Geotechnical Risk Management and Reliability Based Design-Lessons Learned

Geo-Risk 2017 GSP 282 98
Geotechnical Risk Management and Reliability Based Design—Lessons Learned

Dennis E. Becker, Ph.D., P.Eng.1
1
Golder Associates Ltd., 102, 2535 – 3rd Ave. S.E., Calgary, AB T2A 7W5. E-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/02/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Effective management of geotechnical risk is a requirement for successful geotechnical

engineering design. The paper presents a brief overview of the development and current
implementation of reliability based codes in Canada for foundations and geotechnical systems.
Implementation challenges such as selection of suitable target reliability index, appropriate
selection of geotechnical characteristic values, and geotechnical resistance factors for uplift
resistance due to frost action are described through project examples. Lessons learned are
identified and discussed. Lack of sufficient understanding of fundamental concepts, training and
education are factors that contribute to the identified implementation issues. Reliability based
design is not meant to be a substitute for good understanding of geology, geological processes,
fundamental ground behaviour, failure mechanisms, and engineering judgement and experience.
The paper demonstrates that enhanced effective risk management is obtained through close
collaboration between the owner and their consultant.
INTRODUCTION
Geotechnical engineering practitioners need to understand that uncertainty and risk always exist
in projects. As such, effective management of geotechnical risk is a requirement for successful
geotechnical engineering design. The role of geotechnical engineers on projects is to provide
solutions to manage geotechnical risks to acceptable levels as may be specified in relevant codes.
This paper briefly outlines the development of Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) based
codes for foundations and geotechnical systems in Canada, and the issues and challenges arising
from their implementation. Lessons learned from both positive and negative project experiences
are identified and discussed, along with primary factors that have contributed to the
implementation issues and challenges.
HISTORY OF LIMIT STATES DESIGN (LRFD) CODE DEVELOPMENT IN CANADA
The history and background of limit states Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) code
development for foundations in Canada is presented in Becker (1996 and 2006) and the Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM) (Canadian Geotechnical Society 2006). The two
primary LRFD-based codes are the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) and the
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). These codes apply to foundations and
geotechnical systems where a structure component is supported by the ground (e.g., foundations,
retaining walls, ground anchors, soil nails). For geotechnical applications such as slope stability,
a single global factor of safety approach is typically used.
Limit states design for foundations based on a factored strength approach was first introduced
around 1980, but it was not well understood, not well received and not well embraced by
geotechnical practitioners. Instead of achieving efficiency and economy in design and
construction, foundations and geotechnical systems increased significantly in cost.
In the 1990s, limit states design for foundations was re-introduced using a factored load and
overall resistance approach as embodied by the LRFD framework. LRFD code development was
implemented to achieve harmony in design approach between structural and geotechnical
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
engineers. Prior to mandatory implementation of a geotechnical LRFD approach (e.g., CHBDC

(2000) and NBCC (2005)), geotechnical engineers used traditional allowable (working) stress
design methods, while structural engineers used a LRFD approach. This resulted in
miscommunication, misunderstanding and errors in the design of foundations for structures such
as buildings and bridges.
As described in Becker (1996 and 2006), the planned implementation of LRFD in Canada was
done in incremental steps so as to obtain a smoother transition from traditional allowable
(working) stress design and gain acceptance of it by geotechnical practitioners. The intent was to
keep things initially simple in order for practitioners to better understand fundamental concepts
and theoretical principles. As practitioners become more accustomed with LRFD and reliability
based design concepts, future code editions would introduce sophistication.
The degrees of sophistication are evident when the CHBDC (2014) is compared with the
previous editions in 2000 and 2006. Examples of sophistication include the introduction of
geotechnical resistance factors based on Level of Understanding of site and ground conditions
and Consequence Factor to account for the consequence of failure of a structure (Fenton et al.
2016). The rationale in support of these two significant and fundamental changes is that a higher
geotechnical resistance factor should apply when the geotechnical engineer has an improved
level of understanding of ground conditions due to more comprehensive site investigation and
analyses, or when the consequence of failure is lower than the typical case. Previously, a single
geotechnical resistance factor for ultimate limit states applied regardless of level of
understanding and consequence of failure (e.g., for bearing resistance of shallow foundations, the
geotechnical resistance factor was 0.5 and for pile axial compression resistance, the geotechnical
resistance factor ranged from 0.4 (static analysis) to 0.6 (static load test). CHBDC (2014) also
introduces geotechnical resistance factors other than 1.0 for serviceability limit states. In earlier
versions of CHBDC and NBCC, geotechnical resistance factors for serviceability limit states
were taken as 1.0.
For details of the changes and revised geotechnical resistance factors, the reader is referred to
CHBDC (2014) and Fenton et al. (2016). For example, for bearing resistance of shallow
foundations, the geotechnical resistance factor now varies from 0.45 (low understanding) to 0.65
(high understanding). For pile axial compression resistance, the geotechnical resistance factor
ranges from 0.35 (low understanding - static analysis) to 0.7 (high understanding - static load
test).
The next edition of the NBCC and CFEM will similarly be updated to reflect the provisions in
CHBDC (2014). This will be done so that consistency (harmony) is obtained amongst Canadian
codes and the CFEM, which is frequently referenced by the codes.
This incremental approach appears to have worked reasonably well, though implementation
issues such as those presented and described in this paper exist. In any event, for the reasons
presented in Becker (1996), the author believes that the factored overall resistance LRFD
approach has been much better received and accepted by geotechnical practitioners than the
factored strength approach. The author is of the opinion that with sufficient time and experience,
practitioners will feel increasingly comfortable with LRFD and realize its benefits over that of
allowable (working) stress design. It is noted that structural engineers also went through similar
challenges, albeit almost 40 years ago, when structural engineering design switched from
allowable (working) stress design to limit states design (LRFD).
LRFD applied to retaining walls has also received significant attention over the past 10 to
20 years. Publications such as Bathurst et al. (2012) and others summarize this work.
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
LRFD FRAMEWORK
The general LRFD design equation is:
ФR ≥ Σα S [1]
where ФR is the factored geotechnical resistance, Ф is the geotechnical resistance factor (values
of less than 1.0), R is the nominal (characteristic) geotechnical resistance, Σα S is the
summation of factored load effects for a given load combination, and α is the load factor
(usually greater than 1.0) for nominal load effects S (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 and
wind load.
The design equation can be visualized by inspecting the interaction of the probability distribution
curves for resistance and load effects, as shown schematically in Figure 1. The design intent is to
achieve a specified reliability index (or probability of failure) that is related to the size of the
shaded area shown in Figure 1, which corresponds to a failure condition (i.e., resistance is less
than applied loading). It should be noted that the resistance and load effects are assumed to be
independent variables, which is approximately true for the case of static loading condition
associated with foundations. The characteristic values for design are related to the mean values
through the factors kr (the ratio of mean value to characteristic value for geotechnical resistance)
and the factor ks (the ratio of mean value to specified (characteristic) value for load effects).
Typically, kr values are equal to or greater than 1.0 and ks values are less than 1.0. The terms kr
and ks are also referred to as bias factors. The bias factor is 1.0 if the mean value is used as the
characteristic value or when the predicted mean resistance is the same as the measured mean
average resistance.
Figure 1. Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) (Becker 1996).

