Development of a Reliability-Based Design Framework

for Transmission Line Structure Foundations

Kok-Kwang Phoon, M.ASCE1; Fred H. Kulhawy, F.ASCE2; and Mircea D. Grigoriu, F.ASCE3

Abstract: This paper presents the reliability-based design 共RBD兲 initiative sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute for
transmission line structure foundations. The role of RBD is presented within the context of geotechnical limit state design. Design
parameters that are amenable to statistical description can be propagated systematically to a consistent measure of design risk using
reliability techniques such as the first-order reliability method 共FORM兲. Less quantifiable factors are incorporated approximately into
RBD by judicious selection of the target reliability level. A simplified RBD approach based on the load and resistance factor design
共LRFD兲 and multiple resistance factor design 共MRFD兲 formats is proposed for practical implementation. The resistance factors for the
LRFD and MRFD formats are calibrated rigorously using FORM to produce designs that can achieve a known level of reliability
consistently.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2003兲129:9共798兲
CE Database subject headings: Transmission lines; Load and resistance factor design; Reliability; Foundations.

Introduction ber of notable publications 共e.g., Committee on Reliability Meth-

The presence of uncertainties and their significance in geotechni-
cal engineering have long been appreciated, at least in a qualita-
tive manner 共Casagrande 1965兲. The potential usefulness of quan-
tifying these uncertainties and the associated risks is also well
recognized 共Whitman 1984, 2000; Committee on Reliability
Methods 1995; Kulhawy 1996兲. However, despite this widely rec-
ognized fact, most geotechnical problems still are handled cur-
rently in a deterministic fashion. The reluctance to embrace un-
certainties in a direct, quantitative manner arises in part from the
multitude and complex nature of geotechnical-related uncertain-
ties. Uncertainties arise in the loads, geologic site interpretations,
geotechnical properties, computation models, etc. Admittedly,
quantifying all of these components is a monumental task. How-
ever, in not attempting to embrace the uncertainties contained
therein, it is uncertain how the geotechnical profession can ad-
vance forward in rationalizing risk management.
New reliability-based design 共RBD兲 methodologies that are
already adopted widely by the structural community are not ac-
cepted readily in the geotechnical community, partially because of
the questionable robustness of the statistics used for code calibra-
tion and unfamiliarity with probabilistic concepts 共Kulhawy et al.
2000兲. Other important concerns have been expressed in a num-
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The National Univ.
of Singapore, Blk E1A, #07-03, 1 Engineering Dr. 2, Singapore 117576.
E-mail: cvepkk@nus.edu.sg
2
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell
Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853-3501. E-mail: fhk1@cornell.edu
3
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell
Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853-3501. E-mail: mdg12@cornell.edu
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2004. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on November 29, 2001; approved on May 22, 2002.
This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 9, September 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-
0241/2003/9-798 – 806/$18.00.
ods 1995; Becker 1996a; Kulhawy and Phoon 1996; Goble 1999;
Whitman 2000兲. However, to maintain the status quo is likely to
be increasingly difficult, as the risk implied by a traditional factor
of safety cannot be communicated easily to concerned parties
outside the engineering profession by virtue of its experience/
precedent basis. This situation runs counter to a number of recent
developments where communication of risk within a transparent
and rational framework is necessary. Examples include inter/
intranational code standardization 关International Standards Orga-
nization 共ISO兲 1998; Honjo and Kusakabe 2000兴; public involve-
ment in defining acceptable risk levels 共Ellingwood 1999兲; and
risk-sharing among client, consultant, insurer, and financier
共Walker 1999兲. The latter development could help to reduce the
current risk-averse nature of codes and potentially lead to more
cost-effective designs. More importantly, failure to stay engaged
in these developments probably will result in outsiders imposing
their methodologies on the geotechnical engineering community.
The need for active involvement was highlighted by the Commit-
tee on Reliability Methods 共1995兲, and its importance has been
articulated on numerous occasions by the writers 共Kulhawy 1996;
Phoon and Kulhawy 1996兲.
A limited number of risk-based design methodologies for geo-
technical work have been proposed. Pertinent examples include
National Cooperative Highway Research Program 共NCHRP兲 Re-
port 343 共Barker et al. 1991兲; Ontario Highway Bridge Design
Code 共Ministry of Transportation of Ontario 1991兲; Eurocode 7
关European Committee for Standardization 共CEN兲 1994兴; EPRI
Report TR-105000 共Phoon et al. 1995兲; and the more recent,
performance-based foundation design initiative 共Geo-code 21兲 by
the Japanese Geotechnical Society 共Honjo and Kusakabe 2000兲.
However, a recent survey for the NCHRP on load and resistance
factor design 共LRFD兲 implementation in North America indicated
a general reluctance among practicing engineers to change the
existing design procedure 共Goble 1999兲. It also was noted that the
resistance factors in most of the current LRFD implementations
were determined by direct modification of the global factor of
safety or by engineering judgment. Only a few of the cases were

