CIV

E 489 Limit State Design 1

Limit State Design (CFEM - Chapter 8)

Limit States
Limit states are defined as the conditions at which a structure (i.e. a foundation or retaining wall)
no longer performs its intended purpose. A limit state can be considered as a "threshold"
condition that, when reached, results in unsatisfactory performance.

Two main types of limit states:

• Ultimate limit states (ULS)

• Serviceability limit states (SLS)

Ultimate Limit States (ULS): are those conditions under which the structure can collapse. The
focus is on the potential collapse mechanisms of the structure being designed. ULS is related to
the structure safety. ULS in geotechnical design deals with:

• Exceeding the ultimate bearing capacity,

• Sliding,
• Uplift,
• Overturning, etc.

CIV E 489 Limit State Design 2

Serviceability Limit States (SLS): are those conditions related to the functionality of the
designed structure. When these thresholds are reached or exceeded, the structure can stop
serving its intended purpose and its functionality might be hindered or interrupted. SLS in
geotechnical design deals with:

• Excessive settlements,
• Excessive lateral deformations (i.e. for retaining walls and slopes),
• Cracking,
• Excessive heave,
• Local damage and deterioration, etc.

Unlike ULS, SLS is concerned with conditions that can lead to the design malfunction but not
necessarily dangerous.

Limit State Design (LSD):

LSD involves the following:

• Identification of all potential limit states (failure or unsatisfactory performance).

• Each state is then considered separately through the design process (Settlement
calculations, bearing capacities, overturning analyses, etc.).
• ULS conditions are checked using partial factors on the expected applied loads and partial
factors on the soil estimated nominal (ultimate) resistance.
• SLS conditions are checked for the un-factored service loads and soil properties.
• Design is modified if any limit state is being exceeded.

Two approaches are commonly adopted, depending on the context (EU and North America):

CIV E 489 Limit State Design 3

Which of the two approaches is considered "stronger" (more practical, representative, etc.) is still
a matter of debate. In this course we will adopt the North American approach, or "Factored
Resistance Approach" given in the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual:

Ф Rn > ∑ (αi Sni)

where:

Ф is the resistance factor,

Rn is the un-factored soil resistance (i.e. ultimate bearing pressure),
αi is the load factor for load "Sni",
Sni is the load or load effect.

It can readily be seen that unlike the Factor of Safety (FS = ultimate soil resistance / applied
loads), the LSD approach adopts partial factors for each load and soil resistance, separately.

This is more consistent with the approaches adopted for structural design and provides a
common framework for geotechnical - structural design (i.e. design of foundations and retaining
structures where both soil and structure solicitations and responses are intimately related).

CIV E 489 Limit State Design 4

Can. Geotech. J. 53: 236–251 (2016) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2015-0158


CIV E 489 Limit State Design 5

Can. Geotech. J. 53: 236–251 (2016) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2015-0158

νc is the coefficient of variation of cohesion


CIV E 489 Limit State Design 6

Representative (Characteristic) Geotechnical Parameters

In limit states design (LRFD) format, the geotechnical engineer can continue to select
representative (characteristic) geotechnical parameters based on the results of appropriate
investigations (field and laboratory). Representative in this sense refers to the geotechnical
engineer’s best estimate of the likely values of parameters required for design. The selection of
the characteristic value, for a given design situation, should appropriately take into account all
factors that have influence on the parameter or property for the volume of ground (zone of
influence) under consideration. The selection of appropriate characteristic values is assisted by
engineering judgement and experience.

In addition and as mentioned above, the geotechnical engineer should be cognizant of the
interrelationship between resistance and load factors and characteristic value when selecting the
numerical value of the characteristic geotechnical parameters for design purposes. The mean or
a cautious estimate of the mean value for the affected volume of ground (zone of influence) is
generally considered to be appropriate for the characteristic value and the basis of the
load/resistance factors derivation (calibration).

CIV E 489 Limit State Design 7

ULS Resistance Factors:

(Becker 2004)

Type of Ultimate Limit State Resistance

Factor
1. Bearing Capacity
a. Sand
! Semi-empirical procedure using SPT data 0.45
! Semi-empirical procedure using CPT data 0.55
! Rational method
- using φ' estimated from SPT data 0.35
- using φ' estimated from CPT data 0.45
b. Clay
! Semi-empirical procedure using CPT data 0.50
! Rational method
- using shear strength measured in lab tests 0.60
- using shear strength measured in field vane tests 0.50
- using shear strength estimated from CPT 0.50
c. Rock
! Semi-empirical procedure 0.60

2. Sliding
a. Precast concrete placed on sand
- using φ' estimated from SPT data 0.90
- using φ' estimated from CPT data 0.90
b. Concrete cast in place on sand
- using φ' estimated from SPT data 0.80
- using φ' estimated from CPT data 0.80
c. Clay (where shear strength is less than 0.5 times normal pressure)
- using shear strength measured in lab tests 0.85
- using shear strength measured in field tests 0.85
- using shear strength estimated from CPT data 0.80
d. Clay (where the strength is greater than 0.5 times normal pressure) 0.85

(Becker 2004 after AASHTO 1991)


CIV E 489 Limit State Design 8

CFEM

CFEM

NOTE: Resistance factor for is increased from 0.4 to 0.6 for Piles (Compression) and Ground
Anchors (Tension) if in situ static tests (commonly called load tests) are carried out

CIV E 489 Limit State Design 9

ULS Load Factors:

Baikie 1998: Can. Geotech. J. 35:175-182.

SLS Resistance and Load Factors:

SLS is analysed considering the un-factored working loads and un-factored soil properties
(values considered representative for the soil parameters).

Note that SLS are important as they control the foundation design in many cases (i.e. excessive
settlements will compromise the functionality of the structure). In this sense, the structural
engineer should specify the project requirements in terms of settlement or other serviciability
criteria.

CIV E 489 Limit State Design 10

Shallow Footing Example:


CIV E 489 Limit State Design 11

Cast-in-place Pile Example:


CIV E 489 Limit State Design 12

CFEM 2006, p161


CIV E 489 Limit State Design 13

Undrained/Total Stress Approach

For Clays with Su > 100kPa (CFEM 2006, p266):

Drained/Effective Stress Approach

CFEM 2006, p263:

Pile Settlement (CFEM 2006, p280):