Equation [1] was modified in CHBDC (2014) to introduce a Consequence Factor ( Ψ ) to account
for the consequence of failure of a foundation unit of the structure. The modified LRFD equation
is: Ψ ФRn ≥ ΣαiSni [2]
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
The values of Ψ range from 0.9 to 1.15 for high and low consequence structures, respectively.
For typical consequence structures, Ψ = 1.0. The rationale for Consequence Factor and its values
are provided in CHBDC (2014) and Fenton et al. (2016).
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
Since LRFD-based codes became mandatory in Canada, the following key implementation issues
and challenges have arisen:
• Some owners have observed that costs of foundations and geotechnical systems have
increased relative to those produced previously by allowable (working) stress design.
• Geotechnical practitioners do not appear to fully understand the principles of LRFD
design and reliability based design. In particular, there appears to be a lack of
understanding of the characteristic value, resulting in inappropriate selection of
geotechnical characteristic values for design. Geotechnical practitioners seem to lack
confidence in the LRFD approach and, as a result, they generally tend to select overly
conservative characteristic values that result in conservative designs and increased costs.
• There appears to be a lack of effective communication and interaction between structural
and geotechnical engineers. This has contributed to the geotechnical practitioner’s angst
when providing what seems to them to be very high factored bearing resistance values
for ultimate limit states, which are of the order of three times higher than typical
allowable bearing pressure values. The tendency of practitioners is to provide values
lower than what is truly appropriate for ultimate limit states. A reason for this is that
allowable (working) stress design does not explicitly separate ultimate and serviceability
limit states design recommendations, though this distinct consideration is inherent in
limit states design. In the author’s opinion, a large portion of geotechnical practitioners’
angst is that they do not know what the structural engineer will do with the apparently
very high factored bearing resistance values. However, this angst should be easily
resolved because in many cases serviceability limit states considerations often control
design. Allowable bearing pressure design values are frequently very similar to
serviceability limit states design values.
• Both structural and geotechnical engineers have been reluctant to adopt and embrace
LRFD for foundations and geotechnical systems. The author has experienced structural
engineers requesting allowable (working) stress design parameters instead of LRFD
recommendations. This is not conducive to the encouragement of geotechnical
practitioners to adopt and embrace LRFD design.
• It appears that most owners and their consultants do not realize that Canadian codes
allow the development of project and site specific load and geotechnical resistance
factors, based on an appropriate reliability index (probability of failure) for the project.
However, the size and scale of project needs to be sufficiently large or special to warrant
the investment made to develop project and site specific values.
The following sections describe case records (projects) of the author to demonstrate some of the
above implementation issues and challenges. However, before doing so it is useful and insightful
to examine briefly statistical methods and their use in reliability based design.
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
USE OF STATISTICAL METHODS

Reliability and probabilistic theory constitute a key basis of limit states design (LRFD) based
codes. The use of these concepts is integral to the appropriate selection of characteristic value for
geotechnical properties and design parameters (Becker 1996, Phoon et al. 2003 and Becker
2006). The use of formal statistical techniques to analyze the results of laboratory and in-situ
tests to assess the mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation of geotechnical
parameters is recommended. Geotechnical engineering practitioners need to better embrace these

tools and concepts. In-situ testing readily lends itself to statistical and probabilistic methods as
large quantities of reliable data can be produced by the in-situ probes and data acquisition
systems.
The normal distribution curve can reasonably approximate the distribution (histogram) of some
geotechnical engineering parameters with sufficient accuracy for engineering purposes. A log-
normal distribution is a common alternative and may be better suited in some cases. Figure 2
shows the normal distribution curve and some of its characteristics that are useful for
interpretation or inference of soil parameters and in calibration of load and resistance factors
using reliability concepts. The main characteristics are the mean ( ), standard deviation (σ),
coefficient of variation (V = σ/μ) and confidence levels. The distribution curve becomes
narrower (shows less data scatter) as V decreases. Approximately 68% of the values within the
normal distribution curve lie within one standard deviation of the mean. Approximately 95% of
the values lie within two standard deviations of the mean value. Only approximately 0.25% of
the values lie at and beyond three standard deviations from the mean.
Figure 2. The normal probability distribution curve.

The maximum (extreme) value (xmax) of a set of measurements or estimations typically lies close
to and beyond three standard deviations from the mean. Therefore, for practical purposes, if a
maximum (extreme) value of a parameter is known reasonably well or can be estimated, the
mean can be reasonably estimated if the parameter distribution is reasonably approximated by
the normal distribution curve. The following equations are derived with reference to Figure 2.
approximate mean value = (xmax) – 3σ [3]
approximate mean value = (xmax)/(1+3V) [4]
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
These equations are used in the next section to estimate approximate mean value when maximum
value is known.
FROST UPLIFT ON LIGHTLY LOADED PILES
This implementation issue discusses the standard practice of geotechnical engineers tending to
report the maximum frost depth that would be anticipated within the design life of a project. This
practice is not consistent with the intent of the characteristic value being the mean value or close
to the mean value of the expected frequency distribution for frost depth. The geotechnical
resistance factor for uplift of 0.3 given in the NBCC and CHBDC is based on the characteristic
value being the mean value or close to the mean and the specified load factors for type of load
and load combinations (e.g., in the range of 1.25 to 1.7).
LRFD design of lightly loaded piles to resist uplift due to frost action is an example of
misalignment and misunderstanding of the appropriate selection of characteristic value for frost
depth in geotechnical reports. For sites with reasonably deep frost depth, the design of lightly
loaded piles, such as piles to support pipe racks in petroleum process facilities in Alberta, is often
controlled by resistance against frost uplift. Traditional allowable (working) stress design has
worked well and led to an empirical design guidance that, in most cases, the length of a pile
(with minimal externally applied axial compression load) to resist frost uplift is approximately
three times the anticipated maximum frost depth. In Alberta, the required length of pile was often
in the range of 5 m to 10 m, depending on maximum frost depth.
Following the implementation of LRFD-based codes in Canada, the author has received many
phone calls and emails from structural engineers saying that when they followed the code they
calculated excessively long piles to resist frost uplift. In some cases piles as long as 20 m or
longer were calculated. Clearly something is not right.
The reason for the outcome of very long piles is that the design values given for frost depth in
geotechnical reports are usually based on maximum (extreme) values that lie in the tails of their
probability density functions (Figure 2). The estimated maximum frost depth is an important
parameter for the design of buried infrastructure, such as unheated water supply lines; however,
the maximum frost depth is not directly appropriate for pile design to resist frost action uplift.
The basis of the derived geotechnical resistance factor of 0.3 for uplift action on a pile in the
CHBDC and NBCC is that characteristic values for adfeeze (skin friction of frozen soil) and
frost depth be based on its mean value or close to the mean value, not the estimated maximum
value.
In order to resolve the situation for the excessively long piles, the author’s immediate response
was that, for the reported values of maximum frost depth, a geotechnical resistance factor and
load factor of 1.0 be used when checking for resistance against uplift to frost action. The reason
for this is that resistance and load factors of 1.0 seem reasonable when extreme (maximum)
values are used for the characteristic value for frost depth. The value of 0.3 is appropriate when
uplift is caused by external loads such as wind and other loads leading to eccentric loading, used
in combination with code-specified load factors.
Frost depth is a function of many factors including soil type, water content, degree-freezing days,
snow cover, albedo and others. A number of relationships to estimate frost depth has been
developed and reported in the technical literature (e.g. CFEM 2006). Uplift action on a pile is a
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
function of the frost depth and the adfreeze acting of the circumference of the pile shaft within
the frost depth (Figure 3) and is given as:
Fu = fadfdC [5]
where Fu = uplift force due to frost action (kN), fad = adfreeze (kPa), fd = anticipated frost depth
(m), and C = circumference of the pile shaft within the frost depth (m).
Figure 3. Uplift on a pile due to frost action.