798 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003

Downloaded 13 Apr 2012 to 203.110.243.23. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
based on probabilistic analysis that is founded on robust statistics.
A comprehensive survey by the Federal Highway Administration
also noted an absence of strong analytical calibration and verifi-
cation of either the Eurocode or the Ontario Highway Bridge
Design Code 共DiMaggio et al. 1999兲. It is quite understandable
for engineers to feel that there is little to be gained from changing,
especially when the LRFD procedure is usually more time con-
suming.
Two major research efforts that attempt to address some of
these geotechnical issues were undertaken as part of a compre-
hensive RBD initiative for transmission line structure engineer-
ing, which was initiated in the late 1970s and was sponsored by
the Electric Power Research Institute 共EPRI兲. The first involves
an extensive compilation of soil property statistics that is suitable
for general use and the development of a simple probabilistic
framework for evaluating geotechnical variabilities systematically
共Phoon and Kulhawy 1999a,b; Kulhawy et al. 2000兲. The compi-
lation and synthesis hopefully would address some of the con-
cerns regarding the robustness of soil statistics used in calibration
共Phoon and Kulhawy 2001兲. The second involves the develop-
ment of practical RBD equations for transmission line structure
foundations using more rigorous probabilistic techniques. Ulti-
mate and serviceability limit state RBD equations for drilled
shafts and spread foundations subjected to a variety of loading
modes 共uplift, compression, lateral-moment loading兲 were devel-
oped as part of this study. The bulk of the research has been
published as an EPRI report 共Phoon et al. 1995兲, but interested
readers 共e.g., Goble 1999兲 have highlighted its lack of accessibil-
ity because of proprietorship and high cost.
The purpose of this paper and the companion paper is to
present a summary of this report to encourage more active par-
ticipation on this important issue. The first paper presents: 共1兲 an
overview of RBD within the context of geotechnical limit state
design; 共2兲 key theoretical principles underlying RBD; and 共3兲
application of first-order reliability method 共FORM兲 to calibrate
LRFD and multiple resistance factor design 共MRFD兲 formats.
The proposed calibration approach can be applied to any geotech-
nical system, although the focus of the EPRI study is on trans-
mission line structure foundations. The importance of using reli-
ability theory to combine and propagate various sources of
uncertainties systematically to a consistent measure of risk is
highlighted. Practical considerations such as the selection of sim-
plified design formats, definition of nominal values, selection of
target reliability level, and robust calibration of resistance factors
are discussed. The detailed implementation of this framework for
shallow transmission line structure foundations is presented in the
companion paper.
Geotechnical Design Practice
Global Factor of Safety Approach
The purpose of design is to ensure that a system performs satis-
factorily within its design life. However, the presence of uncer-
tainties and economic constraints often makes it impossible to
ensure that no adverse performance will occur under all possible
circumstances. Traditionally, the geotechnical engineer relies on
global factors of safety to establish a comfort zone against poten-
tial undesirable outcomes. For foundation design, the factor of
safety is generally applied to the geotechnical capacity as shown
below
Qn
F n⭐
FS
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 799
Downloaded 13 Apr 2012 to 203.110.243.23. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
in which F n ⫽nominal load; Q n ⫽nominal capacity; and FS
⫽factor of safety. Factors of safety between 2 and 3 typically are
considered to be adequate in routine foundation design 共e.g.,
Focht and O’Neill 1985兲. Practical considerations, such as varia-
tions in the loads and material strengths, inaccuracies in design
equations, and consequences of failure, do affect the factor of
safety, but only in a qualitative way. The selection of an appro-
priate factor of safety is essentially subjective, requiring only glo-
bal appreciation of the above factors against the backdrop of pre-
vious experience.
The global factor of safety approach is relatively simple to use
and generally has worked well for many years. However, this
traditional approach has a number of well-recognized and signifi-
cant limitations. In particular, the factor of safety typically is not
accompanied by a carefully prescribed procedure for defining ca-
pacity 共e.g., net or gross capacity兲, for carrying out the analysis
共e.g., empirical or rational method兲, and for deriving the pertinent
design soil properties 共e.g., correlation or direct measurement兲. As
a result, the same numerical factor of safety can imply very dif-
ferent safety margins in the actual design. Another significant
source of ambiguity lies in the relationship between the factor of
safety and the underlying level of risk. A larger factor of safety
does not necessarily imply a smaller level of risk, because its
effect can be negated by the presence of larger uncertainties in the
design environment. There is clearly a need to reformulate the
traditional design approach in unambiguous terms and to rational-
ize those aspects dealing with uncertainties.
Limit Stage Design
Limit state design refers to a design philosophy that entails the
following three basic requirements: 共1兲 identify all potential fail-
ure modes or limit states; 共2兲 apply separate checks on each limit
state; and 共3兲 show that the occurrence of each limit state is suf-
ficiently improbable. Limit state design is a logical formalization
of the traditional design approach that would help facilitate the
explicit recognition and treatment of engineering risks. Much of
the impetus for this development arose from the widespread re-
thinking of structural safety concepts that was brought about by
the boom in post-World War II construction 共e.g., Freudenthal
1947; Pugsley 1955兲. To apply structural safety concepts in the
geotechnical design environment, due recognition should be
given to the role of engineering judgment 共Kulhawy and Phoon
1996兲 and our professional heritage that is steeped in empiricism.
For example, the need for engineering judgment in the selection
of critical limit states is greater in foundation design than in struc-
tural design because in situ conditions must be dealt with ‘‘as is’’
and might contain geologic ‘‘surprises’’ 共Boden 1981兲. Another
example is the apparent simplicity of geotechnical design models.
Even though the type of behavior to be predicted is nominally
beyond the capability of the models, reasonable predictions still
can be achieved through empirical calibrations 共Focht 1994; Kul-
hawy 1994兲. The role of the geotechnical engineer in appreciating
the complexities of soil behavior and recognizing the inherent
limitations in these simplified models is clearly of considerable
importance. Unlike structural design, the control of safety in geo-
technical design is distributed more evenly among more than one
aspect of the design process. Although it is important to consider
the effect of uncertainties in loads and strengths on design calcu-
lations, it is nonetheless only one aspect of the problem of ensur-
ing sufficient safety in the design. Detailed discussions on some
of these important issues are given elsewhere 共e.g., Bolton 1983;
(1)
Fleming 1989; Phoon et al. 1993; Kulhawy and Phoon 1996兲.
Partial Factors of Safety
To comply with limit state design, it is necessary to demonstrate
that the occurrence of each limit state is sufficiently improbable.
However, limit state design does not entail a preferred method of
ensuring safety. Since all engineering quantities 共e.g., loads,
strengths兲 are inherently uncertain to some extent, a logical ap-
proach is to formulate the above problem in the language of prob-
ability. The mathematical formalization of this aspect of limit
state design using probabilistic methods constitutes the main
thrust of RBD. Aside from probabilistic methods, less formal
methods of ensuring safety, such as the partial factors of safety
method, also have been used within the framework of limit state
design. Examples include the Danish Code of Practice 共Danish
Geotechnical Institute 1985兲; Canadian Foundation Engineering
Manual 共Technical Committee on Foundations 1992兲; and Euro-
code 7 共CEN 1994兲.
In the partial factors of safety method, safety against ultimate
failure is ensured by applying different partial coefficients to dif-
ferent soil parameters 共e.g., cohesion, friction angle兲 as shown
below
冉 冊
c n tan ␾ n
␩F n ⭐Q , (2)
␥c ␥␾
in which ␩⫽load factor; F n ⫽nominal foundation load; Q
⫽foundation capacity; c n ⫽nominal cohesion; ␾ n ⫽nominal fric-
tion angle; and ␥ c and ␥ ␾ ⫽partial factors of safety. There might
be more than one load factor if load combinations are involved.
The partial factors of safety are determined subjectively based on
two guidelines: 共1兲 a larger partial coefficient should be assigned
to a more uncertain quantity; and 共2兲 the partial coefficients
should result in approximately the same design dimensions as that
obtained from traditional practice 共Hansen 1965兲. The nominal
loads and soil parameters that are used in conjunction with these
partial factors of safety typically are not well defined 共DiMaggio
et al. 1999兲. The strength of this method is twofold: 共1兲 the coef-
ficients are applied directly to the uncertain quantities, and 共2兲 the
method has been used successfully for more than 40 years in
Denmark 共Ovesen 1989a兲. However, the method is not likely to
produce substantially more uniform levels of safety, because the
partial factors of safety for the soil parameters are not dependent
on influential factors such as the design equation 共Simpson et al.
1981兲 and the procedure for determining soil strength. Another
weakness is that the method does not account for the possible
variation in the uncertainty of soil parameters from site to site.
The partial factors of safety suggested by Hansen 共1965兲 were
adopted in the Danish Code of Practice for Foundation Engineer-
ing 共Danish Geotechnical Institute 1985兲 and Eurocode 7 共CEN
1994兲 with minor modifications. The use of partial factors of
safety in limit state design also is recommended in the Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual 共Technical Committee on Foun-
dations 1992兲. The partial factors of safety were calibrated 共Mey-
erhof 1984兲 so that they result, on average, in overall factors of
safety that are in agreement with existing practice. As noted pre-
viously, using unique values of partial factors of safety for each
soil parameter cannot result in more uniform levels of safety. In
an attempt to address this shortcoming, the Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual proposed the use of resistance modification
factors and performance factors to ensure agreement with existing
practice. However, this procedure is not entirely successful, as
noted by several authors 共e.g., Baike 1985; Valsangkar and
Schriver 1991兲. Other nonprobabilistic limit state design methods,
such as the ␭ method 共Simpson et al. 1981兲 and the worst attain-
800 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003
Downloaded 13 Apr 2012 to 203.110.243.23. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
able value method 共Bolton 1989兲 do not represent significant im-
provements over the empirical partial factors of safety approach.
The conflict between the need for simplicity or using small num-
bers of partial factors of safety, and the need to achieve a reason-
able level of uniformity in safety, does not appear to lend itself
readily to such simple solutions.
A recurring criticism made by numerous authors 共e.g., Beal
1979; Bolton 1981; Mortensen 1983; Driscoll 1984兲, specifically
on the partial factors of safety method but applicable to any
method that seeks to quantify safety explicitly, is that these meth-
ods are not capable of handling gross errors. The truth of the
matter is that no economically acceptable safety margin, either
based on traditional or partial factors of safety approaches, can be
expected to cover situations in which the geology has been as-
sessed incorrectly, soil properties from field and laboratory tests
have been misinterpreted grossly, an inappropriate behavioral
model has been used, a major source of load has been ignored, or
mistakes in the design calculations have been made. These gross
errors only can be handled by ensuring proper professional com-
petence and conduct and by establishing careful control during
site investigation, design, and construction. It must be understood
that the partial factors of safety method and the probabilistic
methods used in structural safety do not lay claim to eliminating
all manners of risks; they merely serve to rationalize one aspect of
safety control that is based on design calculations. Other mea-
sures of controlling safety, including quality control, careful su-
pervision during construction, monitoring the performance of the
system during construction and subsequent use, or early warning
and evacuation contingency plans, generally are not within the
scope of the partial factors of safety method or the probabilistic
methods used in structural safety.
Reliability-Based Design
The application of limit state design philosophy represents an
important step towards more rational risk management in founda-
tion engineering. Implementation of limit state design within a
nonprobabilistic framework, such as the empirical partial factors
of safety method, does not appear to address adequately most of
the serious drawbacks associated with the traditional factor of
safety approach. For example, it is not clear how the empirical
partial factors of safety method can promote communication, as-
sist in extrapolating the experience of safe practice to new condi-
tions, or permit full advantage to be taken of improvements in the
knowledge base. The adoption of such empirical methods might
pave the way for gradual rationalization of the partial factors
using probabilistic means, but the desirability of trading a known
system for an unknown one solely on this basis is debatable.
Basic Theory
The principal difference between RBD and the traditional or par-
tial factors of safety design approaches lies in the application of
reliability theory, which allows uncertainties to be quantified and
manipulated consistently in a manner that is free from self con-
tradiction. A simple application of reliability theory is shown in
Fig. 1 to define some of the key terms used in RBD. Uncertain
design quantities, such as the load 共F兲 and the capacity 共Q兲, are
modeled as random variables, while design risk is quantified by
the probability of failure ( p f ). The basic reliability problem is to
evaluate p f from some pertinent statistics of F and Q, which
typically include the mean (m F and m Q ) and the standard devia-
tion (s F or s Q ), and possibly the probability density function.
 Table 1. Relationship Between Reliability Index 共␤兲 and Probability
of Failure (p f ) 共U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1997, p. B-11兲
Reliability Probability of failure Expected performance
index ␤ p f ⫽⌽(⫺␤) level
1.0 0.16 Hazardous
1.5 0.07 Unsatisfactory
2.0 0.023 Poor
2.5 0.006 Below average
3.0 0.001 Above average
4.0 0.00003 Good
5.0 0.0000003 High
Note: ⌽(•)⫽standard normal probability distribution.

