at large, which will allow for a
smoother transition from WSD to LSD for foundation
design. With time and an increased level of experience in
designing foundations using a LSD (LRFD) approach, the
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996
basis of LSD can be refined to possibly incorporate separate
and different material factors for tan <I>' and c. Meyerhof
( 1995) states that the factored strength and factored resis-
tance approaches can produce the same design result. The
choice of method will depend on the background and expe-
rience of the engineer.
LSD load factor method
This method involves multiplying the applied nominal or
characteristic loads by various factors of safety. The struc-
ture is then designed under the influence of the modified or
factored load effects (Simpson et al. 1981). The magnitude
of the factors of safety can be selected so as to also limit
deformations. No factors are applied to material properties
or derived resistances of the structure. This method has
merit if the greatest uncertainty in the design is loading.
However, the method is not so useful or rational in design
cases where the design is sensitive to changes in material
strength. Therefore, this approach has no merit and cannot
be applied rationally to many geotechnical problems.
Load and resistance factor design (LRFD)
An extension of the load factor design methodology is
LRFD, which uses partial factors of safety on both loads
and material strength (resistance). The use of separate load
and resistance factors is logical because loads and resistance
have largely separate and unrelated sources of uncertainty.
This is a reasonable approximation for the case of foun-
dation design where the building applies a loading that
must be supported by the foundation subsoil. However,
for the case of earth-retaining structures, it is not as straight-
forward because the soil provides both a resistance and a
load. Nevertheless, in many applications of foundation
design, the use of separate load and resistance factors is
a convenient and rational way of practically accounting
for the sources of uncertainty in design.
LRFD is currently used in several design codes (e.g.,
Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, National Building
Code of Canada, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standard Speci-
fications for Highway Bridges, Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code (under preparation), and Canadian Standards
Association (CSA) design standards for structural steel
and reinforced concrete.
LRFD makes use of the concept of partial safety factors,
which are usually based on or calibrated using probability
and reliability theory. Partial factors can also be evaluated
using judgement and comparison or calibration with the
traditional WSD methods to ensure that consistent results
will be obtained between the two design procedures. LRFD
can be viewed as a logical extension of the WSD method.
It recognizes the fact that some loads (e.g., live loads) are
more variable than others (e.g., dead loads) and that some
results of estimating or determining geotechnical resistances
or material properties are inherently less accurate than
others. Probability and reliability considerations and sta-
tistical data are used as background tools to derive partial
factors; however, such probabilistic methods are not used
explicitly in the design procedure developed and specified
in the various codes. By making the probabilistic part hid-
den in the LRFD method and using procedures similar to
Becker 971

Fig. 11. Load and resistance factor design (LRFD).

U)

-0 Sn= S/k 5 LSD FORMAT : <I> Rn~ Cl Sn

C
0 LOAD EFFECTS
Cl:::
u.. (S)~
0
~
U)
zLU
0 / RESISTANCE (R)
~
...J
iii
~
0
Cl:::
a..
s
MAGNITUDE OF RESISTANCE AND LOAD EFFECTS (R, S)