In practice, many geotechnical reports cite the anticipated maximum frost depth that may be
based on theoretical considerations or may be based on measurements typically in open wind
swept locations such as highways. Similarly, an adfreeze design value of 65 kPa (CFEM 2006) is
used where that value is based on measurements and may represent a value that is higher than the
mean of the distribution. It is noted that CFEM (2006) discusses a maximum adfreeze value of
100 kPa in some situations such as fine-grained soil frozen to a steel pile. If Equation [4] is used
with V = 0.3 and 0.2 (typical values for many geotechnical parameters), the calculated mean
values are 55 kPa and 65 kPa, respectively, for a maximum value of 100 kPa. Therefore, it
appears that the use of a mean adfreeze value of 65 kPa may be reasonable for checking uplift
resistance of a steel pile against frost action using LRFD.
Equations [3] and [4] can be used to assess mean frost depth if maximum frost depth (fdmax) is
known. For example, in Calgary fdmax of 2.5 m is provided in many geotechnical reports. For V =
0.3, the inferred mean value is 1.3 m. These values of V and mean frost depth are shown later in
this section to be in close agreement with the results from more rigorous analysis, which show
values of V = 0.26 and mean frost depth of 1.4 m.
From Figure 3 the following equations are developed for a pile with a constant circumference:
for ultimate limit state condition: L = (fad/fs)fd [6]
for factored ultimate limit state (LRFD format): ФL ≥ (fad/fs)fd [7]
where fs = skin friction of unfrozen soil and L is length of pile in unfrozen soil (below frost
depth).
The empirical guidance that total required length of pile (Lp) is 3fdmax (i.e., L ≥ 2fdmax ) implies
that the adfreeze value of 65 kPa is about twice that of skin friction of the unfrozen soil that
resists the frost uplift. However, the ratio of (fad/fs) could vary from approximately 1.4 to 2.5.
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
From Equation [7], the following equation is developed for the case of maximum frost depth
fdmax:
ФL ≥ (fad/fs)fdmax [8]
Frost action uplift is a load and the structural engineer would apply a load factor (e.g., = 1.25)
to the uplift force due to frost action (Fu). If Ф = 0.3, = 1.25 and (fad/fs) ranging from 1.4 to 2.5
are put into Equation [8], L ranges from ≥ 5.8fdmax to ≥ 10.4fdmax, which is consistent with
structural engineers calculating pile lengths that are much longer than pile lengths based on
empirical guidance (i.e., L ≥ 2fdmax). For example, if Ф = 0.3 and α = 1.25 with maximum frost
depth of 2.5 m is used in the calculation, L becomes 20.8 m and a 23 m long pile is calculated to
be required, which is excessively long and not appropriate.
If Ф = = 1.0 and (fad/fs) = 2, Equation [8] becomes L ≥ 2fdmax and is consistent with empirical
guidance experience. This seems reasonable because for extreme loading cases, resistance and
load factors of 1.0 generally apply. In order to obtain L ≥ 2fdmax when Ф = 0.3, needs to be
0.3. This is a very low load factor that would probably cause angst for structural engineers.
The above approach is examined below in more detail using reliability design concepts to assess
appropriate values for geotechnical resistance and load factors.
The First Order Second Moment (FOSM) method (Becker 1996, FHWA 2001), is a simple
approximate equation that is considered to capture the essence of the problem and serves as an
approximate basis to theoretically interrogate the suitable value of geotechnical resistance factor
and load factor for frost uplift loading condition. The FOSM relationships for load and
geotechnical resistance factor is as follows (Becker 1996):
Ф = kre-θβVr [9]
= kseθβVs [10]
where is a separation factor of 0.75, kr and ks are bias factors (typically in range of 1.0 to 1.1
for kr and 0.9 to 1.0 for ks), β is the target reliability index (typically 2.5 to 3.0), and Vr and Vs
are the coefficient of variation of the resistance and load distributions, respectively.
Although the author does not have data to support the opinion, it may be reasonable to consider
that coefficient of variation for extreme loads would be small. If it is assumed that the coefficient
of variation is small (say 0.05) the value of from the FOSM Equation [10] becomes
approximately 1.0. This provides additional support that = 1.0 is appropriate for design based
on maximum frost depth.
As an example of an initial step for examining and assessing an appropriate and consistent
methodology for designing lightly loaded piles to resist uplift forces due to frost action, the
climatic data for Calgary from 1970 to 2010 was used to predict annual values of frost depth for
a typical clayey/silty soil in Calgary. The frost depths would be greater for sandy and gravelly
soils. The freezing index in terms of Celsius degree-days is a key factor in predicting frost depth.
The freezing index varied from about 250 Celsius degree-days to about 1,450 Celsius degree-
days, with a mean value of about 800 Celsius degree-days (Figure 4). The corresponding
predicted frost depth varied from about 0.7 m to 2.3 m as shown in Figure 5. The mean value is
approximately 1.4 m, with a standard deviation of 0.37 m and a coefficient of variation of 0.26.
Substituting these values into Equations [3] and [4] results in a maximum frost depth of 2.5 m.
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
The results of this analysis agrees with the state-of-practice in Calgary where a maximum frost
depth of about 2.5 m is often stated in geotechnical reports.
Figure 4. Histogram and normal distribution – annual freezing index, Calgary, Alberta.
Figure 5. Histogram and normal distribution – frost depth, Calgary, Alberta.