Fig. 1. Reliability assessment for normally distributed load and
capacity
A simple closed-form solution for p f is available if both Q and
F are normally distributed. For this condition, the safety margin
(M ⫽Q⫺F) also is normally distributed with the following mean
(m M ) and standard deviation (s M ) 共e.g., Melchers 1999兲
m M ⫽m Q ⫺m F
s 2M ⫽s Q
2
⫹s F2
Once the probability distribution of M is known, the probability
of failure ( p f ) can be evaluated as
冉 冊
mM
p f ⫽Prob共 Q⬍F 兲 ⫽Prob共 Q⫺F⬍0 兲 ⫽Prob共 M ⬍0 兲 ⫽⌽ ⫺
sM
(4)
in which Prob(•)⫽probability of an event; and ⌽(•)⫽standard
normal cumulative function. Numerical values for ⌽共•兲 can be
obtained easily using the function NORMSDIST共⫺␤兲 in MS
Excel™. It is also equal to NORMCDF共⫺␤, 0, 1兲 in MATLAB™.
The probability of failure is cumbersome to use when its value
becomes very small, and it carries the negative connotation of
‘‘failure.’’ A more convenient 共and perhaps more palatable兲 mea-
sure of design risk is the reliability index 共␤兲, which is defined as
␤⫽⫺⌽ ⫺1 共 p f 兲 ⫽⌽ ⫺1 共 1⫺p f 兲
⫺1
in which ⌽ (•)⫽inverse standard normal cumulative function.
The function ⌽ ⫺1 (•) can be obtained easily from MS Excel™
using NORM SINV(1⫺p f ). The corresponding function in
MATLAB™ is NORM INV(1⫺p f ,0,1). Note that ␤ is not a new
measure of design risk. It simply represents an alternative method
for presenting p f on a more convenient scale.
A comparison of Eqs. 共3兲 and 共4兲 shows that the reliability
index for the special case of two normal random variables is
given by
mM m Q ⫺m F
␤⫽ ⫽ (6)
sM 冑s Q2 ⫹s F2
The reliability indices for most geotechnical components and sys-
tems lie between 1 and 5, corresponding to probabilities of failure
ranging from about 0.16 to 3⫻10⫺7 , as shown in Table 1. Note
that p f decreases as ␤ increases, but the variation is not linear. It
is tempting to compare ␤ with the traditional factor of safety
because both parameters lie in the same range. However, their
relationship is actually nonunique, as shown below
m FS⫺1
␤⫽ (7)
冑共 m FSCOVQ 兲 2 ⫹COVF2
in which m FS⫽m Q /m F ⫽mean factor of safety; COVQ ⫽s Q /m Q
⫽coefficient of variation 共COV兲 of capacity; and COVF
⫽s F /m F ⫽COV of load. Different reliability indices can be ob-
tained for the same mean factor of safety, depending on the COVs
of Q and F. In this sense, ␤ can be considered as an extension and
more complete version of FS that attempts to incorporate both
(3a) deterministic and statistical information on Q and F. Another im-
portant closed-form relationship between ␤ and m FS is available
(3b) when Q and F are log-normally distributed
冉 冑
loge m FS
1⫹COVF2
冊
2
1⫹COVQ
␤⫽ (8)
冑loge 关共 1⫹COVF2 兲共 1⫹COVQ2 兲兴
If there are physical grounds to disallow negative values, the log-
normal probability model is more sensible. Eq. 共8兲 has been used
as the basis for RBD 共e.g., Rosenblueth and Esteva 1972; Ravin-
dra and Galambos 1978; Barker et al. 1991; Becker 1996b兲.
Although closed-form solutions are convenient to apply, they
are overly simplistic for foundation problems. The need to sim-
plify the capacity term as a single lumped parameter 共Q兲 is par-
ticularly restrictive from both physical and statistical consider-
ations. The capacity of a foundation is composed of physically
distinctive components that are generally nonlinear functions of
(5)
more fundamental design parameters, such as foundation geom-
etry, in situ stress state, and shear strength. The relative contribu-
tion of each component 共e.g., weight, side resistance, tip resis-
tance兲 to the overall capacity is not constant. The degrees of
uncertainty associated with the evaluation of these components
also are different. Hence, the statistics for Q must vary as a func-
tion of these factors. This lack of robustness in the statistics is a
direct outcome of lumping many significant factors into a single
parameter. Attempts have been made to characterize the lumped
capacity 共e.g., DiGioia and Rojas-Gonzalez 1991兲, but insufficient