those in existing codes, it is anticipated that the use of the
LRFD method will meet with less resistance from practicing
geotechnical engineers (Barker et al. 1991 ). This should
encourage use of this rational concept in the design of
foundations and earth-retaining structures.
The applied loads and resistances are to some extent
independent variables and are generally treated as random
variables in the derivation of the respective partial factors.
The loads and resistances are characterized through prob-
ability density functions, as shown in Fig. 11. The LRFD
approach examines the probability of failure of a structure
by underestimating its resistance and overestimating the
load effects to provide a factored resistance that is greater
than or equal to the factored load effects. The level of
safety is defined in terms of probability of failure, and the
design is based on some acceptable level of risk or prob-
ability of failure. Partial safety factors on loads and resis-
tances are used to obtain the acceptable probability of
failure.
The LRFD criterion is expressed in the following general
form:
[11] <l>Rn ~ Ia;Sni
where
<l>Rn is the factored resistance;
<I> is the resistance factor;
Rn is the nominal resistance determined through engineer-
ing analyses (e.g., bearing capacity) using characteristic
(unfactored) values for geotechnical parameters or per-
formance data (e.g., pile load test); it represents the
geotechnical engineer's best estimate of resistance, which
has appropriately taken into account all factors influ-
encing the resistance;
ia;Sni is the summation of the factored overall load effects
for a given loading condition;
a; is the load factor corresponding to a particular load,
Sn;; it accounts for uncertainties in loads;
Sn; is a specified load component of the overall load effects
(e.g., dead load due to weight of structure or live load
due to wind); and
i represents various types of loads such as dead load, live
load, wind load, etc.
The load factors, a, are usually greater than one; they
account for uncertainties in loads and their probability of
occurrence. The resistance factors (or performance factor
as they are sometimes called), <I>, are less than one and
account for variabilities in geotechnical parameters and
model the associated uncertainties when calculating geo-
technical resistances.
The left-hand side of eq. [11] corresponds to the capacity
or resistance provided by the material, while the right-
hand side represents the required resistance to accommodate
a combination of loads or load effects. For satisfactory
design, the factored resistance must exceed the sum of the
factored load effects for a given limit state. Equation [ 11]
must be satisfied for all applicable load combinations and
limit states.
Equation [ 11] can be visualized by inspecting the inter-
action of the probability distribution curves for resistance
and load effects, as shown schematically in Fig. 11. It
should be noted that the resistance and load effects are
assumed to be independent variables, which is approxi-
mately true for the case of static loading. The characteristic
or nominal values for load effects (Sn) and resistance (Rn)
do not necessarily need to be taken as the mean values of
S and R, respectively. The nominal or characteristic values
for design are related to the mean values as follows:
R
[12] Rn =
kR
[13] sn = s
ks
972
where
kR is the ratio of mean value to nominal (characteristic)
value for resistance; and
ks is the ratio of mean value to specified (characteristic)
value for load effects.
The factors kR and ks are used to consistently define char-
acteristic values for design based on the mean values of
the resistance and load distribution curves, respectively.
Typically, kR values are greater than one (i.e., Rn ~ R) and
ks values are less one (i.e., Sn ~ S). The terms kR and ks are
also referred to as bias factors by some researchers (Rojiani
et al. 1991; Li et al. 1993a, 1993b ). Additional discussion
on kR and ks is provided later in this paper under the section
on characteristic strength.
In practice, values for ex and <P are usually specified in
codes. They are based on target values of reliability or
acceptable probabilities of failure selected to be consistent
with the current state of practice. In general, different ex
and <P values would be provided for different limit states.
While values of ex may differ between codes in various
countries, load factors are typically in the range of 0.85-1.3
for dead loads and in the range of 1.5-2.0 for live and
environmental loads. A load factor of less than 1.0 for
dead loads would be used when the dead load component
contributes to the resistance against overturning, uplift,
and sliding. Typical values of <P range from about 0.3 to 0.9
for soils, depending on soil type, method of calculating
resistance, and class of earth structure, such as foundation
type or retaining structure.
The load and resistance factors are interrelated to each
other. That is, the value of ex is dependent on the value of
<P and vice versa. Consistent sets of these factors must,
therefore, be used in design as per their intended purpose
and specific evaluation. It is inappropriate and inconsistent
to select a set of resistance factors that have been derived
for specific values of load factors and use them with other
load factors taken from an unrelated source or vice versa.
The values of ex and <P are also interrelated to the global FS
used in WSD according to the following expression (Tan
et al. 1991):
[14] FS == t(:)
The relationship between ex, <P, and FS is examined further
in part II of this paper (Becker 1996).
Although LRFD may be viewed as an extension to
WSD, there are fundamental differences between WSD
and LRFD. The main differences are that, for LRFD the
following applies:
• Several partial safety factors are used instead of a single
global factor of safety.
• Different values of load factor are used for different
loads. The selection of load factors is based on the
perceived level of uncertainty in each load. Loads with
a greater degree of uncertainty are assigned load factors
that are larger than those assigned to loads with smaller
uncertainty.
• Variability in both loads and resistances are explicitly
taken into account.
The main advantage of LRFD over WSD is that it can
provide for a more consistent and uniform level of safety
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996
for all load combinations, different types of materials,
structures, and foundations. This is achieved through the use
of several different partial factors instead of one global
factor of safety (Meyerhof 1970). A basic premise of the
LRFD approach is that a more economical and consistent
design can be achieved by using common safety and ser-
viceability criteria for all materials, structures, and types of
construction.
LSD using worst credible values
Simpson et al. (1981) consider that LSD using partial
safety factors is inappropriate for geotechnical engineering
application for two important reasons. Firstly, the degree of
uncertainty with which given geotechnical parameters can
be assessed varies significantly from one project to another.
Secondly, they consider that it is not sensible to apply par-
tial factors to water pressures and to geological uncertainties.
They describe a method of design that uses the worst cred-
ible values for the various parameters and that reasonably
satisfies the requirement that the level or margin of safety
be proportional to the overall uncertainty. Worst credible
values of loads and material properties represent the worst
values that the design engineers could realistically believe