To serve as an initial check on the validity of using Ф = 0.3 and α = 1.25 with mean frost depth
and design adfreeze value of 65 kPa, it is calculated that a 11.5 m long pile is required to resist a
mean frost depth of 1.4 m. The value of Ф = 0.3 is considered conservative by the author. If the
allowable (working) stress design approach (factor of safety of 3) is used, an 8 m long pile is
calculated for a mean frost depth of 1.4 m. It is noted that if Ф = 0.4 is used, the calculated pile
length is about 9 m, which is reasonably close to the pile length from the allowable (working)
stress approach calculation. In the author’s opinion, a value of Ф = 0.4 is considered appropriate
(in Calgary) for frost uplift action when the mean frost depth is used. Additional assessment is
required to confirm if this approach is valid for other cold regions in Canada.
From Equation [8], for a maximum frost depth of 2.5 m and using Ф = = 1.0 and (fad/fs) = 2, a
7.5 m long pile is calculated, consistent with the empirical guidance for pile length of 3 times
maximum frost depth. The calculated value of 7.5 m is reasonably close to the previous
allowable (working) stress calculation of 8 m when mean frost depth is used. This agreement
confirms that the empirical guidance for pile length of 3 times maximum frost depth is
reasonable for providing preliminary guidance to approximate required pile length to resist frost
action uplift.
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
Given the above examination, the following design options become available so that excessively
long piles would not be calculated to resist frost action uplift:
• Use Ф = 1.0 and α = 1.0 with maximum frost depth, fdmax.
• Use Ф = 0.3 (possibly 0.4) and α = 1.25 with mean frost depth, fdmean.
The CHBDC and NBCC technical committees are in the process of rigorously examining and
assessing the most appropriate and consistent methodology for designing lightly loaded piles to
resist uplift forces due to frost action. The author is of the opinion that it makes sense that the
characteristic value for frost depth be the mean or close to the mean value to be consistent with
current LRFD methods. If this is the approach is to be adopted in the CHBDC, NBCC and
CFEM, geotechnical engineers will need to also report the mean value of frost depth instead of
just the maximum frost depth. In the interim, geotechnical reports could state that for the
maximum frost depth reported, a load and resistance factor of 1.0 should be used in the
calculation of required pile length to resist uplift forces due to frost action.
CHARACTERISTIC VALUE
In the author’s experience, the inappropriate selection of characteristic value by geotechnical
practitioners is the greatest implementation issue in connection with LRFD-based codes. The
following discussion is intended to assist the reader in better understanding how to select
characteristic values for design.
Although the values of the geotechnical resistance factors are important, the real essence of
design and the key question is: What is the appropriate characteristic value? The definition and
basis for the appropriate selection of the characteristic value has not received the attention it
rightly deserves. The technical literature and design codes in general give little or no guidance
for the appropriate selection of geotechnical characteristic values. In the author’s opinion, the
assessment and selection of the appropriate characteristic value is a most important part of the
geotechnical design process.
A description and discussion of the characteristic value is provided by Becker (1996) and CFEM
(2006). The characteristic value is defined as the geotechnical engineer’s best assessment of the
most likely representative (unfactored) value that controls a specific limit state. The value needs
to account for all factors that have influence on the parameter or property within the volume of
ground (zone of influence) under consideration.
Selection of Appropriate Characteristic Value
Let’s interrogate the above definition to gain a better sense of what the words mean. From the
above definition, the characteristic value for undrained shear strength may not directly be the
mean value or a value close (cautious estimate) to the mean of the actual field or laboratory
measurements. Measured values often require adjustments to take into account factors that have
influence on the measured parameter. For example, field vane strength for high plasticity clay
should be adjusted using Bjerrum or Aas correction factors (CFEM 2006). In clay deposits
consisting of regular interlayers of stiffer and weaker soil, such as varved clay, the field vane
strength may measure a strength that is too high because the vertical failure surface imposed by
the vane passes through the stiffer and weaker layers (Becker et al. 1988). A slope stability
failure surface often has a relatively large horizontal plane component and would tend to pass
through the weaker layers in the deposit. The direct use of the field vane strength along
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
horizontal failure surfaces would not be representative and as such is not the characteristic value
for horizontal failure surfaces. In the author’s experience, a suitable characteristic value for
horizontal weak layers in varved clay deposits may be the strength corresponding to 0.75 times
the measured vane strength.
Another example is the direct use of strength measured using small sized tested specimens taken
from a fissured clay or fractured bedrock. The measured value is often the intact strength, which
is much higher than the overall operational or mobilized strength of the ground mass that is
largely controlled by the fissures and fractures (Lo 1970).
Factors such as fabric anisotropy and stress anisotropy as described and discussed in the
technical literature (e.g., Bjerrum 1972, Becker et al. 1984) need to be considered when
assessing appropriate values for the characteristic value. All factors that influence the
geotechnical parameter or property must be taken into account. When assessing characteristic
values for strength, the key consideration by the geotechnical engineer is suitably assessing the
mobilized strength for the given limit state under consideration.
It is important to realize that the above considerations also apply when selecting suitable design
values for use in traditional allowable (working) stress design.
What is meant by “within the volume of ground (zone of influence) under consideration”?
Figure 6 illustrates the intended meaning of zone of influence. For a given site, there is more than
one characteristic value for strength and displacement (deformation) parameters. The
characteristic value is not simply the mean (or cautious estimate of the mean) based on all the
test results from the site investigation program. For example, for the design of spread footings,
the test results within the stress bulb (zone of influence) would be considered in assessing the
characteristic value. For deep foundation design it would be along and deeper than the
anticipated pile length. If the ground is layered there would be characteristic values for each of
the individual layers. For embankments, stress anisotropy considerations and parameters
associated with the anticipated field stress range for the loading condition need to be taken into
account. This similarly applies to excavations and cuts, except that parameters associated with
unloading condition and anticipated stress range would be considered when selecting appropriate
values for characteristic values. The primary reason for these considerations is that ground
behaviour exhibits significant non-linearity.
The geotechnical engineer also needs to be cognizant of the interrelationship between resistance
and load factors and characteristic value when selecting characteristic geotechnical parameters
for design purposes. Currently, it appears that practicing geotechnical engineers may not be
aware of the importance of selecting the characteristic value in a specific manner as described in
the following paragraph.
Load and resistance factors and characteristic values are interrelated. Load and resistance factors
have been derived (calibrated) based on characteristic values that have been defined in a specific
manner. For consistent and rational design in practice, the selection of a characteristic value for
geotechnical resistance needs to be made in the same manner as that used to derive the resistance
factor. The geotechnical resistance factors were derived using characteristic values that are close
to the mean value; therefore, a characteristic value of a geotechnical property that is similarly
close to the mean should be used in the calculation of geotechnical resistance. A value closer to
the lower bound value should not be used because the uncertainty associated with a given design
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
parameter has already been incorporated into the numerical values of the resistance factors.
Should a value closer to the lower bound strength be chosen, an additional level of conservatism
enters into the design. Although an additional level of reliability and safety may be viewed as
desirable, it could have significant cost implications as discussed later in this paper.
Figure 6. Illustration of zone of influence for characteristic value assessment.

Lesson Learned: For consistent use and enhanced understanding of LRFD, geotechnical
engineers need to be educated concerning the interrelationship between the specified
geotechnical resistance factor and characteristic value. The requirement for a specifically defined
characteristic value is not intended to apply an unacceptable constraint or dictate how a
geotechnical engineer is to select appropriate representative properties and design parameters.
The geotechnical engineer retains the freedom to interrogate and assess the conditions according
to similar thought processes that the geotechnical community has always done, and what has
become part of geotechnical tradition and heritage.
GEOLOGICAL AND SPATIAL VARIABILITY CONSIDERATIONS WHEN
SELECTING CHARACTERISTIC VALUE
The following project examples are intended to help the reader better understand the appropriate
selection of characteristic value, and help practitioners avoid making similar mistakes by
appreciating the lessons learned. The following discussions also apply to traditional allowable
(working) stress design. Some of the following discussion may be stating the obvious, but in my
experience stating the obvious is often worthwhile. Some of the data from these projects are
confidential; therefore, the actual measurements and values are not presented in the discussion
and figures. Key aspects to consider are the trends and variability in the data.
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
Linear Infrastructure Projects