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 801

Downloaded 13 Apr 2012 to 203.110.243.23. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
recognition is given to their lack of robustness. Examples of
lumped capacity statistics and their sensitivity to the underlying
load test database are given by Phoon and Kulhawy 共1996兲.
A more general approach that can calculate p f and ␤ from the
statistics of the design soil parameters directly, without lumping
the parameters into a single random variable 共Q兲, is more suitable.
The problem of calculating p f for the general case in which Q is
modeled as a nonlinear function of several basic random variables
is more difficult than the simple case shown in Fig. 1. Further
complications arise if the basic random variables are non-normal
and correlated. No closed-form solutions are available for these
more usual cases. A commonly used numerical technique for
these cases is the FORM, which provides good approximate so-
lutions for engineering applications. The FORM algorithm used
in this study is summarized in the Appendix. More details can be
found in standard reliability texts 共e.g., Melchers 1999兲.
Target Probability of Failure
The basic objective of RBD is to ensure that the probability of
failure of a component does not exceed an acceptable threshold
level. Based on this objective, an economical design would be
one in which the probability of failure does not depart signifi-
cantly from the threshold. For the design problem shown in Fig.
1, the RBD objective can be formally stated as follows:
p f ⫽Prob共 Q⬍F 兲 ⭐p T
in which p T ⫽acceptable target probability of failure. Reliability-
based design, as exemplified by Eq. 共9兲, allows the engineer to
make a conscious choice on an acceptable level of design risk and
then proceed to a set of design dimensions that are consistent with
that choice. In contrast to the traditional or partial factors of
safety approach, logical consistency between the computed de-
sign risk and the uncertainties inherent in the design process is
assured by probabilistic analysis, such as FORM.
The evaluation of design risk 关left hand side of Eq. 共9兲兴 has
been discussed previously, with particular emphasis on the need
to use an adequate reliability assessment technique for computa-
tion. Another important consideration is the robustness of the sta-
tistical inputs, which will be discussed in the companion paper.
This section presents the selection of the target probability of
failure for transmission line structure foundations, which is essen-
tially based on the following key considerations:
1. It should be approximately consistent with empirical rates of
foundation failure, after making an appropriate adjustment
for the difference between actual and calculated rates of fail-
ure;
2. It should fall within the range of reliability levels implicit in
existing foundation designs;
3. It should be applicable for a variety of loading modes that
are commonly imposed on transmission line structure foun-
dations; and
4. It should exceed the target reliability index for typical trans-
mission line structures because foundation repairs are more
difficult and costly 共Criswell and Vanderbilt 1987; IEC
1991兲.
An example of empirical rates of failure for civil engineering
facilities is presented in Fig. 2. As expected, the probability of
failure decreases with increasing consequence of failure. It has
been recognized by numerous authors that the theoretical prob-
ability of failure usually is significantly smaller than the actual
rate of failure 共Construction Industry Research & Information As-
sociation 1977; Smith 1981; Livingstone 1989兲. This result is not
802 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003
Downloaded 13 Apr 2012 to 203.110.243.23. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 2. Empirical rates of failure for civil engineering facilities
共Baecher 1987, p. 49兲
surprising, because the safety of a design is not affected by un-
certainties underlying design calculations alone. It also can be
severely compromised by factors such as poor construction and
human errors. The Construction Industry Research & Information
Association 共1977兲 reported that only 20% of tower failures and
10% of bridge failures arose from inadequate considerations
about the variability of load and strength. Hence, it would appear
(9) that the theoretical probability of failure is 1 order of magnitude
smaller than the actual rate of failure. Using this simple adjust-
ment, Fig. 2 indicates that the currently accepted theoretical prob-
ability of failure for foundations is between 0.01% and 0.1% 共or ␤
between 3.1 and 3.7兲. Empirical rates of failure have also been
used directly, without adjustment, by some authors 共e.g., Meyer-
hof 1995; Becker 1996b兲. Regardless of the adjustment made,
empirical rates of failure should not be used as the sole basis for
selecting p T , because they might not be truly representative. For
example, Leonards 共1982兲 noted that failure records usually are
not collected systematically because no formal system exists for
the registration of failures. In most countries, it is not mandatory
to report failures of civil facilities to regulatory authorities unless
the scope of failure involves injury to people or loss of lives
共Ovesen 1989b兲. There also appears to be a general reluctance
among the engineering profession to be too outspoken about fail-
ures because of possible litigation.
In this EPRI study 共Report TR-105000兲, the range of reliability
levels implicit in existing foundation designs also is considered in
the selection of p T . This approach is practiced quite widely in
RBD 共e.g., Ellingwood et al. 1980; Moses and Larrabee 1988兲.
Although this approach is empirical, it possesses a major advan-
tage of maintaining continuity with the existing experience base.
In addition, RBD codes can be fine tuned to take local conditions/
practice into account using such a procedure 共Turner et al. 1992兲.
Beal 共1979兲 noted that splitting the safety margin into compo-
nents associated with loads and resistances can result in omitting
some functions of the original factor of safety. Empirical calibra-
tion will partially address this important concern as well. At
present, judicious adjustment of p T is probably the only realistic
means of incorporating less quantifiable but important consider-
ations into new RBD codes in a fairly consistent way. An example
of evaluating representative reliability indices for selection of p T
is shown in the companion paper. The results for all the loading
modes considered in the EPRI study are summarized in Table 2.
For projects with low consequence of failure or short duration, a
lower target reliability index may be justifiable.
Table 2. Reliability Indices Implicit in Existing Foundation Designs
for Transmission Line Structures
Type of Range Average
Foundation Loading mode analysis of ␤ ␤
Spread footing Uplift Undrained 2.6 –3.7 3.15
Drained 2.3–3.5 2.90
Drilled shaft Uplift Undrained 2.8 –3.6 3.20
Drained 2.4 –3.6 3.00
Compression Undrained 2.7–3.6 3.20
Drained 2.4 –3.5 3.00
Lateral-moment Undrained 2.2–3.6 2.90
Drained 2.5–3.5 3.00 Fig. 3. Simplified reliability-based design
Note: Source is the EPRI Rep. No. TR-105000 共Phoon et al. 1995兲.