might occur. The worst credible value is not the worst that
is physically possible, but rather a value that is very unlikely
to be exceeded. As a guide, they suggest that the worst
value that engineers can sensibly contemplate corresponds
to an annual probability of exceedance of about 0.1 %.
The basis of the method is to define a limit states value
for each variable and to demonstrate that the limit state
will only just occur with these values. A prescribed set of
constants to be applied to the independent variables are
given which are related to the reliability index. The method
ensures that the calculated margin of safety is proportional
to the uncertainty in its value. As currently formulated,
the method considers uncertainty in parameters, but not
in the theoretical models or methods of analysis. The
method is a useful exercise in rationalizing the margins
of safety and relating it to the degree of risk. As such, it
represents an advance over the traditional WSD approach
(Oliphant 1993). MacGregor (1989) also notes that bounding
soil parameters using upper and lower credible values is
worthy of study. The method of evaluating the uncertainty
interval varies from one parameter to another, depending on
whether the parameter is better represented by normal or
log-normal distributions within its range of interest. Con-
sideration also needs to be given as to whether there are
physical limits to values that the parameters could obtain
in order to avoid limit state values that are physically
impossible.
Simpson et al. ( 1981) outline the general procedures
for use or steps required for design using worst credible
values and present a design example involving bearing
capacity of a spread footing on clay. The use of this
approach does not appear to be well accepted by the geo-
technical community.
LSD using extreme values
According to Bolton ( 1981, 1986), design approaches using
factors of safety and probabilistic design methods should
not be used to demonstrate safety of geotechnical structures.
Becker
Instead, designs should be checked for the occurrence of
limit states when all the parameters are assigned their worst
obtainable values and a conservative method of calculation
is used. The use of critical state soil parameters is an exam-
ple of design using extreme values. No factors of safety
are required in an analysis based on extreme values.
This design methodology has the important merit that it
compels the design engineer to think explicitly about worst
case scenarios that might arise. However, as noted by
Simpson et al. (1981 ), the following points concerning
Bolton's proposal need to be considered:
• The worst circumstances that could, just possibly, occur
will usually be extremely pessimistic. The strength of
the structure and load effects would be assumed to be
at the pessimistic limits of physical possibility.
• In designs in which several independent parameters all
have significant uncertainty, it will often be unreasonably
pessimistic to set them all at the same time to pes-
simistic extreme values.
• In designs in which only one independent parameter
has significant uncertainty, an insufficient margin of
safety could exist to adequately account for small sec-
ond order effects not explicitly considered by this design
approach.
Oliphant (1993) also discusses Bolton's proposal of
design using extreme values. He shows through a design
example of a propped embedded cantilever retaining wall
that designing with extreme values and no factor of safety
could produce a design that is less conservative than con-
ventional practice.
Other than the references cited above, the use of Bolton's
proposed design using extreme values does not appear to be
accepted by the geotechnical community.
Reliability-based design
In recent years there has been considerable interest and
an increasing trend towards the use of probability theory and
reliability concepts for modelling uncertainties in engi-
neering design (e.g., Harr 1987; Chowdhury 1994; Tang
1993; ICE 1993; Ang and Tang 1984; Phoon et al. 1993;
Been et al. 1989, 1993; Elms and Turkstra 1992; Christian
et al. 1994; Li and Lo 1993). In reliability-based design, the
parameters are treated as random variables instead of con-
stant deterministic values. The measure of safety is the
probability of failure that can be computed directly if the
actual probability density functions or frequency distribution
curves are known, or measured for the loads and resistances.
The probability of failure is related to the shaded area rep-
resenting the overlap between the load and resistance
curves shown in Fig. 5.
Oliphant (1993) expresses the view that reliability theory
is concerned with calculating "notional" probability that
any specified limit state will not be reached during the
design life of any structure. He prefers the term "notional"
probability of failure because of the assumptions and
approximations that have been used in the determination of
the probability of failure. Further, reliability-based design
cannot account for, or be expected to cover, situations such
as the influences of gross errors, such as human errors
involving misinterpretation of site conditions, incorrect
973
assessment of geotechnical properties, or the use of inap-
propriate models by the geotechnical engineer (Phoon et al.
1993).
Unlike the global factor of safety, which is based mainly
on experience and judgement, the probability of failure
can be obtained in a consistent manner from a systematic
analysis of the uncertainties associated with the design
variables. Although this approach is much more compli-
cated than the deterministic method, it is potentially more
economical and capable of producing more consistent
safety or risk levels between different types of structures and
materials (Duncan et al. 1989). It is generally accepted,
however, that absolute values of reliability or probability of
failure cannot be determined because of the lack of complete
understanding and lack of data concerning actual engi-
neering behaviour.
Reliability-based design has important potential advan-
tages such as being more realistic, rational, consistent, and
widely applicable. Most design parameters possess sig-
nificant statistical uncertainly that is not explicitly con-
sidered in the global factor of safety. However, without
the proper information and data to implement reliability-
based design, these potential theoretical advantages cannot
be realized in practical design situations. This is generally
the most important disadvantage in using probabilistic
methods. A fundamental knowledge of probability, statistics,
and sufficient data is required to implement such procedures,
which are much more complicated than conventional deter-
ministic methods. The lack of sufficient statistical data on
some types of material strengths and loading and the level
of effort involved in evaluating the probability of failure
have been factors that have resulted in the reluctance on the
part of many practicing geotechnical engineers to accept
probabilistic design methods.
There are several levels of probabilistic design. The
complete or fully probabilistic method, usually called Level
III reliability method, requires that the actual probability dis-
tribution curves be known or measured for each random
variable. From a theoretical point of view, fully probabilistic
methods provide the most general treatment of safety.
However, the information on loads and resistance are sel-
dom available. Fully probabilistic methods are difficult
and time-consuming to carry out, and as a result they are
expensive, which makes them generally suitable for only
large special projects. Fully probabilistic methods are not
