Fulcrum The Newsletter of the Deep Foundations Institute Summer 2002

RELIABILITY CONCEPTS IN LRFD DESIGN – OR WHAT IS A REASONABLE

FACTOR OF SAFETY?

by Julian Seidel, Foundation QA, Melbourne, Australia.

Summary

The subject of reliability concepts in Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) would seem to be a pretty dry subject –
perhaps the domain of academics and code writers – and it is. But it is also a subject which has very real and practical
implications for all foundation projects. There are many projects in which achieving the specified factor of safety can
cause major difficulties, and allowing some rational evaluation of the design requirements and some flexibility in the
application of acceptance criteria might be very helpful to the progress of the contract. This paper presents some of
the author’s current thoughts on the application of reliability principles to foundation acceptance. The paper is
developed around the LRFD approach, however as will be shown, the conversion between LRFD load and resistance
factors and global factor of safety is simple and direct.

BACKGROUND: the dead, live, wind and other environmental loads to

Traditional Codes of Practice in foundation engineering
have been based on a global factor of safety, and this
approach is still in common use in some jurisdictions.
Using this approach, the designer specifies a working
load, F, for each foundation element (e.g. driven pile,
drilled shaft). The contractor is required to install each
element to a capacity, R, which provides as a minimum
the specified factor of safety, SF. We could write this
mathematically as :
SF x F ≤ R (1)
which the structure will be subjected during its entire
lifetime. Some of these loads can be quite confidently
predicted, other loads can only be estimated with a wide
margin of error. Furthermore, the designer assumes a
certain structural action and foundation stiffness in order
to compute the individual foundation loads – again
fertile ground for uncertainty. The reported intensive
monitoring of structures in the Netherlands and in
Switzerland has shown surprisingly that daily thermal
effects, which were ignored in design can induce larger
stresses in structures than the assumed critical design
case!

Why do we need a factor of safety, and what is the
appropriate value? Simply, we need to ensure that there
will be a sufficient excess of capacity above the applied
loads, so that there is no risk of failure. Furthermore,
requiring a minimum factor of safety probably has a
secondary consequence of achieving satisfactory
deflection performance at working load.
To be honest, we should refer to the factor of safety as
the factor of ignorance - in dealing at the interface
between structures and nature there is much of which we
are ignorant. As practitioners in the exciting art of
foundation engineering, this is both our privilege, and
the cross we must bear.
Of what then are we ignorant? First, the designer has
provided us with design loads based on an estimation of
So far we are still above ground, dealing with
uncertainty in applied loads. Below ground there is
even greater uncertainty. First, we must deal with the
method of capacity estimation. This may be by
geotechnical design using one of the many design
methods presented in text books or technical papers.
These methods rely on input of appropriate strength
parameters determined from the site investigation. As
geotechnical design is predictive and generally empirical
or semi-empirical, it is associated with a large degree of
uncertainty. The results of a prediction exercise for a
recent pile load test in Singapore (Wong, 2002), show
the wide distribution of capacity predictions typical for
such predictions events (see Figure 1). Most predictions
in this case were conservative, however, this cannot be
assumed as a general rule.