sistance; W⫽foundation weight 共⫾ depending on uplift/

The above empirical calibration approach also is employed by
compression mode兲; and ⌿⫽resistance factor. The LRFD format
the Task Committee on Structural Loadings 共1991兲 and Criswell
is superficially identical to the traditional factor of safety format
and Vanderbilt 共1987兲 to calibrate their reliability-based design
given by Eq. 共1兲. However, the resistance factor is calibrated rig-
guidelines for transmission line structures. From a calibration
orously using reliability theory to produce designs that can
study involving six representative structures, Criswell and
achieve a known level of reliability consistently. Load and resis-
Vanderbilt 共1987兲 concluded that a target reliability index in the
tance factor design is quite popular 共Barker et al. 1991; Becker
range of 2.7–3.2 is acceptable. The Task Committee recommends
1996b兲 because of its familiar ‘‘look and feel.’’ Historically, it has
a target probability of failure in the range of 0.03–1%, corre-
been introduced by code-drafting committees 共e.g., Allen 1975;
sponding to a target reliability index between 2.3 and 3.4. These
Ellingwood et al. 1980兲 that were concerned primarily with struc-
target reliability indices for structural design serve as approximate
tural loadings. It is only natural to leave the resistance factor as a
lower bounds for foundation design.
generic lumped parameter that can be easily adjusted to suit di-
An extensive reliability study of relevant design experience
verse strength models. The weight of tradition has led to the adop-
indicates that an average target reliability index between 2.9 and
tion of LRFD for foundation design, even though the MRFD is
3.2 is applicable for a variety of common loading modes 共Table
more physically appealing. The use of different resistance factors
2兲. Additional considerations from adjusted empirical rates of fail-
in MRFD also conforms to the rationale for multiple load factors.
ure (␤ T ⫽3.1– 3.7) and the lower bound target reliability indices
A general procedure for calibrating resistance factors is given
from transmission line structures (␤ T ⬎2.3– 3.4) would suggest
below, but the goal of calibration can be illustrated qualitatively
that a target reliability index of 3.2 is probably the most appro-
using Fig. 3. It can be seen that the calibrated factors are used to
priate. This selected target reliability index is considered to be
ensure consistent separation between the probability density func-
‘‘above average’’ following the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’
tions describing the uncertain load and capacity. Fig. 3 also
共1997兲 classification 共Table 1兲. It is also consistent with the reli-
clearly highlights the importance of defining the nominal load and
ability levels in the proposed foundation design code for National
capacity precisely, which has been frequently overlooked 共Con-
Building Code of Canada 共Becker 1996b兲 but slightly below that
struction Industry Research & Information Association 1977;
proposed by Meyerhof 共1995兲.
Been and Jefferies 1993; Dahlberg and Ronold 1993兲. In the
EPRI Report TR-105000, nominal soil parameters are defined at
Multiple-Factor Formats the mean for three reasons. First, geotechnical engineers prefer to
assess foundation behavior using realistic parameters, so that they
Reliability-based design in the form of Eq. 共9兲 requires the re-
would have a physical feel for the problem, rather than perform a
peated evaluation of p f until an acceptable target value is
hypothetical computation using some statistically factored param-
achieved for the trial design. While the approach is rigorous, it is
eters 共e.g., 5% exclusion limit兲. Second, factored parameters can
not suitable for designs that are conducted on a routine basis. For
inadvertently produce values that are unrealistic or physically un-
this purpose, a simplified RBD approach is adopted that involves
realizable. Third, the purpose of simplified RBD is to relieve
the use of multiple-factor formats. One possible design check is
practitioners from unfamiliar probability calculations so that at-
the partial factors of safety format given in Eq. 共2兲. It has been
tention could be focused on the geotechnical aspects of the prob-
implemented in Eurocode 7 共CEN 1994兲, but assigning unique
lem. This objective could be partially undermined when statistical
partial factors to each soil parameter cannot possibly produce
factoring is required. The mean value also has been recommended
similar reliability indices for the full range of diverse geotechnical
for reliability-based design of transmission line structures
models. This deficiency will surface when the empirically deter-
共Criswell and Vanderbilt 1987兲. Several authors have also adopted
mined partial factors of safety eventually are calibrated using re-
values close to the mean as nominal 共e.g., Moses and Larrabee
liability theory. In the EPRI Report TR-105000, the LRFD and
1988; Bengtsson et al. 1993; Dahlberg and Ronold 1993; Becker
MRFD formats are adopted for checking designs. For axial load-
1996b兲.
ing, they are respectively given by
F 50⭐⌿Q n (10a)
Calibration of Resistance Factors
F 50⭐⌿ s Q sn ⫹⌿ t Q tn ⫾⌿ w W (10b)
The resistance factors for the LRFD and MRFD formats 关Eq.
in which F 50⫽50-year return period load; Q n ⫽nominal founda- 共10兲兴 are calibrated using a general approach that is capable of
tion capacity; Q sn ⫽nominal side resistance; Q tn ⫽nominal tip re- handling any reasonable number of load and resistance compo-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 803