considered workable or practicable at this time for most
projects.
The Level II or approximate probabilistic methods do not
require a knowledge of the actual probability distributions
of all the random variables. The shape or type of the distrib-
utions for loads and resistances, however, need to be
defined. These distribution curves can be approximated
by an analysis of existing data, and it is assumed that the
load and resistance are statistically iudependent. Typically,
both normal and log-normal distributions are assumed.
A special case of approximate probabilistic methods is the
second moment probabilistic method. It considers the ran-
dom nature of the variables and is based on only the two
moments of the mean and coefficient of variation of the
loads and resistance. In this method, safety is defined by the
reliability index (Allen 1975; CSA 1981; Harr 1987; Li
974
et al. 1993b). The reliability index provides a simple quan-
titative basis for assessing risk or probability of failure
for comparing the relative safety of various design alter-
natives. An advantage of the reliability index is that it can
be determined from the two above-mentioned moments of
the probability density functions of loads and resistance
without any reference to the specific shape of these func-
tions. Further information and discussion on the reliability
index is presented in Part II of this paper (Becker 1996).
In the Level I or semi-probabilistic method, safety is
represented by separate load and resistance factors which
are determined from a second moment (Level II) reliability
analysis. According to MacGregor (1976) and Oliphant
(1993), the Level I format is a rational method for esti-
mating partial safety factors. Therefore, the Level I method,
mainly due to its convenience and simplicity, forms the
basis of most design codes that utilize or are based on
probabilistic methods. The LRFD is an example of a design
method based on Level I.
It is noted that some geotechnical engineers have rather
grave concerns with the use of the reliability index as a
measure of safety. For example, Bolton (1993) is very crit-
ical of the partial factor of safety approach and states that
the predictions of level of safety depend entirely on the
shape of the assumed distribution of each parameter, espe-
cially at the tail or extreme ends of the distributions required
at ultimate limit states. This statement is at variance with
that of researchers-engineers who feel that the reliability
index approach provides reasonable answers in a consistent
manner (Allen 1975; MacGregor 1976; Rojiani et al. 1991).
Bolton ( 1993) is of the opinion that sufficient reliable data
is not available to carry out calibration exercises using
reliability theory. He is also critical of the calibration to his-
torical and empirical design methods. Such calibration
exercises have resulted in "a sort of arithmetic cancer";
they have spread in an uncontrolled manner, where if any
parameter or variable is associated with uncertainty or
possible error, then it should have its own partial factor
(Bolton 1993).
Ditlevsen (1993) also expresses some reservations on
the calculation of reliability index values because of the
arbitrary probability distribution assumptions used in the
derivation of the reliability index. The numerical value of
the reliability index is highly sensitive to the assumed dis-
tribution (Lo and Li 1993). However, this does not nec-
essarily mean that reliability analysis and calculations are
meaningless. It is only through such calculations that the
influence of different uncertainties can be combined in a
rational way. It needs to be realized that absolute values of
level of safety will never be obtained. However, reasonable
relative values can be appreciated through the use of reli-
ability theory. Lo and Li (1993) state that codes must spec-
ify both the limit values for the reliability index and the
types of distribution for the various variables. To avoid
ambiguity, they propose that the distributional types and
reliability analysis be standardized in codes to provide
formal and comparative reliability evaluations.
Probability and statistics are useful tools if properly
applied. However, they must not become a substitute for
trying to understand inherent, nonrandom variations in
geotechnical materials. Good geotechnical engineering
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996
requires focus or emphasis to be placed on understanding
geotechnical behaviour and inherent variability in site con-
ditions. Frequently it is an anomaly such as a weak layer
in the otherwise competent soil or rock that controls geo-
technical behaviour and, hence, design. No amount of sta-
tistical or probabilistic treatment of the data and sophis-
ticated modelling will produce a safe design if the weak
layer was not accounted for or missed altogether in the
site investigation. This statement is, however, true for both
the WSD and LSD approaches. It would be indeed unfor-
tunate if geotechnical design becomes preoccupied with
or concentrates on safety factors, levels of safety and their
quantification, instead of understanding the basic failure
or limit state mechanisms and fundamental behaviour.
Characteristic strength (resistance)
There has been considerable attention paid in the literature
and much debate centred on whether factored strength or
factored resistance is the most appropriate approach for
limit states design. Similarly, much has been published
regarding the appropriate numerical values for the partial
factors on loads and material strengths or resistance. How-
ever, while these aspects are important, the real essence
of design and key question is: What is the characteristic
strength (resistance)?
The key issue of what should form the basis for the
selection of characteristic values has not received the atten-
tion or focus of study that it rightly deserves. The deter-
mination of appropriate strength parameters or resistance is
the most important aspect in geotechnical engineering
design. The selection of characteristic strength (resistance)
is a frequently neglected aspect of geotechnical limit states
design. Design codes in general specify material or resis-
tance factors, but give little or no guidance for the deter-
mination of characteristic strength or resistance.
The nominal geotechnical resistance, Rn, is an explicit
function of soil strength parameters and the model used
to calculate resistance. It is also an implicit function of
the experience and judgement of the geotechnical engineer.
The biggest uncertainty in the determination of nominal
geotechnical resistance, Rn, lies with the selection of soil
strength parameters that are representative of the in situ
condition. Regardless of whether a WSD or LSD format
is used, the reliable determination of the in situ strength is
the most important aspect of the design process or tasks
faced by a geotechnical engineer for any given project
site.
Figure 12a shows data obtained from a site in the
Beaufort Sea where the undrained shear strength has been
determined by a variety of laboratory and in situ testing.
The scatter in results obtained is considerable, and it leaves
the geotechnical engineer in the quandary of what value
of characteristic strength to select for design. The choice is
large, as reflected by the relatively broad distribution curve
shown for a given depth (Fig. 12b). Further, one value
appears to be anomalously low as indicated by the point
with the question mark. Different engineers with varying
background and experience would select different values.
Many would probably pick the mean or average value,
others more daring or with similar experience on other
Becker 975

