11th Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP) International Convention Manila, Philippines, May 20-21, 2005

Invited Keynote Lecture

Limit States Design for Geotechnical Engineering: A Canadian Perspective
Marolo C. Alfaro, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Associate Professor, University of Manitoba, Canada Visiting Professor, Institute of Lowland Technology, Japan g , gy, p

Dennis E. Becker, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Principal, Golder Associates Ltd., Canada President, President Canadian Geotechnical Society

Outline of Presentation
Geotechnical Design Process for Foundations Development of LSD in Canada
Limit States Design: Why Use? Codes of Practice Factored Strength vs. Factored Resistance Approach

Fundamental Principles
Limit States Design: What are they? Design Criteria Role of Codes

Implementation Issues and Considerations
Geotechnical Design Methods Characteristic Value: What is it? Load and Resistance Factor Design for Ultimate Limit States Calibration of Load and Resistance Factors for Ultimate Limit States Serviceability Limit States Design Worked Example p

Concluding Remarks

Geotechnical Processes for Foundations

Limit States Design (LSD) in Canada Why Use Limit States Design (LSD)?
• LSD basis of structural design • Achieve consistent design approach between geotechnical and structural engineers for foundation design • Enhances effective communications • Provides rational framework for design and risk management of uncertainties • LSD for geotechnical aspects mandatory in Codes
• NBCC (2005), CHBDC (2000), CSA Offshore (1994)

• Ground-structure interaction vs. Geotechnical only applications

Limit States Design (LSD) in Canada Limit States Design Approaches (Ultimate Limit States)

• Only explicitly considers

strength is not the same as uncertainties associated with factored resistance based on strength parameters unfactored strength • Additional partial factors may be g required - resulting in a myriad • Recognizes that ø’ can be determined more reliably than c of partial factors and lose sense → more refined, sophisticated of real behaviour better accounting of uncertainty • Does not capture true mechanism of failure when failure is influenced by soil behaviour

• Resistance based on factored

Limit States Design (LSD) in Canada Limit States Design Approaches (Ultimate Limit States)

• Considers uncertainties in more

than just strength parameters, accounts also for method of site investigation, method of analysis and design (model errors) and inherent ground variability • Simple approach, similar in p global factor of concept to g safety (lumps uncertainty into single resistance factor)

• P id smoother t Provides th transition iti

from WSD to LSD. Allows engineer to work with “real” numbers (Rn) until the last step → Ф X Rn • Consistent in principle to structural resistance, e.g. LRFD

Fundamental Principles Limit States: What Are They?
• Limit states are conditions under which a
structure or its component members no longer t t it t b l perform its intended function or purpose • Limit states are based on things that go wrong and d not perform satisfactorily d do t f ti f t il • Whenever a structure or part of a structure fails to satisfy one of its intended performance criteria, it has reached a limit state it i h h d li it t t

Fundamental Principles Classes of Limit States
• ultimate limit state (ULS)
Transcona grain elevator, Manitoba T i l t M it b

• serviceability limit state (SLS)
The ‘Kissing Silos”, Manitoba

Fundamental Principles Ultimate Limit States
• collapse or rupture p p (e.g. bearing capacity of footings) • safety concerns • unforeseen overloads • things that are dangerous

Fundamental Principles Serviceability Limit States
• Things that affect function of structure
under expected service loads d t d i l d • Safety of structure not an issue • Settlement, deformations, vibrations, cracking • Things that make life difficult


Leaning Tower of Pisa, Italy

Fundamental Principles Design Criteria
Capacity ≥ p y Demand

[Resistance] ≥ [Loads] For an acceptable or required level of safety (usually specified or defined in Codes of Practice)

Fundamental Principles Role of Codes in Canada
• Codes do not tend to be prescriptive; they are • • • •
based on satisfying broad based objectives and b d ti f i b db d bj ti d performance criteria To obtain or ensure a specific level of technical quality lit Help to manage risk → safe, economical design Assist engineer to make ‘right’ decisions in a consistent, rational manner Engineers are given sufficient freedom and flexibility to do good engineering