Downloaded 13 Apr 2012 to 203.110.243.23. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 4. Partitioning of parameter space for calibration of resistance
factors
nents, as well as any reasonable probability distribution type. This
approach already has been adopted for the calibration of many
RBD codes 共e.g., Construction Industry Research & Information
Association 1977; Ellingwood et al. 1980; Moses and Larrabee
1988兲. The essential details of this approach are summarized
below:
1. Perform a parametric study on the variation of the reliability
level with respect to each deterministic and statistical param-
eter in the design problem. Examples of deterministic param-
eters that control the design of foundations include the diam-
eter 共width兲 and depth to diameter 共width兲 ratio. Examples of
statistical parameters for foundations loaded under undrained
conditions include the mean and COV of the undrained shear
strength.
2. Partition the parameter space into several smaller domains.
An example of a simple parameter space is shown in Fig. 4.
The reason for partitioning is to achieve greater uniformity
in reliability over the full range of deterministic and statisti-
cal parameters. For those parameters identified in Step 1 as
having a significant influence on the reliability level, the size
of the partition clearly should be smaller. In addition, parti-
tioning ideally should conform to existing geotechnical con-
ventions.
3. Select a set of representative points from each domain. Note
that each point in the parameter space denotes a specific set
of parameter values 共Fig. 4兲. Ideally, the set of representative
points should capture the full range of variation in the reli-
ability level over the whole domain.
4. Determine an acceptable foundation design for each point
and evaluate the reliability levels in the designs. Foundation
design is performed using the set of parameter values asso-
ciated with each point, along with a simplified RBD format
and a set of trial resistance factors. The reliability of the
resulting foundation design then is evaluated using the
FORM algorithm.
5. Quantify the deviations of the reliability levels from a pre-
selected target reliability index ␤ T . The following simple
objective function can be used:
n Appendix. First-Order Reliability Method
H共⌿su ,⌿tu ,⌿w兲⫽ 兺 共␤i⫺␤T兲
i⫽1
2
(11)
in which H(•)⫽objective function to be minimized; n
⫽number of points in the calibration domain; and ␤ i
⫽reliability index for the ith point in the domain. It is pos-
sible to assign different weights to each term within the sum-
804 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003
Downloaded 13 Apr 2012 to 203.110.243.23. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
mation in Eq. 共11兲 if certain sets of parameters are more
frequently encountered in practice.
6. Adjust the resistance factors and repeat Steps 4 and 5 until
the objective function is minimized. The set of resistance
factors that minimizes the objective function 共H兲 is the most
desirable because the degree of uniformity in the reliability
levels of all the designs in the domain is maximized. The
following measure can be used to quantify the degree of
uniformity that has been achieved
⌬␤⫽冑H/n (12)
in which ⌬␤⫽average deviation from the target reliability
index in the calibration domain.
7. Repeat Steps 3– 6 for the other domains.
Note that this seven-step procedure is not the same as the seven-
step procedure for FORM described in the Appendix. The above
resistance factor calibration procedure is not a wholly objective
exercise. For example, the degree of uniformity in the reliability
level can be increased without limits. However, the sizes of the
calibration domains will have to be reduced if minor deviations
from the target reliability level cannot be tolerated. In the ex-
treme, there would be so many different domains and sets of
resistance factors that the RBD format becomes impractical, al-
though the ideal condition of uniform reliability is achieved.
Clearly, some judgment is required in this regard to ensure that
the resulting RBD format does not become overly cumbersome to
use. There is also a need to ensure that the resistance factors
emerging from the optimization process are physically meaning-
ful and do not deviate significantly from those currently in use.
The approach described above is used for the calibration of the
resistance factors in the companion paper.
Conclusions
This paper presents the reliability-based design 共RBD兲 initiative
sponsored by EPRI for transmission line structure foundations.
The role of RBD is presented within the context of geotechnical
limit state design. Design parameters that are amenable to statis-
tical description can be propagated systematically to a consistent
measure of design risk using reliability techniques such as the
FORM. Less quantifiable factors are incorporated approximately
into RBD by judicious selection of the target reliability level. A
simplified RBD approach based on the LRFD and MRFD formats
is proposed for practical implementation. The resistance factors
for the LRFD and MRFD formats are calibrated rigorously using
FORM to produce designs that can achieve a known level of
reliability consistently.
Acknowledgments
This paper is based, in part, on research sponsored by the Electric
Power Research Institute. The EPRI project manager was A.
Hirany.
The general approach undertaken by the FORM is to transform
the original random variables into independent, standard normal
random variables. The first-order simplification is to approximate
the nonlinear limit state surface by a hyperplane tangent to the
point on the surface that is nearest to the origin. The reason for
choosing the nearest point 共also called the design or checking Barker, R. M., Duncan, J. M., Rojiani, K. B., Ooi, P. S. K., Tan, C. K.,
point兲 is that the probability density is highest at that point. Intu- and Kim, S. G. 共1991兲. ‘‘Manuals for design of bridge foundations.’’
itively, the approximating hyperplane seems to be optimum in the NCHRP Rep. No. 343, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
sense that it at least includes the point that contributes most sig- D.C.
Beal, A. N. 共1979兲. ‘‘What’s wrong with load factor design?’’ Proc., Inst.
nificantly to the probability of failure. Contributions to the prob-
Civ. Eng., Struct. Build., 66共1兲, 595– 604.
ability of failure from farther points decrease rapidly or, to be
Becker, D. E. 共1996a兲. ‘‘Limit states design for foundations. Part I. An
more precise, exponentially with the square of the distance from overview of the foundation design process.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 33共6兲,
the origin, by nature of the standard normal probability density 956 –983.
function. The FORM algorithm for a two-variable problem is Becker, D. E. 共1996b兲. ‘‘Limit states design for foundations. Part II. De-
listed below. velopment for National Building Code of Canada.’’ Can. Geotech. J.,
1. Define a limit state or performance function P such that P 33共6兲, 984 –1007.
⬍0 demarcates the failure domain. For a load 共F兲 and ca- Been, K., and Jefferies, M. G. 共1993兲. ‘‘Determination of sand strength
pacity 共Q兲 problem, P is defined as for limit state design.’’ Proc., Int. Symp. on Limit State Design in
P共Q,F兲⫽Q⫺F (13) Geotechnical Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark, 101–110.
Bengtsson, P.-E., Bergdahl, U., and Ottosson, E. 共1993兲. ‘‘A comparative
2. Assume an initial design point in the load-capacity space 共q, study on limit state design and total safety design for shallow foun-
f 兲, such as q⫽m Q ⫽mean of Q and f ⫽m F ⫽mean of F. dations.’’ Proc., Int. Symp. on Limit State Design in Geotechnical
3. Compute the mean (m QN ) and standard deviation (s QN ) of Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark, 13–22.
the equivalent normal distribution for Q Boden, B. 共1981兲. ‘‘Limit state principles in geotechnics.’’ Ground Eng.,
␾兵⌽⫺1关FQ共q兲兴其 14共6兲, 2–7.
sQN⫽ (14a) Bolton, M. D. 共1981兲. ‘‘Limit state design in geotechnical engineering.’’
f Q共q兲
Ground Eng., 14共6兲, 39– 46.
mQN⫽q⫺⌽⫺1关FQ共q兲兴sQN (14b) Bolton, M. D. 共1983兲. ‘‘Eurocodes and the geotechnical engineer.’’
in which ␾ and ⌽⫽standard normal density and cumulative Ground Eng., 16共3兲, 17–31.
function, respectively; and f Q and F Q ⫽non-normal density Bolton, M. D. 共1989兲. ‘‘Development of codes of practice for design.’’
and cumulative function of Q, respectively. The mean (m FN ) Proc., 12th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
and standard deviation (s FN ) of the equivalent normal distri- ing, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2073–2076.
bution for F are calculated in the same way. Casagrande, A. 共1965兲. ‘‘Role of calculated risk in earthwork and foun-
4. Transform the original non-normal random variables 共Q, F兲 dation engineering.’’ J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 91共SM4兲, 1– 40.
into standard normal random variables (U,V) Committee on Reliability Methods for Risk Mitigation in Geotechnical
Engineering. 共1995兲. Probabilistic methods in geotechnical engineer-
Q⫺mQN ing, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
U⫽ (15a)
sQN Construction Industry Research & Information Association. 共1977兲. ‘‘Ra-
F⫺mFN tionalization of safety and serviceability factors in structural codes.’’
V⫽ (15b) Rep. No. 63, CIRIA, London.
sFN Criswell, M. E., and Vanderbilt, M. 共1987兲. ‘‘Reliability-based design of
The trial design point 共q, f 兲 is transformed to (u, v ) using the transmission line structures: methods.’’ Rep. No. EL-4793(1), Electric
same equation. Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif.
5. Rewrite the performance function in terms of (U,V) Dahlberg, R., and Ronold, K. O. 共1993兲. ‘‘Limit state design of offshore
P共Q,F兲⫽共sQNU⫹mQN兲⫺共sFNV⫹mFN兲⫽P⬘共U,V兲 (16) foundations.’’ Proc., Int. Symp. on Limit State Design in Geotechnical
6. Compute a new trial design point using Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark, 491–500.