Fig. 12. Summary and distribution of data for Beaufort Fig. 13. Summary and distribution of processed data for
Sea example: (a) summary of all data; (b) distribution of Beaufort Sea example: (a) summary of processed data;
strength data (10 m depth). (b) distribution of strength data (10 m depth).
(a) UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa) (a) UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
I I I I

SEABED _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _----J
0 1---------__;=-.:;:..::.;:_ SEABED
01----------------------1
• • •
~\, UPPEJBOUND
2

:[
0
. \/ E 4
w 0
• w
~ • ~ 6
tJ)
• tJ)
•
•
~w
8

'° 10 ~

~
w
0
~
w
0
12 ( \~--
\•

14 LOWER BOUND
• . '
•• 16 • ? •
I I
• I
•

(b)
(b)
MEAN
UPPER MEAN

l
LOWER BOUND

i
> BOUND
u

l
>
z u LOWER UPPER

l
w
::, z
w
BOUND BOUND
aw ::,
aw
°'
l
u..
°'u..

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH

projects may pick a value higher than the mean, and those
who lack similar experience or want a significant level of
comfort (i.e., "to sleep at night") may choose a conserva-
tive minimum value. The resultant impact of the selected
strength value on design and costs is significant.
Figure 13a shows data from the same site as shown in
Fig. 12a, but the geotechnical engineer has been more
selective as to which test results to include. This addi-
tional processing of the data results in a plot that still con-
tains scatter, but to a much lesser degree as reflected by the
relatively narrow distribution curve at a given depth shown
in Fig. 13b. It is interesting to note that the mean of both
distribution curves are similar. It is also noted that the
apparently anomalously low data point still remains; there
was no justification to eliminate it from the data base. The
geotechnical engineer still has the same three choices as
above for the selection of characteristic strength for design.
However, in this case the values lie much closer together
and a greater degree of confidence in the prediction of
geotechnical resistance would be achieved. With additional
processing and interpretation of the data through engineer-
ing judgement and experience based on site geology, other
similar projects, and an appreciation or understanding of the
physical processes associated with sampling, laboratory,
and in situ testing, it may be possible to further reduce
the scatter. However, regardless of level of effort expanded,
it will not be possible to eliminate scatter in the data
because inherent variability always exists in geotechnical
materials (i.e., the soil deposit).
The above example illustrates that many aspects need to
be considered when selecting the characteristic value for
geotechnical strength or resistance. This process is used
every time a geotechnical parameter is selected for design
purposes for a particular limit state. The selection of a
characteristic value for any given limit state (ultimate or
serviceability) will necessarily involve engineering judge-
ment and experience. The intention of explicit definition of
characteristic values in LSD is not to undermine the impor-
tance of engineering judgement (Mortensen 1983). There
will always be a need and room for engineering judgement
976
and experience in geotechnical design. Therefore, limit
states design should not be viewed as a potential judgement
"killer" as feared by some geotechnical engineers; rather,
the role of engineering judgement is of paramount impor-
tance in the selection of the characteristic value. The intent
of limit states design is to better formulate a consistent
meaning for characteristic values that force the geotechnical
engineer to look more closely at and better understand any
given design problem. In summary, LSD encourages thought
and judgement in a more formal and consistent fashion.
In WSD, the choice of appropriate strength values is
not usually defined explicitly; however, an average value
of strength is commonly used in practice for design pur-
poses. The selection of the design values for strength or
resistance is an inherent part of engineering experience
and judgement. As such, the design values may vary from
one geotechnical engineer to another. One engineer may
choose to use the mean value of actual field or laboratory
test results, while another may elect to use a value based on
modifications or adjustment to actual test results to account
for effects such as sample disturbance, stress-path depen-
dency, boundary conditions, rate effects, and the like. Fur-
ther, the same global factor of safety may not be used by
different engineers. A design based on a conservative value
of laboratory tests such as unconfined compression (UC)
tests (i.e., without adjusting for sample disturbance) may be
based on a factor of safety that is different (i.e., smaller)
than that used in a design where the strength is based on
reliable in situ tests such as the field vane test or piezocone
penetration test. Nevertheless, both engineers may pro-
duce very similar or identical designs in terms of, for
example, the size of footing required.
Within the framework of LSD using partial factors, it is
important to have unambiguous definition of the charac-
teristic geotechnical strength (resistance) (Dahlberg and
Ronold 1993; Bolton 1981, 1993). The value of the strength
(resistance) factors depend on the characteristic value and
the partial load factors. It is necessary to base the design on
characteristic values that are repeatable and consistent. It
is not logical to apply partial factors to poorly defined
characteristic strength values.
The load and material strength (resistance) factors are
interrelated. The original work of Brinch Hansen and the
Danish Code was based on a partial factor of one for dead
loads and 1.5 for live loads. For these load factors, values
of f"I> = 1.2 and fc = 1.5 for earthworks and 1.8 for foun-
dations were derived to produce a design with about the
same level of safety as that produced by conventional
WSD. If different values of load factors are used, different
values of material strength (resistance) factors would also
be required. Meyerhof (1984) recognized this interrela-
tionship and developed modification factors for different
classes of stability problems so that design, essentially
equivalent to WSD, would be obtained.
For fixed values of partial factors to make sense and
be consistent, it is necessary to specify the method(s) for
determining characteristic or nominal values of geotech-
nical strength parameters or resistance. The Danish expe-
rience has shown that f<1> = 1.2 and fc in the range of 1.5 to
1.8 are appropriate values for design purposes. The Danish
practice typically bases the characteristic value for<!>' on
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996
the results of triaxial testing with a 10% allowance to
account for plane strain conditions and other effects
(DI 1965; Mortensen 1993).
The design values (i.e., factored strength/resistance)
would be different for different methods of measuring or
determining <!>' and undrained shear strength. It is illogical
that f<I> and fc would be the same for each method of deter-
mination. For example, undrained shear strength deter-
mined from UC and unconsolidated undrained (UU) tests
would not be the same as that determined from the results
of consolidated anisotropically undrained (CAU) triaxial
tests or field vane tests. Similarly, values of <!>' from empir-
ical SPT N value correlations would not be the same as
<!>' determined from consolidated isotropically undrained
(CIU) triaxial testing.
In Canadian practice, many different methods are used
for determining not only <!>' and undrained shear strength,
but also for calculating resistance. Further, the number of
tests that may be carried out varies substantially from site
to site, from engineer to engineer, and owner to owner.
This variability in design practice is inconsistent with the
fundamental underlying principle that the characteristic
soil strength parameters must always be defined and deter-
mined in a specified manner in order for material (strength)
factors to be held constant for different analytical methods.
A unique set of partial factors has worked well in Denmark
primarily because geotechnical engineers have been taught
to think along these lines for many decades, and the Danish
Code specifies the requirements of site investigations in
a formal manner for various classes of structures. A greater
degree of uniformity in the state of practice, therefore,
exists in Denmark.
- In Canada, no such formal code requirements for site
investigation practice exists. A Canadian manual of prac-
tice for site investigation would be an essential initial step
for the consistent determination of appropriate partial fac-
tors for the various methods of determining soil strengths.
With sufficient research work and formal calibration studies,
it may prove possible to develop a consistent set of partial
material strength factors or resistance factors that would
be held constant for all cases, similar to the Danish state of
practice and Eurocode 7. In the interim, different values
of resistance factors, <f>, would apply to different methods
of determining soil strength and for different design cal-
culations or methods for calculating resistance. This
approach has been adopted by AASHTO (Barker et al.
1991), which specifies different resistance factor values
for different types of resistance and failure modes. The
selection of the value of the resistance factor is based on the
uncertainty involved in the estimation of resistance and
depends on the quality of the data and method of calculation.
Structural engineers in Canada also use a LRFD
approach. Structural design uses separate factors for steel,
concrete, timber, and other materials. The magnitude of
the material factors reflects the uncertainty associated with
the material. For example, the material factor for steel is
higher than the factor for concrete because steel properties
tend to be less variable than those of concrete. Good quality
control of the manufactured structural materials and stan-
dardized design procedures make it possible for unique
values of partial material factors to be used when factoring
Becker
Fig. 14. Definition of 95% probability of exceedance for characteristic value.
95% OF VALUES EXCEED f k
~
c:n
zw
Cl
~
...J
::::;
co
FOR NORMAL DISTRIBUTION,
~ 90% OF VALUES LIE WITHIN
0
°'
a.. ABOUT :!: l .6 cr OF THE MEAN
MAGNITUDE OF STRENGTH OR RESISTANCE
characteristic values for design purposes. Structural design
codes explicitly define the meaning of these characteristic
values. For example, the characteristic or nominal value
for material strength is based on specified percentile values.
For reinforced concrete design, the characteristic value for
design corresponds to the strength value that will be
exceeded 95% of the time. For consistent design using
partial factors, it is imperative that the nominal material
strengths and specified loads be determined in the manner
for which the values of the partial factors were originally
defined.
Geotechnical characteristic value
The requirements for an appropriate choice for geotechnical
characteristic values are as follows:
• It must be a well-defined measurable property or
parameter.
• The shape of the statistical distribution must be consid-
ered. Soil properties may tend to be more log-normally
than normally distributed; therefore, it would be appro-
priate to define a percentile value where that percentile
of the measurements would be greater than this value.
• It must be statistically reasonable given the test pro-
cedure. It is not helpful to define the characteristic
value as a high percentile value (e.g., 95%) of a mea-
surement that can practically be made only a few times.
In addition, the statistical error in the measurement
itself needs to be small.
Based on the above, Been and Jefferies (1993) consider
that the SPT N value is an unsuitable parameter for the
basis of determining characteristic properties because the
potential error in an individual measurement is much too
large. They propose that the piezocone penetration test
(CPTU) is a much more suitable tool to determine char-
acteristic values such as the strength of sand and clay.
They present a case for a typical offshore caisson-retained
island in the Beaufort Sea which shows that the use of the
977
60 to 90% value of the CPTU tip resistance provides a
reasonable characteristic strength value for use in LSD
that produces a design consistent with current WSD practice.
Been and Jefferies ( 1993) propose the use of the 80%
value of the tip resistance from the CPTU for the charac-
teristic strength of sand.
Eurocode 7 (CEN 1992) defines the characteristic
strength for <!>' on the results of triaxial testing and a 95%
probability of exceedance (i.e., 95% of the measurements
are greater than the characteristic values, see Fig. 14). In the
absence or lack of information for statistical purposes, a
nominal value may be used with the intent that the char-
acteristic value represents field behaviour. The character-
istic value is to take into account all factors that have
influence on soil strength. The characteristic value may
also be based on developed relationships between test mea-
surements and field behaviour. In essence, Eurocode 7
allows for engineering judgement and experience in the
selection of characteristic values. However, very little guid-
ance is given on how to determine characteristic strength.
Similarly, the commentary to the NBCC (NRC 1995)
states that the selection of the characteristic geotechnical
design values shall be based on the results of field and
laboratory tests and take into account factors such as geo-
logical information, inherent variabilities, scale effects,
time effects, stress-strain behaviour, planes of weakness,
workmanship, effect of construction activities on geo-
technical properties, and others considered to be relevant for
the site and project. However, no instructions or substantial
guidance to select a characteristic value, which has taken
into account or considered all of the above factors, is pro-
vided. In essence, the characteristic value represents the
engineer's "best estimate" of the likely value.
If values of partial load factors are used which are
different from that specified, or if another basis for char-
acteristic strength is selected (e.g., 50% exceedance or
mean value), different values of partial factors would be
978 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996