Linear infrastructure projects such as highways, railways, pipelines and canals provide the
opportunity to use and confirm reliability concepts because the design parameters are based on
site investigation results at discrete locations that frequently are far apart, sometimes at distances
of hundreds of metres or more. These projects can provide challenges to suitable site
characterization and appropriate selection of characteristic values.
As an example, a new highway was built with its alignment extending several tens of kilometres
across undeveloped terrain involving extensive deposits of glacio-lacustrine and glacio-fluvial
sediments. The site investigation program consisted of sampled boreholes with frequent field
vane tests and was complemented by a reasonably detailed laboratory testing program. The site
investigation program was considered consistent with good state-of-practice. The highway
embankment performed well except for a small reach where a series of embankment foundation
failures took place. In the subsequent forensic investigation it was found that the data along the
alignment was compiled and plotted collectively, including plots of field vane test results. The
plasticity of the clay deposits was such that adjustment to measured vane strength (e.g. Bjerrum
or Aas correction factors) was not required.
Although the details are not certain, it appears that all test results were plotted using the same
symbol for each borehole rather than specific and unique symbols to denote each borehole along
the alignment. The range in the collective strength vs. depth profiles did not raise flags of
significant variability. Figure 7a shows the design strength profile.
Figure 7. Spatial variability effects of linear projects on selection of characteristic value.
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
The profile corresponds to a trend line slightly less than the mean and as such could be viewed as
being consistent with a ‘cautious estimate’ of the mean. The author has provided the
corresponding probability density function plotted at a given elevation within the strength vs.
depth profile. The forensic investigation into the embankment failures showed that the failed
section of the alignment contained three boreholes in which the measured field vane strength
comprised the lower bound of the plotted strength profile as shown by the symbol “x” in Figure
7b. The figure also shows that for the project, there should have been at least two separate
characteristic values defined for the alignment.

Lesson Learned: Initially plot test results with a specific and unique label (symbol) so that a
better assessment of spatial variability can be made. If all symbols are sufficiently dispersed
within the strength vs. depth profiles and within the probability density function, a single symbol
could then be used to simply presentation in the report.
Parochial Knowledge and Local State-of-Practice
This case record demonstrates that local state-of-practice and the general tendency of
practitioners to resist change can stand in the way of good engineering and economic benefit and
efficiency. The project involves the first time use in this municipality of a mechanically
stabilized earth (MSE) wall as part of a highway grade separation project. The foundation soils
consist of lacustrine clay deposits. The geotechnical consultant for the project did not have
significant work experience in the municipality. The owner (municipality) had concerns about
the first time use of high MSE walls on clay soils in their region and wanted to impose the use of
traditional effective stress strength parameters in analyses and design. Based on the results of site
specific triaxial compression tests and review of the technical literature, the geotechnical
consultant considered that the parameters traditionally used were low, unduly conservative, and
would significantly increase cost should design be based on the traditional values.
During the follow-up assessment it was found that the traditional effective stress strength
parameters of effective cohesion and friction angle were based on an unloading condition such as
back-analysis of river valley slopes that had been incised into the otherwise flat terrain. From a
geotechnical perspective, the use of unloading parameters for a loading situation class of
problem such as an MSE wall and embankment is not appropriate. However, debate remained as
to the strength values that should be used for design. The use of the unloading parameters in
design was challenged to comply with the design criteria in terms of minimum factor of safety.
The use of the traditional strength values produced a design that was not typical - very long
reinforcement relative to the height of the wall and ground improvement of the existing
foundation clay soil though the use of vertical structural elements (piles). The cost to build the
wall would be very high.
A suggestion was made to carry out probabilistic limit equilibrium stability analysis to assist in
sorting out the design issue and resolve the debate of suitable strength parameters. However,
such analysis was not performed because the owner and their local consultant wanted the
probability density function for the strength parameters to include both loading and unloading
values. The project geotechnical consultant felt that collective grouping of unloading and loading
strength values would be misleading and inconsistent with the definition of an appropriate
characteristic value that requires all factors that influence strength be considered for the limit
state under consideration. The MSE wall and embankment induce a loading condition and, as
such, only strength values corresponding to a loading condition are relevant. Fundamentally the
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
strength parameters should be grouped into separate loading and unloading probability density
functions – not lumped all together.
Lesson Learned: Parochial knowledge and long standing local practice (i.e. “we always do it
this way”) can stand in the way of good engineering and improvement in terms of economic
benefit and efficiency. The application of statistics and probability concepts is not to replace
good understanding of fundamental soil behaviour and theoretical considerations. Statistics and
probability are useful tools if properly applied. They must not become a substitute for
understanding fundamental behaviour, loading conditions and failure mechanisms, geology and
geological depositional processes.
RELIABILITY BASED DESIGN CONCEPTS APPLIED TO SLOPE STABILITY
The CHBDC (2014) specifies geotechnical resistance factors (Ф) for slope stability. For the
temporary condition, Ф ranges from 0.7 to 0.8, depending on degree of understanding of
geotechnical conditions at a given site. For the permanent condition, the corresponding values
for Ф range from 0.6 to 0.7 (Fenton et al. 2016). A potential implementation issue is that the
result from geotechnical limit equilibrium analysis is expressed as a global factor of safety, FS.
Thus, it is necessary to relate FS and geotechnical resistance factor. Becker (1996) developed,
through calibration by fitting with allowable (working) stress design, the following approximate
relationship between global factor of safety (FS) and load and geotechnical resistance factors:
FS = α/Ф [11]
In geotechnical limit equilibrium analysis, α = 1.0 (i.e., no load factor applied to unit weight) and
thus FS = 1/Ф. For the range of Ф from 0.6 to 0.8, the corresponding calculated value for FS
ranges from 1.67 to 1.25.
Now let’s examine the above relationship using reliability based design concepts. Meyerhof
(1970 and 1995) compared FS, probability of failure (pf), reliability index (β) and coefficient of
variation (Vr). For earthworks stability, the corresponding value of pf is in the range of 0.005 to
0.001 and β is in the range of 2.3 to 3.0 when FS = 1.5 and Vr = 0.15.
Table 1 summarizes the relationship between FS and Vr for β in the range of 2.3 to 3.0. The
range in FS in Table 1 is generally consistent with the range of 1.25 to 1.67 using the relationship
that FS is approximately 1/Ф (when α = 1.0), obtained by calibration by fitting with allowable
(working) stress design. This agreement provides a degree of confidence that FS = α/Ф is a
reasonable engineering approximation.
Table 1. Summary of FS and Vr values for reliability index in the range of 2.3 to 3.
Vr FS
0.10 1.3
0.15 1.5
0.20 1.8
Using the FOSM Equation [9] and substituting the values of kr ranging from 1.0 to 1.1,
= 0.75, β ranging from 2.3 to 3.0 and Vr ranging from 0.1 to 0.2, results in Ф ranging from
0.64 to 0.93, which is generally consistent with the range in Ф values cited in CHBDC (2014).
However, if the value of Vr = 0.3 is used, Ф ranging from 0.51 to 0.66 is obtained, and the
corresponding values for FS range from 2.0 to 1.5. Therefore, the geotechnical engineer should
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
be cautious when there are data to establish the Vr of the strength parameters and the value is
approaching 0.3 or higher. In this case the use of a lower Ф or higher FS may be warranted when
the characteristic value used for analysis and design corresponds to a bias factor in the range of
1.0 to 1.1.
The CHBDC (2014) introduces Consequence Factor, Ψ as shown in Equation [2]. The equation
for FS then becomes 1/( Ψ Ф). So for a structure with high consequence ( Ψ = 0.9) and typical
degree of understanding (Ф = 0.65), the required FS from a geotechnical limit equilibrium