1
Fulcrum
350 0
300 0
Pile Ca pci ty (kN)
250 0
200 0
Fa ilure Lo ad = 18 06 kN
150 0
100 0
50 0
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 1 3 1 5 1 7 19 21 23 25 27 2 9 31 33
Figure 1 – individual capacity predictions from
pile prediction exercise
It will be appreciated that the quality of the design
prediction will also depend heavily on the extent and
quality of the site investigation, field and laboratory
testing programs. Sadly, in many countries the quality
of site investigations is being compromised by
commercial pressures. Ultimately the cost to the project
can be many times larger than the savings that have
apparently been made.
Coming from the design office to the site, there are
uncertainities associated with the variability of the
ground conditions; uncertainties with the performance of
the installation equipment (e.g. hammer efficiency or
drilling torque) and uncertainties relating to the
knowledge, skill and daily performance of the site crew.
Because of these site-related uncertainties, the
geotechnical design should be followed-up by testing of
the foundation during construction. Testing may be as
simple as measuring the set and rebound for driven piles
in order to derive an estimated capacity using
Engineering News or other driving formula. Although
the predictions of driving formulae may have a high
level of uncertainty, they have the particular advantage
of being very extensive – i.e. they can be applied to
every driven pile on site.
Other more reliable methods, such as dynamic pile
testing (with Case or wave equation analysis), Rapid
Load Testing, static load testing, or bi-directional load
testing, can and should be used to verify capacity. Each
of these methods has its advantages and disadvantages,
which the engineer should understand. Taking these into
account, the engineer may choose to use only one of
these methods, or a combination of test methods on the
site. Each method has an associated reliability, even
static load testing. Fellenius (1980, 2002) has written
extensively on some of the difficulties of interpretation
of static pile load tests.
The Newsletter of the Deep Foundations Institute Summer 2002
So we can see that the global factor of safety (or
ignorance) encompasses a vast array of uncertainities on
both the load and the resistance sides of Equation (1).
More recent foundation design code practice has been to
adopt a limit state approach, in which uncertainty
associated with the loads is explicitly included in a load
factor (ψ) greater than 1, and uncertainties associated
with determination of capacity are incorporated into a
P a rti ci pa nts resistance factor (φ) less than 1. The limit state or
LRFD approach then requires that the factored up loads
must always be less than the factored-down resistance.
Put mathematically, this is :
ψF ≤ φR (2)
It is clear from comparison of Equations (1) and (2) that
the global factor of safety is related to the load and
resistance factors as follows :
FS = ψ / φ (3)
Different state, national and international codes prescribe
different load factors, and different sets of resistance
factors for the range of capacity determination methods.
Typically single values of load or resistance factor are
prescribed, although the Australian Piling Code (1995)
provides ranges of load factors, and guidelines to assist
with the appropriate choice of resistance factor. Selected
resistance factors are shown in Table 1, together with the
cases for which the minimum or maximum range would
be indicated. Goble (2000) discusses and compares the
LRFD factors from a wide range of codes of practice.
2. STATISTICAL APPROACH
A number of researchers have proposed statistical
methods for evaluation of a reliability approach to
determining a resistance factor. From the previous
discussion, it should be clear that the reliability of a
capacity estimate depends on many factors, and that
rather than being single-valued, the resistance factor
should more properly reflect the features of that
estimate. This is done in a semi-quantitive sense in the
Australian Piling Code, but a more rigorous statistically-
based approach could also be considered. The challenge
is to develop this in a way which can be simply
implemented in the profession.
The author has developed a simple statistically-based
approach which can be implemented to evaluate the
effect of ground variability, contract size and number of
tests performed. The other factor that this analysis takes
into account is the consequence of failure. Intuitively,
2
Fulcrum The Newsletter of the Deep Foundations Institute Summer 2002

Table 1
Factors affecting choice of resistance factor (extracted and summarized from the Australian Piling Code)

Aspect of Design or Verification φ min φ max Case for φ min Case for φ max
Site investigation - - limited comprehensive
Static design calculation (CPT based) 0.45 0.65 simple sophisticated
Static design calculation (SPT based) 0.40 0.55 simple sophisticated
Properties chosen - - average conservative
Correlations used - - published site-specific
Construction control - - limited careful
Dynamic pile testing with signal match 0.65 0.85 <3% tested >15% tested
Dynamic pile testing no signal match 0.50 0.70 <3% tested >15% tested
Static testing 0.70 0.90 <1% tested >3% tested

the capacity reduction factor should be lower if the implemented in a spreadsheet in order to establish a
consequences of failure are higher. statistically-based capacity reduction factor.

In statistics, the student t-distribution determines the
confidence that a given limited sample of n pile capacity
tests with sample mean m and standard deviation s is
representative of all N piles on a site with mean capacity
µ and standard deviation σ.
tn-1,α = m - µ (4)
s /√ n
where for instance α=0.005 for a 99.5% confidence
limit. A normal distribution is assumed. For this
analysis, an assumption is made that the standard
deviation of the sample is a reliable estimate of the
standard deviation of all the piles.
An intrinsic reduction factor, φi is defined for each
method of estimating pile capacity. Paikowsky (2001) is
undertaking a study of a wide range of pile capacity
estimation methods in order to propose intrinsic
reliability factors on the basis of statistical analysis.
This intrinsic reduction factor is the maximum reduction
factor that could be adopted for that method when every
pile is tested. (n = N).
When only a sample of piles are tested, the net reduction
factor, φr will be less than φi. The value of φr can be
computed as follows:
k.tN-1,α
1+
√ N (1 - k.z1- α ) (5)
φr = φi
k.tn-1,α
1+
√ n (1 - k.z1- α )
This approach has been adopted on a number of projects
to establish the relationship between the number of tests
and capacity requirement.
This concept of “rewarding” the project by allowing a
reduction in capacity requirements for increased or
higher order testing makes good technical and economic
sense. The cost reductions available to the contract
through increased testing can often far outweigh the
costs of testing, especially for cost-effective techniques
such as pile driving analyzer (PDA) testing. The use of
a limited number of static load tests on a project may
give the engineer a good feeling about the construction
technique, but it can be seen from the graphs shown in
the next section, that it does not provide a high reliability
in a statistical sense. PDA testing really offers engineers
for the first time a statistically significant method of
establishing the reliability of the whole foundation.
The coefficient of variation is a measure of the
variability of soils. Typical values quoted in the
literature vary from 0.10 (low variability) to 0.35 (high
variaibility). The coefficient of variability governs the
confidence with which individual results can be
extrapolated to the whole site. Although the coefficient
of variation can be ‘guessed’ from typical values, or
estimated based on the results of the site investigation, it
is preferable to get site-specific estimates which can be
based on test results (e.g. SPT-N, blow counts or pile test
results).
3. RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.