Fundamental Principles Design Philosophies and Approaches
1) working stress design (WSD) 2) reliability-based design and probabilistic methods 3) limit states design ( ) g (LSD) )
Structural engineering




Difference between LSD in geotechnical engineering and LSD in structural engineering → uncertainties on loads and resistances

Fundamental Principles Limit States Design (LSD)
• Recognizes and considers
that diff h different d degrees of f uncertainty exist for each of the various loads, strengths and resistances • Uses separate partial factors of safety on loads and y material strengths • Better quantification of sources of uncertainty from loads and resistances

Fundamental Principles Limit States Design Methodology
• Identify all potential “failure” modes y p (limit states)
• failure → unsatisfactory performance

• Check each limit state identified • Demonstrate that occurrence of each limit states is unlikely or within acceptable levels of safety • Explicit distinction between collapse (safety) and deformation (serviceability)

Implementation Issues and Considerations Ultimate Limit States Design Criterion

Ф Rn > ∑ (αi Sni)

ΦRn = factored resistance = resistance factor (Ф) x nominal resistance (Rn) Rn based on characteristic strength Σ (αiSni) = factored loads = load factor (αi) x load component (Sni)

Implementation Issues and Considerations Characteristic Values – What Are They?
• Unfactored nominal values of properties/parameters • Engineer’s best assessment of the most likely representative values that control a specific limit state: • weak layer vs. overall ground mass • Take into account all factors that have influence on the parameter or i fl th t property for the volume of ground (zone of influence) under consideration

Look (think hard) what is in the ground! k ( hi k h d) h i i h d

Implementation Issues and Considerations Characteristic Values – What Are They?

• Selection is assisted by experience and engineering

judgement • A cautious estimate of the mean value for the affected volume of ground (zone of influence) is a logical value for use of characteristic value

Implementation Issues and Considerations Characteristic Values – What Are They?

• Characteristic values need to be consistently defined to be
compatible with magnitude of partial factors derived through calibration (i.e. if mean value used for calibration then the mean value should be used when selecting characteristic values for design)



Implementation Issues and Considerations Geotechnical Design Methods
• Many methods are used for obtaining and interpreting geotechnical data and for calculating geotechnical resistance • No standardization of procedures specified to select p p geotechnical parameters for design • guidance is provided by reference documents (e.g., CGS) • engineering judgment, conditioned by experience, is very judgment experience important • No attempt to establish preferred methods of calculating geotechnical resistance or settlement • Standardization would or may inhibit the freedom of a g o geotechnical engineer to do good engineering a g o g g

Implementation Issues and Considerations Derivation f G t h i l R i t D i ti of Geotechnical Resistance Factors F t
Geotechnical Resistance Factor


• Calibration fitting with WSD • Calibration using reliability theory • Does not ensure that different engineers will produce same design • depends on selection of characteristic value p • Does ensure that an engineer will produce similar design (e.g., footing width) whether using LSD or WSD

Implementation Issues and Considerations
Calibration by Fitting with WSD
Rn ≥ Sn FS L S D : Φ R n ≥ ∑ (a i S n i ) ∑ (a i S n i ) Φ = F S ∑ S ni W SD :

Typical Results of Code Calibration with Working Stress Design [Q/L=0.5 ; L=live load, D=dead load, Q=wind load]

Implementation Issues and Considerations
Calibration Using Reliability Theory

Φ = k R e −θβVR

Variation of Resistance Factor with Reliability Index, Index kR = 1 1 1.1

Implementation Issues and Considerations Reliability Index


1  kR  β= 1n θVR  Φ 



Relationship between FS, Ф and β For Bearing Capacity, kr = 1.1, Vr = 0.3

Implementation Issues and Considerations Resistance Factors – Ultimate Limit States - Foundations
Shallow Foundations: Bearing Resistance Horizontal Shear Resistance a) Calculated Based on tan φ' φ b) Calculated Based on c' or C 0.8 08 0.5 0.8 08 0.6 0.8 0.90 0 8 - 0 90 0.80 - 0.85
OHDC (1991) NBCC (1995) AASHTO (1991)