analysis would need to be 1.7 instead of 1.5 for a typical consequence structure ( Ψ = 1.0).
Design Factors of Safety and the Observational Approach
In Alberta, it is common practice in tailings dam design using the Observational Approach to
consider two design cases:
• Target design FS = 1.3 using effective stress strength parameters based on most likely
conditions or using peak strength.
• Target design FS = 1.1 using effective stress strength parameters based on reasonable
worst case parameters or using residual strength.
The above design approach is considered rationale and has resulted in satisfactory performance.
However, what is basis of the target design FS values?
Insight is gained through examination using reliability based design concepts. For a given bias
factor, kr, and reliability index (probability of failure), the coefficient of variation, Vr, is the
controlling parameter ([Equation 9]). The reliability index (and FS) increases as Vr decreases.
Intuitively, it is expected that the probability density function for reasonable worst case and
residual strength parameters would have a more narrow distribution (lower Vr) than the
probability density function for most likely case or peak strength parameters. The reason for this
is that strength variability due to intrinsic fabric effects would be significantly reduced when
residual strength is reached.
Over the years the author has collected strength data for peak and residual strength parameters
for specific soil deposits. The information has been compiled in terms of histograms and normal
distribution curves to provide statistical parameters for mean, standard deviation and coefficient
of variation. Figure 8 shows the distributions for peak and residual effective stress friction angles
for a clay shale that contains numerous weak layers including highly slickensided surfaces
attributed to glacial processes such as glacial drag. The slickensides are at residual strength. For
the material examined, effective cohesion for both peak and residual strength is zero kPa.
Figure 8 and Table 2 clearly demonstrate that, for this soil, peak strength has significantly higher
coefficient of variation than the value for residual strength. It is noted that the measured value of
Vr = 0.29 for effective stress peak friction angle is on the high side of the typical range of 0.05 to
0.25 reported in the technical literature (Becker 1996). The measured value of Vr = 0.16 for
residual friction angle falls within the literature reported range. It is also noted that the
relationships between mean and maximum values provided by Equations [3] and [4] are
generally consistent with the results shown in Figure 8.
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
Table 2. Comparison of peak and residual friction angles.

Peak Friction Angles Residual Friction Angle
Mean (degrees) 24 8
Standard Deviation (degrees) 7.0 1.4
Coefficient of Variation 0.29 0.16
Figure 8a. Histogram and normal distribution – peak effective friction angle (c’ = 0 kPa).
Figure 8b. Histogram and normal distribution – residual effective friction angle
(c’ = 0 kPa).
From Equation [9], Vr is the controlling parameter for fixed values for β, kr and θ. Table 3
summarizes the results for the cases of kr = 1.0, = 0.75 and β = 2.3 and 3.0, and Vr ranges by a
factor of 2 (i.e., 0.30 to 0.15 and 0.2 to 0.1). When Vr is changed from 0.2 to 0.1 there is an
approximate change in the value of FS of 0.25 or about 20%. Similarly, when Vr changes from
0.30 to 0.15, there is an approximate change in the value of FS of 0.45 or about 35%. Therefore,
if the basis of design is 1.3 for the most likely case or peak strength parameters, the use of 1.1 for
residual strength or reasonable worst case parameters appears to be appropriate on the basis that
the Vr may be a factor of about 2 lower than for peak strength parameters.
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
Table 3. Summary of relationship between geotechnical resistance factor and FS.

For β = 2.3 and 3.0, kr = 1.0 and = 0.75 in Equation [9]
Change in % decrease
β Vr Ф FS
FS in FS
3.0 0.20 0.64 1.56 - -
3.0 0.10 0.80 1.25 -0.31 25
2.3 0.20 0.71 1.41 - -