冋 册
Danish Geotechnical Institute. 共1985兲. ‘‘Code of practice for foundation
⳵ P⬘ ⳵ P⬘ ⳵ P⬘ engineering.’’ Bulletin 36, DGI, Copenhagen.
u ⫹v ⫺ P ⬘ 共 u, v 兲
⳵U ⳵V ⳵U DiGioia, A. M., Jr., and Rojas-Gonzalez, L. F. 共1991兲. ‘‘Application of

冉 冊 冉 冊
u共new兲 ⫽ (17a) reliability based design concepts to transmission line structure foun-
⳵ P⬘ 2
⳵ P⬘ 2
⫹ dations: Part II.’’ Paper 91 WM 091-9 PWRD, IEEE Power Engineer-
⳵U ⳵V ing Society Winter Meeting, New York.

冋
u
⳵ P⬘
⳵U
⫹v
⳵ P⬘
⳵V
⫺ P ⬘ 共 u, v 兲
⳵V
册
⳵ P⬘ DiMaggio, J., Saad, T., Allen T., Christopher, B. R., DiMillio, A., Goble,
G., Passe P., Shike, T., and Person, G. 共1999兲. ‘‘Geotechnical engi-
neering practices in Canada and Europe.’’ Rep. No. FHWA-PL-99-O,

冉 冊 冉 冊
v共new兲 ⫽ (17b)
⳵ P⬘ 2 ⳵ P⬘ 2 Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
⫹ Driscoll, R. 共1984兲. ‘‘Eurocode 7-foundations.’’ Ground Eng., 17共1兲, 7– 8.
⳵U ⳵V Ellingwood, B. R. 共1999兲. ‘‘Probability-based structural design: Prospects
7. Repeat 3– 6 until the design point achieves a stable value. for acceptable risk bases.’’ Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Application of
The reliability index is Statistics and Probability, Sydney, Australia, 11–18.
␤⫽冑u 2 ⫹ v 2 (18) Ellingwood, B. R., Galambos, T. V., MacGregor, J. G., and Cornell, C. A.
共1980兲. ‘‘Development of probability-based load criterion for Ameri-
can National Standard A58.’’ Special Publication 577, National Bu-
reau of Standards, Washington, D.C.
References European Committee for Standardization 共CEN兲. 共1994兲. ‘‘Geotechnical
design—Part 1, general rules.’’ Eurocode 7, Brussels, Belgium.
Allen, D. E. 共1975兲. ‘‘Limit states design—a probabilistic study.’’ Can. J. Fleming, W. G. K. 共1989兲. ‘‘Limit state in soil mechanics and use of
Civ. Eng., 2共1兲, 36 – 49. partial factors.’’ Ground Eng., 22共7兲, 34 –35.
Baecher, G. B. 共1987兲. ‘‘Geotechnical risk analysis user’s guide.’’ Rep. Focht, J. A. 共1994兲. ‘‘Lessons learned from missed predictions.’’ J. Geo-
No. FHWA/RD-87-011, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, tech. Eng., Div., ASCE, 120共10兲, 1653–1683.
Va. Focht, J. A., Jr., and O’Neill, M. W. 共1985兲. ‘‘Piles and other deep foun-
Baike, L. D. 共1985兲. ‘‘Total and partial factors of safety in geotechnical dations.’’ Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
engineering.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 22共4兲, 477– 482. Engineering, San Francisco, 187–209.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 805