0.35 - 0.60

Deep Foundations (Axial Loads): Static Analysis – Compression Static Analysis – Tension Static Test, Compression Test Static Test, Tension Dynamic Test, Compression Field Measurements and Analysis M t dA l i Horizontal Load Resistance 0.4 0.3 0.6 06 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 06 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.35 - 0.70 0.35 - 0.60 0.80 0 80 0.80 0.70 -

Implementation Issues and Considerations Serviceability Limit States Design Criterion
• Movement (deformation) < serviceability limit • E Example: diff l differential settlement of footing not to ti l ttl t f f ti tt
exceed 15 mm; 25 mm for total settlement • Use unfactored characteristic values for various parameters (geotechnical resistance factor = 1.0)

• Important for structural engineers and geotechnical

engineers to interact and communicate on a project specific basis • Structural engineer should specify project requirements in terms of settlement and other serviceability criteria • If not provided with serviceability criteria geotechnical engineer should ask for it

Implementation Issues and Considerations Shallow Foundation on Sand: Sh ll F d ti S d
Problem: Provide geotechnical design recommendations for a 1.5 square footing embedded 1.5 m in a thick deposit of compact silty sand (N = 20) with a deep groundwater table. Settlement criterion for building is maximum total settlement of 25 mm. Solution 1: Geotechnical Resistance at ULS use classical bearing capacity equation (assume c’=o,φ=33º,γ = 19kN/m3)

Rn = 0.5γ ' BNγ Sγ + γDfNqSq

Rn = 0.5 x19 x1.5 x 24 x 0.6 + 19 x1.5 x 26 x1.67 = 1,440kPa
Factored Geotechnical Resistance at ULS (ФRn) = 0.5 x 1,440 = 720 kPa

Implementation Issues and Considerations Shallow Foundation on Sand (continued): Sh ll F d ti S d( ti d)
Problem: Provide geotechnical design recommendations for a 1.5 square footing embedded 1.5 m in a thick q g deposit of compact silty sand (N = 20) with a deep groundwater table. Settlement criterion for building is maximum total settlement of 25 mm. Solution 2: G t h i l Resistance (Reaction) at SLS S l ti 2 Geotechnical R i t (R ti ) t use elastic displacement equation (assume E = 0.5N → MPa)

q =

IB (1 − µ 2 )


q =

0 . 025 x 10 , 000 = 180 kPa 2 1 x 1 . 5 x (1 − 0 . 3 )

Geotechnical report to provide both numbers ULS → 720 kPa SLS → 180 kPa
Note: Peck design curves gives allowable bearing pressure of 220 kPa

Concluding Remarks
• Always keep in mind of systematically looking at different limit states using different factors for loads and resistances
• explicit distinction between safety and serviceability.

• Important to have consistent definitions for characteristic values of loads and resistances
• if mean value was used in calibration to determine magnitudes of factors, then a mean value should be used for selecting characteristic values for design.

• LSD enhances and encourages communication between geotechnical and structural engineers t h i l d t t l i
• learn from Canadian experience on retaining wall design.

• Universities and learned societies need to be promoting and disseminating the understanding of fundamental principles and components of LSD for geotechnical engineering

University of Manitoba, Winnipeg

Dr. Marolo C. Alfaro, P.Eng. Department of Civil Engineering University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada alfarom@cc.umanitoba.ca

Thank you very much

Dr. Dennis E. Becker, P.Eng. Golder Associates Ltd. Calgary, Alberta, Canada dennis_becker@golder.com

Calgary, Alberta