Fig. 15. Definition of characteristic value.

fm= MEAN STRENGTH OR RESISTANCE

fk = CHARACTERISTIC STRENGTH OR
RESISTANCE

2: = DISTANCE BETWEEN fm and fk

~ TYPICALLY EXPRESSED AS
u5
zw NUMBER ( i! ) of STANDARD
Cl DEVIATIONS (cr)
~
:::;
:::;

i
0
a,:
CL

MAGNITUDE OF STRENGTH OR RESISTANCE

Fig. 16. Possible definition of conservatively assessed mean value.

75% OF VALUES EXCEED f k

~
u5
zw
Cl
E:
.....
:::;
a:i
;1i FOR NORMAL DISTRIBUTION,
0 50% OF VALUES LIE WITHIN
a,:
CL ABOUT ± 0. 7cr OF THE MEAN

MAGNITUDE OF STRENGTH OR RESISTANCE

needed. This important aspect can be appreciated through
the consideration of Figs. 11 and 15. Different design val-
ues of overall geotechnical resistance would be obtained if
different characteristic values are used without firstly mod-
ifying appropriately the partial strength (resistance) fac-
tors. Therefore, a defined method of determining the char-
acteristic value is needed to properly calibrate codes to
ensure that the same level of safety is maintained.
Conservatively assessed mean value
Dahlberg and Ronold (1993) discuss the difficulties in the
determination of characteristic soil strength and emphasize
the importance of an unambiguous definition. They rec-
ommend the use of statistical methods in the development
of characteristic strength as a supplement to engineering
judgement. The use of conservatively assessed mean values
as the basis of a characteristic strength is advocated by
some researchers and practitioners (DNV 1977; NPD 1985;
Green and Sorensen 1993; Meyerhof 1993, 1995). However,
this value is not explicitly defined in terms of its magnitude
(i.e., how much smaller should the characteristic value be
from the mean value?). A common interpretation is to
choose the characteristic value as the 75% value at a con-
fidence limit of 50% (Dahlberg and Ronold 1993). This
Becker 979

Table 3. Summary of kR and ks values. Fig. 17. Definition of coefficient of variation of resistance,

zVR or zVs kR ks
VR ( VR = (J' I R).
~ R
0.0 1.00 1.00 en
z NARROW DISTRIBUTION CURVE
0.1 1.11 0.91 w
0 LowVR
0.2 1.25 0.83
0.3 1.43 0.77 ~
::::;