2.3 0.10 0.84 1.19 -0.22 18
3.0 0.30 0.51 1.96 - -
3.0 0.15 0.71 1.40 -0.56 40
2.3 0.30 0.60 1.68 - -
2.3 0.15 0.77 1.30 -0.38 29
Lesson Learned: Reliability concepts support the design basis rationale for using target factor of
safety of 1.1 for reasonable worst case or residual strength parameters when FS = 1.3 is used for
the most likely case or peak strength parameters. However, as noted above, when higher values
of Vr (such as 0.3 and higher) are observed for the probability density function of effective stress
friction angles, the use of a lower Ф or higher FS may be warranted.
WORKING WITHIN THE INTENT OF CODES
The following discussion involves examination of the role of codes and how practitioners can
work within the intent of the code while being innovative and perform good engineering. A case
record is described briefly to illustrate how this can be accomplished.
Role of Codes
A key purpose of codes is to provide assistance to the designer in making informed decisions
towards the achievement of a minimum level of technical quality requirements, and for
appropriate management of risk. The writers of the primary Canadian codes appreciate that
sufficient freedom and flexibility needs to be given to allow geotechnical engineers to do good
engineering. The codes do not tend to be prescriptive; they are based on satisfying broad based
objectives and performance criteria. The geotechnical engineer is allowed the freedom to select
investigation procedures, analytical methods and other tools/technologies to develop designs that
meet the objectives and performance requirements, within a defined acceptable level of safety. It
is important that the generally good state-of-geotechnical practice in Canada (which may vary
from one part of the country to another) not be impeded or restricted.
Background
A major petroleum company informed the author a couple of years ago that since the mandatory
implementation of LRFD codes, such as the 2006 Alberta Building Code (based on the NBCC),
foundation costs have increased in the order of 15% to 20%. This observation is contrary to the
intent of LRFD to have a greater degree of design approach harmony between structural and
geotechnical engineers, and greater efficiency in design and construction costs. Furthermore,
based on calibration work to derive geotechnical resistance factors, LFRD designs should be
similar to those produced by traditional allowable or working stress design. But this does not
seem to be the case. Why?
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
In the author’s experience and opinion, a primary cause of increased foundation costs is the
inappropriate selection of characteristic value as discussed in earlier sections of this paper. In
summary, most practitioners tend to stay with the procedure and basis of selecting design values
such as strength as they did when using allowable (working) stress design. In many cases they
would tend to select characteristic strength values (profiles) closer to lower bounds than the
mean value or a cautious estimate of the mean. When a lower bound strength is used, an
additional level of conservatism enters into the design, which tends to increase costs. As
discussed previously in this paper, the geotechnical resistance factors listed in the NBCC and
CHBDC are based on characteristic values that are close to the mean.
The owner’s experience is also that most practitioners say that they must follow the code and use
the geotechnical resistance factors provided in the code. The NBCC does not include the
geotechnical resistance factors within the code (legally binding) portion of the document. The
factors are provided in the Commentary to the code (not legally binding) with reference to the
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM 2006). The language (provisions) in the
NBCC and CHBDC allows the engineer the freedom to be innovative. The codes permit the
engineer to develop project and site specific values of reliability index and load and resistance
factors, based on sound engineering principles and fundamental theoretical considerations.
However, the development of project and site specific criteria requires a reasonably significant
effort in terms of resources (schedule and cost). In many cases, there is not enough economic
incentive to do this because there is insufficient cost savings to justify the effort. For large
projects, however, substantial cost savings can be realized, thereby justifying the investment.
While staying within the intent of codes, there is an opportunity to increase the values of
geotechnical resistance factors provided that: (i) site-specific geotechnical uncertainties are
characterized; (ii) reliability of the geotechnical prediction method is quantified; and (iii) the
target reliability index is rationally selected and meets the intent of the codes. The selection of a
suitable project specific target reliability index is ultimately the responsibility of the owner,
though the consultant’s role and contributions are important.
The following case record shows the key elements of how project and site specific values can be
developed within the framework of reliability based design and within the intent of the NBCC.
The details of the development of project and site specific reliability index and geotechnical
resistance factors are provided in Thomson et al. (2016) and (2017). The following discussion
provides a summary of that work.
Bitumen Processing Facility
A proposed bitumen processing facility in Northern Alberta includes many low to no occupancy
structures that support pipe racks and processing units, and provide protection to pumps and
other mechanical/electrical components. Several thousand steel piles will be driven during
construction of the facility. The owner put the challenge to the geotechnical consultant to provide
foundation design recommendations that comply with code requirements and result in
constructed foundations that are cost effective to the fullest extent practicable.
Values for reliability index and associated geotechnical resistance factors for design of structures
are given in applicable codes (e.g., NBCC). However, the use of the building code may not be
strictly applicable to structures with limited to no occupancy that do not satisfy the definition of
building or do not have high failure consequence should they not perform as expected. The
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
reliability for such structures can be lower than that normally used in building codes. The direct
use of geotechnical resistance factors identified in a building code in such circumstances would
tend to produce a foundation design that is too conservative and expensive.
The ground conditions at the site comprised sandy silty clay till containing dense to very dense
sand and silty sand interlayers. The till was cohesive with intermediate plasticity, varied from
firm to hard and contained varying proportions of sand and gravel. The geotechnical
investigation included 23 sampled boreholes, 41 cone penetration tests with pore pressure
measurement (CPTs), and a laboratory index, shear strength and stress-deformation testing
program. Groundwater monitoring instrumentation was also installed.
In addition to the reasonably comprehensive site investigation program, a static compression pile
load test program consisting of five tests was carried out in conformance with ASTM D1143 as
part of design to develop site-specific geotechnical resistance factors. The test and reaction piles
had diameter of 324 mm and 406 mm with wall thicknesses of 9.5 mm and 12.7 mm,
respectively. The piles were driven open-ended using a hydraulic hammer. Pile embedment
lengths were pre-selected to vary between 13 m and 18 m. High strain dynamic testing was
completed at end of initial drive and beginning of restrike on all test and reaction piles using a
Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) in conformance with ASTM D4945, followed by Case Pile Wave
Analysis Program (CAPWAP) assessment of selected hammer blows.
Inherent (spatial) uncertainty was quantified by predicting the geotechnical axial compression
resistance of piles with various diameters and lengths at each individual boring and CPT
investigation location within the site. The geotechnical resistance was predicted with methods
commonly used in Canadian practice (e.g., unit shaft resistance estimated as a proportion of soil
undrained shear (CFEM 2006)). A typical frequency distribution of predicted geotechnical
resistance is shown in Figure 9 for a 406 mm diameter pile with a 15 m embedment length.
Comparison between predicted geotechnical axial compression resistance and measured axial
compression resistance showed a bias factor (measured/predicted) ranging from 0.80 to 1.64,
with a mean value of 1.16 and coefficient of variation of 0.18.
Figure 9. Distribution of predicted geotechnical axial compression resistance of pile

(Thomson et al. 2016).
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
Assuming that the sources of uncertainty are statistically independent, the overall coefficient of
variation (V ) was calculated as (FHWA 2001):
V = V +V +V [12]
where Vinh, Vmeas and Vpred are the coefficients of variation for inherent (geological/spatial),
measurement and prediction model uncertainty, respectively. The results of the work showed that
V was 0.16 (see Table 4), V was 0 (assumed) and Vpred was 0.18. The resulting value of
Vr was 0.24.
Table 4. Inherent (spatial) uncertainty parameters (from Thomson et al. 2016).
Predicted Mean Standard
Pile Diameter Embedment Length
Resistance Deviation
(mm) (m)
(kN) (kN)
13 2,190 378 0.17
406 15 2,520 448 0.18
17 2,722 406 0.15
13 1,689 261 0.16
324 15 1,948 311 0.16
17 2,122 295 0.14
After geotechnical uncertainty had been quantified, appropriate target reliability indices were
developed by the consultant in consultation with the owner, with consideration of project risks
and redundancy in pile groups. The owner selected values of reliability index, β, ranging from
2.0 to 3.5, depending on the importance category of the structure and pile redundancy
considerations.
For the calculation of geotechnical resistance factors, the FOSM Equation [9] was used for the
selected β values, with kr (bias factor) = 1.16, Vr = 0.24, and = 0.75. The resulting geotechnical
resistance factors vary from 0.62 to 0.81 as shown in Table 5.
NBCC 2010 suggests a geotechnical resistance factor of 0.6 for analysis of deep foundations
using static load test results. The site specific geotechnical resistance factors in Table 5 are
greater than the values suggested in NBCC 2010 as a result of the site specific assessment of
geotechnical uncertainty, combined with project specific decisions on appropriate target
reliability indices. The geotechnical resistance factors in Table 5 are specific to the site and are
also tied to the geotechnical prediction method that was used, which is incorporated into
resistance bias factor using the high strain dynamic and static pile load test results. Different
prediction methods, or different methods of selecting the characteristic values, would likely
result in different geotechnical resistance factors being derived.
It was estimated by the owner that applying the results of this study would decrease the
foundation construction costs for this project by 40% and save millions of dollars.
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
Table 5. Site-specific geotechnical resistance factors (Thomson et al. 2016).

Structure Redundancy Target Reliability Geotechnical
Importance Category Category Index Resistance Factor
Normal Redundant 2.0 0.81
Normal Non-Redundant 3.0 0.68
Post-Disaster Redundant 2.5 0.74
Post-Disaster Non-Redundant 3.5 0.62