Downloaded 13 Apr 2012 to 203.110.243.23. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Freudenthal, A. M. 共1947兲. ‘‘Safety of structures.’’ Trans. Am. Soc. Civ.
Eng., 112, 125–159.
Goble, G. 共1999兲. ‘‘Geotechnical related development and implementa-
tion of load and resistance factor design 共LRFD兲 methods.’’ NCHRP
Synthesis 276, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Hansen, J. B. 共1965兲. ‘‘Philosophy of foundation design: design criteria,
safety factors and settlement limits.’’ Proc., Symp. on Bearing Capac-
ity and Settlement of Foundations, Duke Univ., Durham, N.C., 1–13.
Honjo, Y., and Kusakabe, O. 共2000兲. ‘‘Proposal of a comprehensive foun-
dation design code: Geo-Code 21 ver. 1.’’ Proc., Int. Workshop on
Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering, Melbourne, Austra-
lia, 75– 84.
International Electrotechnical Commission 共IEC兲 Technical Committee
11. 共1991兲. ‘‘Loading and strength of overhead transmission lines.’’
Technical Rep. No. 826, International Electrotechnical Commission,
Geneva.
International Standard Organization 共ISO兲. 共1998兲. ‘‘General principles
on reliability for structures.’’ ISO 2394, Geneva.
Kulhawy, F. H. 共1994兲. ‘‘Some observations on modeling in foundation
engineering.’’ Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Computational Methods and
Advances in Geomechanics, Morgantown, W. Va., 209–214.
Kulhawy, F. H. 共1996兲. ‘‘From Casagrande’s ‘calculated risk’ to
reliability-based design in foundation engineering.’’ Civ. Eng. Pract.,
1共2兲, 43–56.
Kulhawy, F. H., and Phoon, K. K. 共1996兲. ‘‘Engineering judgment in the
evolution from deterministic to reliability-based foundation design.’’
Uncertainty in the geologic environment—from theory to practice
(GSP58), Vol. 1, ASCE, New York, 29– 48.
Kulhawy, F. H., Phoon, K. K., and Prakoso, W. A. 共2000兲. ‘‘Uncertainty
in the basic properties of natural geomaterials.’’ Proc., 1st Int. Conf.
on Geotechnical Engineering Education and Training, Sinaia, Roma-
nia, 297–302.
Leonards, G. A. 共1982兲. ‘‘Investigation of failures.’’ J. Geotech. Eng.
Div., ASCE, 108共GT2兲, 185–246.
Livingstone, W. R. 共1989兲. ‘‘CSA code for design, construction, and in-
stallation of fixed offshore structures.’’ Proc., Symp. on Limit States
Design in Foundational Engineering, Canadian Geotechnical Society,
Toronto, 77– 89.
Melchers, R. E. 共1999兲. Structural reliability, analysis, and prediction,
2nd Ed., Wiley, Chichester, U.K.
Meyerhof, G. G. 共1984兲. ‘‘Safety factors and limit states analysis in geo-
technical engineering.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 21共1兲, 1–7.
Meyerhof, G. G. 共1995兲. ‘‘Development of geotechnical limit state de-
sign.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 32共1兲, 128 –136.
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. 共1991兲. ‘‘Foundations 6.’’ Ontario
Highway Bridge Design Code, MTO, Downsview, Ontario, 154 –170.
Mortensen, K. 共1983兲. ‘‘Is limit state design a judgment killer?’’ Bulletin
35, Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Moses, F., and Larrabee, R. D. 共1988兲. ‘‘Calibration of draft RP2A-LRFD
for fixed platforms.’’ Proc., 20th Offshore Technology Conf., Vol. 2,
Houston, 171–180.
Ovesen, N. K. 共1989a兲. ‘‘Geotechnical limit states design in Europe.’’
Proc., Symp. on Limit States Design in Foundation Engineering, Ca-
nadian Geotechnical Society, Toronto, 33– 45.
806 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003
Downloaded 13 Apr 2012 to 203.110.243.23. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Ovesen, N. K. 共1989b兲. ‘‘General report/discussion session 30: codes and
standards.’’ Proc., 12th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2751–2764.
Phoon, K. K., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共1996兲. ‘‘Practical reliability-based
design approach for foundation engineering.’’ Research Record 1546,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 94 –99.
Phoon, K. K., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共1999a兲. ‘‘Characterization of geotech-
nical variability.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 36共4兲, 612– 624.
Phoon, K. K., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共1999b兲. ‘‘Evaluation of geotechnical
property variability.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 36共4兲, 625– 639.
Phoon, K. K., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共2001兲. ‘‘Closure to ‘Characterization
of geotechnical variability’ and ‘Evaluation of geotechnical property
variability’ .’’ Can. Geotech. J., 38共1兲, 214 –215.
Phoon, K. K., Kulhawy, F. H., and Grigoriu, M. D. 共1993兲. ‘‘Observations
on reliability-based design of foundations for electrical transmission
line structures.’’ Proc., Int. Symp. on Limit State Design in Geotech-
nical Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark, 351–362.
Phoon, K. K., Kulhawy, F. H., and Grigoriu, M. D. 共1995兲. ‘‘Reliability-
based design of foundations for transmission line structures.’’ Rep.
No. TR-105000, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif.
Pugsley, A. 共1955兲. ‘‘Report on structural safety.’’ Struct. Eng., 33共5兲,
141–149.
Ravindra, M. K., and Galambos, T. V. 共1978兲. ‘‘Load and resistance factor
design for steel.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 104共ST9兲, 1337–1353.
Rosenblueth, E., and Esteva, L. 共1972兲. ‘‘Reliability basis for some Mexi-
can codes.’’ Publication SP-31, American Concrete Institute, Detroit.
Simpson, B., Pappin, J. W., and Croft, D. D. 共1981兲. ‘‘An approach to
limit state calculations in geotechnics.’’ Ground Eng., 14共6兲, 21–28.
Smith, G. N. 共1981兲. ‘‘Probability theory in geotechnics—an introduc-
tion.’’ Ground Eng., 14共7兲, 29–34.
Task Committee on Structural Loadings. 共1991兲. ‘‘Guidelines for electri-
cal transmission line structural loading.’’ Manual and report on engi-
neering practice 74, ASCE, New York.
Technical Committee on Foundations. 共1992兲. Canadian foundation en-
gineering manual, Canadian Geotechnical Society, Richmond, B.C.
Turner, R. C., Ellinas, C. P., and Thomas, G. A. N. 共1992兲. ‘‘Towards the
worldwide calibration of API RP2A-LRFD.’’ Proc., 24th Offshore
Technology Conf., Vol. 2, Houston, 513–520.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 共1997兲. ‘‘Engineering and design, intro-
duction to probability and reliability methods for use in geotechnical
engineering.’’ Engr. Tech. Letter No. 1110-2-547, Department of the
Army, Washington, D.C.
Valsangkar, A. J., and Schriver, A. B. 共1991兲. ‘‘Partial and total factors of
safety in anchored sheet pile design.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 28共6兲, 812–
817.
Walker, G. R. 共1999兲. ‘‘Applications of probability and statistics in the
information age—a new role for civil engineers.’’ Proc., 8th Int. Conf.
on Application of Statistics and Problems, Sydney, Australia, 3–9.
Whitman, R. V. 共1984兲. ‘‘Evaluating calculated risk in geotechnical engi-
neering.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 110共2兲, 143–188.
Whitman, R. V. 共2000兲. ‘‘Organizing and evaluating uncertainty in geo-
technical engineering.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 126共7兲, 583–
593.