interpretation of a conservatively assessed mean value is
shown in Fig. 16. Assuming a normal distribution, this
value lies at about a half a standard deviation from the
mean; 75% of the measurements would be greater than
this value or the probability that this value will be exceeded
is 75%.
A comparison of Figs. 11 and 15 shows that the values
of kR and ks (i.e., the ratio of the mean value to nominal
(characteristic) value for resistance (strength) and loads,
respectively) are related to statistical interpretation of the
probability density distribution curves, mainly their standard
deviation, CJ". In Fig. 15, the ratio k is defined as follows:
[15] k = fm
A
where f m is the mean value of strength or resistance or
load; and A is the characteristic value of strength or resis-
tance or load.
As also shown in Fig. 15, A is expressed as
[16] A =fm - ZCJ'
where ZCJ" is the number (z) of standard deviations (CJ') that
the characteristic value is from the mean value.
Based on the above, the following expressions can be
derived:
[17]
[18]
The terms (<J"!R) and (<J"/S) are also known as the coeffi-
cients of variation VR and Vs, respectively; therefore,
[19] kR = (1 - zVR)- 1
[20] ks= (1 + zVs)- 1
The above derivation shows that the probability distribution
curve can be essentially characterized by its mean and
coefficient of variation. This forms the basis of the second
moment (Level II) reliability analysis discussed earlier in
the paper. Figure 17 illustrates the meaning of the coefficient
of variation of resistances, VR. A narrow distribution curve
represents a well-defined relationship (i.e., little scatter in
the data) and is associated with a low value for VR. On
the other hand, if resistance has a broad range of possible
values, the distribution curve is much wider and it has a
higher value for _yR"
The term Z<J"IR or zVR represents the proportion of the
mean value that the characteristic value lies away from
!0
O!
a..
MAGNITUDE OF RESISTANCE
-
~
R WIDE DISTRIBUTION CURVE
en High VR
zw
0
~
::::;
!
0
O!
a..
MAGNITUDE OF RESISTANCE
the mean value. When k = 1.0, the mean value is taken as
the characteristic value. The numerical values of kR and
ks from eqs. [19] and [20] are summarized in Table 3.
The values for kR and ks in this table are consistent with
those reported by Allen (1975) and MacGregor (1976) for
structural design. As shown in Fig. 16 a possible definition
of a conservatively assessed mean value corresponds to
the case where the characteristic value, A, lies at about a
half of a standard deviation (i.e., z = 0.5 to 0.7) from the
mean. Although representative values for VR for geotechnical
resistance are not well established, it is generally accepted
that VR lies in the range of 0.1 to 0.3 (Meyerhof 1970,
1993, 1995). On this basis, for a conservatively assessed
mean value, it is calculated that the likely range in zVR is
from about 0.05 to 0.3, with a corresponding range in kR
between about 1.05 and 1.25.
From reliability concepts, the value of the partial fac-
tors varies with both VR and kR associated with each
method of determining strength (resistance). Therefore,
different <l> values would apply for different types of resis-
tance and failure modes, for different methods of deter-
mining soil strength, and for different design calculations
or methods for calculating resistance. From a practical
and user perspective of a code, different values of <l> for
different situations may be too cumbersome. It also may not
reflect or be compatible with the current data base or
experience. However, this approach has been adopted by
Barker et al. ( 1991) for the AASHTO code which specifies
different resistance factors for different types of resis-
tance or class of problem. Part II of this paper (Becker
1996) presents and discusses how this aspect was addressed
and incorporated into the 1995 National Building Code
of Canada (NBCC).
980
Summary and conclusions
(1) The geotechnical (foundation) design process and
its various components are examined in terms of the fol-
lowing: the general level of safety associated with current
state of practice; the sources of uncertainty in design and
how they are handled to achieve a desired level of safety;
the concept of tolerable or acceptable risk; the importance
of engineering judgement and experience; and the role of
codes of practice.
(2) Working stress, limit states, and reliability-based
design approaches are described and discussed in terms
of their historical development, fundamental bases, and
differences, advantages, and limitations.
(3) The probability of failure associated with the current
state of practice for foundation design generally lies in
the range of 10- 3 to 10- 4 per year.
(4) Codes of practice are legal documents that strive to
obtain or ensure a specific minimum level of technical
quality. Codes represent a tool by means of which rational
decisions can be made by the design engineer.
(5) Risk is an inherent part of all engineering work.
The best way to reduce risk is for codes to allow the design
engineer sufficient freedom to do a good job. Codes need
to keep the format simple for managing safety.
(6) Engineering judgement and experience are, and
always will be, an essential part of geotechnical engineer-
ing and managing the safety of geotechnical structures.
All of the uncertainties in design can not be quantified.
Probability and statistics are useful tools, if properly applied.
They must not become a substitute for understanding fun-
damental behaviour, failure mechanisms, and natural vari-
ability. The intent of the LSD philosophy is not to replace
engineering judgement and experience, nor to quantify
them. LSD encourages thought and judgement in a more
formal and consistent fashion.
(7) The global factor of safety (FS) in the working stress
design (WSD) approach does not provide an unambiguous
measure or indication of the level of safety or probability
of failure.
(8) Limit states are conditions under which a structure
no longer performs its intended function (i.e., unsatisfactory
performance). Limit states design considers separately the
two classes of ultimate limit states (ULS) and service-
ability limit states (SLS). ULS pertain to safety and, in a
sense, define things that are dangerous; they involve strength
aspects of rupture or collapse. SLS represent those con-
ditions that affect the function or service (performance)
requirements under expected service or working loads;
they involve deformation (settlement) aspects.
(9) LSD refers to a design philosophy that involves
(i) identifying all potential "failure" (unsatisfactory per-
formance) modes or limit states that a structure may expe-
rience, (ii) checking each potential limit state, and
(iii) demonstrating that the occurrence of the limit states is
sufficiently improbable or within acceptable risk. The
explicit distinction between safety (ultimate) and defor-
mation (serviceability) analysis and the classification of
performance criteria which flow from this distinction is
the kernel concept of LSD.
(10) LSD is an evolution of WSD; there is nothing
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 33, 1996
really new about the LSD approach. It may be regarded
as a design process where satisfactory performance is the
primary objective. The essential difference in LSD is not in
the definition of limit state conditions, but in how the level
of safety is achieved. The level of safety may be provided
through separate partial factors or by other means. LSD
is not to be only associated with a probability interpretation;
it is much more than the hidden application of probability
and reliability theory. LSD is a useful aid in foundation
design to the clarity of thought and communication between
geotechnical and structural engineers.
(11) Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) uses the
concept of partial safety factors, which are based on cali-
bration against WSD or through probability and reliability
theory. Separate partial factors are applied to both loads
and material strengths (resistances). The use of separate
load and resistance factors is logical for foundations because
loads and resistances have largely separate and unrelated
sources of uncertainty.
(12) The concept of LSD with the use of separate partial
factors on loads and strengths (resistances) has developed
differently in Europe and in North America mainly in the
manner for calculating factored resistance at ULS. In the
factored strength (European) approach, partial factors are
applied directly to only the strength parameters c and tan