Lesson Learned: The success of this project is the direct result of close collaboration between
the geotechnical consultant and the owner. This study would not have been carried out without
the owner appreciating and understanding the fundamental relationship between tolerable project
risks, geotechnical resistance factors and project construction costs. This case history
demonstrates that value and enhanced effective risk management can be added to a project
through close collaboration between the owner and their consultant.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
From a Canadian geotechnical practitioner’s perspective, the author is of the opinion that
primary factors leading to existing implementation issues and challenges of reliability based
design (LRFD) concepts include the following:
(1) There appears to be a general lack of understanding, communication, education and training
concerning the fundamental principles and intent of LRFD. For consistent and rational design in
practice, the selection of a characteristic value for geotechnical resistance needs to be made in
the same manner as that used to derive the associated resistance factor. Geotechnical
practitioners frequently do not appear to fully understand or comply with this requirement. The
geotechnical resistance factors were derived using a characteristic value that is close to the mean
value; therefore, a characteristic value of a geotechnical property that is similarly close to the
mean should be used in the calculation of geotechnical resistance. A value closer to the lower
bound value should not be used because the uncertainty associated with a given design parameter
has already been incorporated into the numerical value of the resistance factors. Should a value
closer to the lower bound strength be chosen, the design can result in foundations with an
inadvertent high degree of conservatism, which leads to more costly foundations than necessary.
(2) A greater degree of design interaction needs to exist between structural and geotechnical
engineers. A higher degree of interaction is both positive and beneficial to the interest of the
designs and of the project. Engineers are generally not adverse to a higher degree of interaction;
in fact they commonly strive to achieve it. However, frequently the project and/or the client do
not appreciate the benefits of increased interaction or the stage of the project is not conducive to
such interaction, in particular during early project stages when specific details are generally
unknown. To promote this interaction, Canadian codes require effective interaction between
structural and geotechnical engineers during design and construction stages of projects.
(3) Education as to the benefits and fundamental principles of LRFD continues to be limited and
appears to be a low priority of the Canadian geotechnical community. Universities, provincial
jurisdictions, learned societies and other agencies need to put a higher priority to promoting and
disseminating the understanding of fundamental principles and components of reliability based
design (LRFD) concepts to foundations and geotechnical systems. It is essential that the
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
fundamental principles be properly understood and embraced by geotechnical engineers if LRFD

for foundations and geotechnical systems is to be implemented successfully and to realize its
benefits over that of allowable (working) stress design.
(4) Reliability based design and the application of statistics and probability concepts are not
meant to be a substitute for good understanding of geology, geological processes, fundamental
ground behaviour, loading conditions and failure mechanisms, and engineering judgement and
experience.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author acknowledges the support of Golder Associates Ltd. and the contributions of his
colleagues who worked on the projects and case records mentioned and described in this paper,
in particular Drs. Peter Thomson, Paul Dittrich and Graeme Skinner who reviewed the paper and
provided valuable and insightful comments and suggestions. Special thanks are also extended to
Ms. Sarah Bungay, Dr. Masoumeh Saiyar and Mr. Bob McDonald who assisted in the
preparation of this paper. The thoughtful review comments of Dr. Gordon Fenton are also greatly
appreciated and valued.
REFERENCES
Bathurst, R.J., Huang, B. and Allen, T.M. 2012. LRFD calibration of the ultimate pullout limit
state for geogrid reinforced soil retaining walls. ASCE International Journal of
Geomechanics, Special Issue on Geosynthetics 12(4): 399-413.
Becker, D.E. 1996a. The Eighteenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Limit States Design for
Foundations I. An overview of the foundation design process, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 33, No. 6, 956-983.
Becker, D.E. 1996b. The Eighteenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Limit States Design
for Foundations II. Development for the National Building Code of Canada, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33, No. 6, 984-1007.
Becker, D.E. 2006. Limit States Design Based Codes for Geotechnical Aspects of Foundations in
Canada. International Symposium on New Generation Design Codes for Geotechnical
Engineering Practice, Taipei, Taiwan. November 2 and 3, 2006.
Becker, D.E., Crooks, J.H. and Been, K. 1988. Interpretation of the Field Vane Test in Terms of
In-Situ and Yield Stresses in Vane Shear Strength Testing in Soils, Field and Laboratory
Studies, Richards, A.F, Editor, ASTM. pp. 71-87.
Becker, D.E., Crooks, J.H.A., Jefferies, M.G. and McKenzie, K.J. 1984. Yield behaviour and
consolidation, Part 2: strength gain. Proceedings ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division
Symposium on Sedimentation and consolidation models: predictions and validation, Ed.
Young & Townsend, pp. 382-398.
Bjerrum, L. 1972. Embankment on soft ground. Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference
on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures. Purdue University, USA, 2: 1.54.
Canadian Geotechnical Society. 2006. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM) 4th
edition. Edited by D. Becker and I. Moore. BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, BC.
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017
CHBDC – Canadian Standards Association. 2000. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code – A
National Standard of Canada. CAN/CSA Standard S6-00.
CHBDC – Canadian Standards Association. 2014. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code – A
National Standard of Canada. CAN/CSA Standard S6-14.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2001. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
for Highway Bridge Substructures: Reference Manual and Participant Workbook.
Publication No. FHWA HI-98-032.

Fenton, G.A., Naghibi, F., Dundas, D., Bathurst, R. J. and Griffiths, D. V. 2016. Reliability-
based geotechnical design in the 2014 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 53(2): 236 - 251.
Lo, K.Y. 1970. The operational strength of fissured clays. Geotechnique 20, No. 1, 57 - 74.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1970. Safety factors in soil mechanics. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 7: 349 -
355.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1995. Development of geotechnical limit state design. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 32: 128 - 136.
NBCC - National Research Council of Canada. 2005. National Building Code of Canada
(NBCC) Volumes 1 and 2. 12th Edition 2005, Ottawa, Canada.
Phoon, K.K., Becker, D.E., Kulhawy, F.H., Honjo, V., Ovesen, N.K. and Lo, S.R. 2003. Why
consider reliability analysis for geotechnical limit state design. Proceedings of LSD 2003:
International Workshop on Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering Practice,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. June 26, 2003.
Thomson, P., Becker, D. E., Esposito, G. and Wright, J. 2016. Reliability-based calibration of
geotechnical resistance factors for a large industrial project. Proceedings of Geo-Vancouver,
69th Canadian Geotechnical Society Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, October 2 -
5, 2016.
Thomson, P., Becker, D. E., Esposito, G. and Wright, J. 2017. Site-Specific Geotechnical
Resistance Factors for a Large Industrial Project in Canada. Proceedings of ASCE Geo-Risk
2017 Conference: Geotechnical Risk from Theory to Practice, Denver, Colorado, June 4 - 6,
2017.
© ASCE
Geo-Risk 2017

Geotechnical Risk Management and Reliability Based Design-Lessons Learned

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Risk Management and Reliability Based Design-Lessons Learned

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Risk Management and Reliability Based Design-Lessons Learned

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geo-Risk 2017 GSP 282 98

Geotechnical Risk Management and Reliability Based Design—Lessons Learned

Effective management of geotechnical risk is a requirement for successful geotechnical

engineers. Prior to mandatory implementation of a geotechnical LRFD approach (e.g., CHBDC

Figure 1. Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) (Becker 1996).

USE OF STATISTICAL METHODS

parameters is recommended. Geotechnical engineering practitioners need to better embrace these

Figure 2. The normal probability distribution curve.

Figure 3. Uplift on a pile due to frost action.

Figure 5. Histogram and normal distribution – frost depth, Calgary, Alberta.

Figure 6. Illustration of zone of influence for characteristic value assessment.

Linear Infrastructure Projects

Figure 7. Spatial variability effects of linear projects on selection of characteristic value.

characteristic values defined for the alignment.

degree of understanding (Ф = 0.65), the required FS from a geotechnical limit equilibrium

Table 2. Comparison of peak and residual friction angles.

Table 3. Summary of relationship between geotechnical resistance factor and FS.

2.3 0.20 0.71 1.41 - -

Figure 9. Distribution of predicted geotechnical axial compression resistance of pile

Table 5. Site-specific geotechnical resistance factors (Thomson et al. 2016).

Post-Disaster Non-Redundant 3.5 0.62

fundamental principles be properly understood and embraced by geotechnical engineers if LRFD

Publication No. FHWA HI-98-032.

You might also like