where, k is the coefficient of variation σ/µ. Despite the As noted previously, this method can easily be
apparent complexity of this expression, it can easily be incorporated in a spreadsheet analysis. Interested
persons can download a spreadsheet which implements

3
Fulcrum The Newsletter of the Deep Foundations Institute Summer 2002

this procedure at the following web site k = 0.10, α = 0.005

www.foundationqa.com. 1.0
0.9
0.8
The following graphs show the ratio η = φr / φi. as a 0.7
function of the percentage of piles tested. Figures 2, 3 0.6 25

and 4 are for (k = 0.25, α = 0.025), (k = 0.25, α = 0.005) η 0.5

50
100
and (k = 0.10, α = 0.005) respectively. Each plot shows 0.4
0.3
200

the variation of η for sites with total pile counts of 0.2

500

between 25 and 500. The curves show that in all cases, 0.1

for 100% of piles tested, η = 1, and therefore, φr = φi as 0.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
discussed previously. % piles tested

Figure 4 – variation of resistance factor multiplier η with

It is also clear from the graphs that for low percentages % piles tested for k = 0.10, α = 0.025
of piles tested, η is very low, suggesting that small
numbers of tests do not provide validation of the entire
foundation in a statistical sense. With increasing CONCLUSIONS
numbers of piles tested, η increases rapidly, but at a
progressively decreasing rate – i.e. in accordance with a Capacity reduction factors, or factors of safety, are
law of diminishing return. Depending on the particular generally presented in codes of practice, and in
coefficient of variation, confidence level and number of specifications as fixed numbers, not to be negotiated.
piles, testing 10 to 20% of piles seems to be a reasonable The author contends that factors of safety should not be
level of testing beyond which further testing may be immutable, but rather that they be rationally developed,
difficult to justify economically. taking into consideration the method of capacity
estimation, the variability of ground conditions (and/or
k = 0.25, α = 0.025 construction technique), the size of the project, the
1.0
number of piles to be tested, and the importance of the
0.9
0.8
structure. Such an approach has the potential to promote
0.7 the use of greater amounts of high-order testing, as it
0.6 25
would increase the resistance factor which could be
50
η 0.5
100
adopted, reducing foundation costs. In addition, project
0.4
0.3
200 problems could in some cases be resolved by providing a
0.2
500
rational basis for reducing the required capacity to be
0.1 demonstrated. Further discussion and debate of this
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
issue is welcomed.
% piles tested

Figure 2 – variation of resistance factor multiplier η with REFERENCES

% piles tested for k = 0.25, α = 0.025
Australian Piling Code (1995). AS2159-1995.
k = 0.25, α = 0.005 Standards Australia. ISBN 0 7262 9884 0
1.0 Fellenius, B.H. (1980). The analysis of results from
0.9
routine loading tests. Ground Engineering, London. Vol
0.8
0.7
13. No. 6 : 19 – 31.
0.6 25 Fellenius, B.H. (2002). Determining the true
η 0.5
75
150
distributions of load in instrumented piles. ASCE
0.4
300 International Deep Foundation Congress, Orlando,
0.3
0.2
500 Florida, Feb. 2002.
0.1 Goble, G.G. (2000) - Synthesis 276 for National
0.0 Cooperative Highway Research Board (TRB)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
% piles tested
70 80 90 100
Paikowsky (2001). NCHRB 24-17 funded study
“LRFD Deep Foundation Design”. AASHTO 2001.
Figure 3 – variation of resistance factor multiplier η with
Wong, K.S (2002). Private communication.
% piles tested for k = 0.25, α = 0.005

4
Fulcrum The Newsletter of the Deep Foundations Institute Summer 2002