<!>', prior to using them in the model or calculation for
factored resistance. In the factored overall resistance (North
American) approach, a resistance factor is applied to the
nominal resistance which is calculated using "real" or
unfactored strength parameters. The calculated resistance
is multiplied by a single resistance factor to obtain the
factored resistance for ULS in design.
(13) Although the factored strength approach may be
considered as being more elegant and sophisticated, the
factored overall resistance approach has a significant advan-
tage over the factored strength approach in that the derived
resistance factor reflects not only uncertainty in strength but
also uncertainties associated with the analytical models,
site conditions, construction tolerances, and failure mech-
anisms. The factored strength approach alone does not
capture all sources of uncertainty in the calculation of
resistance. There is a need to also take into account the
uncertainties stated above and others such as the devel-
opment of excess pore-water pressure and stress-strain
behaviour. The factored strength approach also does not
capture the true mechanism of failure when failure is influ-
enced by nonlinear soil behaviour.
( 14) The factored overall resistance approach combines
all uncertainty associated with the calculation of resistance
into a single resistance factor. This resistance factor is
similar in concept to the global FS in WSD. The factored
resistance approach is similar to WSD and may be viewed
as a logical extension to WSD. Therefore, it would be
familiar to and, hence, better received by geotechnical
engineers, which would allow for a smoother transition
from WSD to LSD for foundation design. With time and an
increased level of experience in designing foundations
using LSD, the basis of the LSD approach can be refined,
as required.
(15) Notwithstanding the above, the factored strength
and factored resistance approach can produce the same
Becker
design. The choice of method will depend on the back-
ground and experience of the design engineer.
( 16) In reliability and probabilistic design methods, the
parameters are treated as random variables and the measure
of safety is the probability of failure which can be computed
directly if actual probability density functions are known or
measured for the loads and resistances. Approximate and
semi-probabilistic methods are also used to calculate partial
safety factors. In the Level I semi-probabilistic method,
safety is represented by separate load and resistance factors
that are determined from a second moment (Level II) reli-
ability analysis involving primarily the mean and coefficient
of variation of the loads and resistances. Load and resistance
factor design (LRFD) is an example of a design based on
a Level I method.
( 17) Probability and statistics are useful tools if properly
applied. However, they must not become a substitute for
trying to understand the inherent variability in geotechnical
materials. Geotechnical LSD design should not become
so preoccupied with or concentrate on safety factors, levels
of safety, and their quantification to the extent that under-
standing basic failure or limit state mechanisms, fundamental
behaviour, and the key concept of considering each potential
limit state becomes lost or compromised. The rationale
and determination of numerical values of partial factors
should not stand in the way of understanding the entire
LSD approach and overshadow the concept of examining
the various potential limit states.
(18) The selection of geotechnical characteristic strength
(resistance) is a key aspect of design and a frequently
neglected aspect of geotechnical limit states design. The
intent of limit states design is to better formulate a con-
sistent meaning or definition of characteristic values. The
load and material strength (resistance) factors are interrelated
and are a function of the characteristic value used in their
determination. If different load factors are used or if char-
acteristic strength is selected in another fashion, different
values of strength (resistance) factors would be required.
( 19) It is important to have unambiguous definition and
a consistent, rational basis for the selection of the char-
acteristic strength (resistance) value. Design needs to be
based on characteristic values that are repeatable and con-
sistent. It is not logical to apply partial factors to poorly
defined characteristic values. For fixed values of partial
factors, it is necessary to specify the basis for the selection
of characteristic values.
(20) Structural engineers and structural design codes
explicitly define the meaning of the characteristic value. For
reinforced concrete design, for example, the characteristic
value for design is the strength value that will be exceeded
95% of the time. Eurocode 7 bases the characteristic
strength for <!>' on the results of triaxial testing and a 95%
probability of exceedance. In the absence or lack of infor-
mation, a value is selected that has taken into account all
factors that influence that value and represents field behav-
iour. In essence, the characteristic value represents the
engineer's "best estimate" of the likely value.
(21) The use of a conservatively assessed mean value is
recommended for the basis of selection for geotechnical
characteristic values. That is, the characteristic value should
be less than the mean value. A possible interpretation is
981
to choose the value at 75% probability of exceedance. The
characteristic value can be defined through values of kR
and ks (the ratio of the mean value to the characteristic or
nominal value). The value of k is primarily a function of the
coefficient of variation, V. It is suggested that a range in kR
from 1.05 to 1.25 forms a rational basis for defining a
conservatively assessed mean value for geotechnical strength
(resistance).
Acknowledgments
It is indeed a great honour to present the 1994 Canadian
Geotechnical Colloquium. The Author sincerely thanks
the Canadian Geotechnical Society for this opportunity
and acknowledges the financial support of this award from
Geo-Contributions. The importance of team work and col-
laboration in engineering practice and research can not be
overstated. The preparation of this colloquium is no excep-
tion. Several people and different organizations have played
a significant role. The Author expresses his sincere appre-
ciation and thanks to Golder Associates, who has always
been very supportive of the extra-company endeavours
undertaken by the Author, and to the Golder Associates
staff who assisted in the preparation of this colloquium.
The Author has had many interesting and fruitful discussions
with many of his colleagues, in particular with Dr. V.
Milligan, Dr. K. Been, and Dr. K. S. Ho. Useful comments
and discussions were also provided by Professors G.
Meyerhof, J. MacGregor, R. Green, and L. Kennedy, and
from Mr. M. Devata and Mr. R. Bergmann. The Author
also extends sincere thanks to Dr. K. T. Law of Carleton
University (formerly with the National Research Council of
Canada (NRC)) and to Dr. D. E. Allen of NRC and the
National Building Code Committee. They were primarily
responsible for getting the Author involved with LSD for
the NBCC.
The development of LSD for foundations in the NBCC
was, in part, carried out under Supply and Services Canada
Contract No. 0SSR.31944-1-0002/01-SR. Dr. D.E. Allen
acted as Scientific Authority for the project, and Dr. K.
T. Law acted as geotechnical advisor. Funding for this
study was primarily provided by the Institute for Research
in Construction, National Research Council of Canada
(IRC-NRCC) for the development of the National Building
Code. Public Works Canada also provided financial support.
Finally, the Author takes this opportunity to acknowledge
the pioneering work of Dr. G. Meyerhof who has been
associated with limit states design for over 30 years. It is
appropriate that the 18th Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium
on Limit States Design for Foundations was presented in
Halifax-the home of Dr. Meyerhof.
References
Allen, D.E. 1975. Limit states design-a probabilistic study.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2: 36-49.
Allen, D.E. 1991. Limit states criteria for structural evaluation
of existing buildings. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
18: 995-1004.
Allen, D.E. 1994. The history and future of limit states design.
Journal of Thermal Insulation and Building Envelopes,
18: 3-20.