ALIYU ADAM MIKAIL

UM69444SCI78578

Civil Engineering
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

HONOLULU, HAWAII

October, 2023
1
General
There were credible records of heavy structures like towers, dams, roads,
fortifications etc. already in existence ever before geotechnical or geological engineering
became an established and formal discipline. The craft society of those days certainly
had ways of ensuring the stability of their structures during construction. Nevertheless
such undocumented principle and ideologies were not well studied and hence could not
form basis for developing analytical catalogue of varying geological material behaviors
under different loading and environmental conditions. This obviously hindered their
ability to learn more and improve on past experiences.

However, in 1925 scientific approach was launched by Karl Terzaghi (1883-1963)

and his team by applying the knowledge of physical science and engineering mechanics
to study the relative behaviors of geological materials under differently specified stress
characterization using mainly the principle of observation. This eventually gave birth to
a rational system of reference for the classification of soil, rock, observation and
experience. Since then, geotechnical engineering has undergone series of technological
transformation but certainly not at the same rate with structural and mechanical
engineering. The reason for this is obvious; it is easier to deal with a known scene of
specified condition than a vaguely known one whose condition is inferred from limited
knowledge of that of its representative.

Foundation design and constructions progressed in technological advancement to

the current geotechnical Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) which is more or
less an offshoot of some of the risk assessment and control techniques used in structural
engineering. Failure tendencies can now be managed consistently using well established
mathematical models like probability theory.

Generally, the refinement trend started from assuming quite conservative values
of design parameters where physically and financially feasible, and where not the design
2
is based on expected values or on certain conservative extension of expected values
which deviates from a reasonable estimate by an estimated amount. This method
requires a keen observation of the performance of the assumed parameters during the
facility construction and operation so as to develop an applicable and possible system of
corrections to the range of design parameters; this is known as observational method and
was recommended by Casagrande (1965) and Peck (1969) and was applied in Australian
Tunneling method (Einstein et al., 1996). Today, the geotechnical community has no
option but to base the treatment of uncertainties on reliability theory if it must fulfill the
requirements of regulatory/ legal bodies, financial management systems whose decisions
are based on probabilistic estimates of cost and benefits and the modern building codes
which are calibrated on reliability methods of risk assessment began to spill over into
geotechnical engineering partly due to the unprecedented records of dam failures
between 1900 to 1970. See table below:

Historical numbers of modern dam failures (Baecher and Christian),

Total Failure Rate (%)
Period of construction Middle brooks United States
1900 – 1910 1.2 5.0
1910 – 1920 0.6 5.0
1920 – 1930 0.4 3.5
1930 – 1940 0.2 1.0
1940 – 1950 0.4 0.7
1950 – 1960 - 0.6
1960 – 1970 - 0.4

The prominent involvement of the United States in risk assessment began after the
collapse of the Teton Dam in 1976. The energy and waste disposal crisis of early 1970s
forced the highly regulated industrial disciplines like nuclear power generation industries

3
into the development of offshore production facilities which requires the assessment of
the geotechnical performance of the sea beds with its attending uncertainties which were
quantified by and subjected to reliability treatment.

Preamble
The current design practice in Geotechnical Engineering has served a useful
purpose and has brought the community this far. However, it requires concerted
improvements to adequately complement the reliability based advancement in Structural
Engineering Designs. Emphasis seem to have been directed only towards assessment of
soil and rock properties, while little is done towards educating and directing the mindset
to the principle and basis for engineering judgment and decision making in substructure
design process.

The above statement is vindicated by the current practice in which there is a non-
uniform basis for the selection of very important design parameters. Choices of
representative values of soil parameters, calculation models, factors of safety etc. are
sometimes made discretely by different designers without following any known and
verifiable statistical or engineering procedure. It is a known fact that the design models
currently in use are sensitive to changes in most of the soil parameters, yet not much is
seen in the present system that caters for and incorporates the different processes of
determining the soil strength characteristics.

As much as absolute absence of intuitive deductions may not be advocated in

engineering designs, modes of selection of design data like resistance factors should be
closely based on and related to the statistics of the relevant physical data of the soil
structure, type and strength. Generally, because of the inherent complementary nature of
structural and geotechnical designs there is need to reduce the present significant
inconsistence in their design modes to an acceptable level by employing some or at least
similar but tested risk controlling techniques as a theoretical basis for both design and
4
analysis. With the current records of refinement in the determination of the tolerances of
structural members whose configuration, physical and geometric properties are very well
pre-determined, it is simply imperative that similar treatment be given to the design and
construction of substructures whose unknown conditions can only be inductively
inferred from limited observational procedures.

No approach in design procedures provide a perfect solution, but an effective

data-based and generally accepted method like the Reliability Based Design (RBD) and
Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methods widely used in structural and highway
engineering communities would manage the uncertainties and ambiguities in the data
acquisition, selection of design parameters, design methods and engineering judgments
in a more consistence way than current Allowable Stress Design (ASD) in geotechnical
engineering.

In addition, the presence of probability theory in geotechnical LRFD improves

and lifts its perspective from being the worst in approximation among all other
engineering practices to certain location in the domain of reliability designs. All
structures are built on soil and hence their reliability is substantially dependent on the
reliability of the soil and therefore similar emphasis need to be shifted towards all
processes involved in the determination and application of soil engineering properties in
designs.

Load Resistance Factor Design

Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) was first used to designate limit state
design (LSD) by American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). It was the main
subject of the proposal submitted by Ravindra and Galambos (1978) as a safety control
format for steel structures in US Codes which received consideration for publication in
the first edition of load and resistance factor design manual for steel construction
published in 1986.
5
 The code clearly defines the materials capacity as the resistance and aggregate
stress to be imposed on the structure as the load. Before the concept and publication of
LRFD in design codes, ASD method was quite popular in structural and geotechnical
communities. However, the design of concrete members below failure levels and the
inability of ASD method to address the variability in load magnitudes and configuration
led to the search for and evolution of an alternative method like LRFD. For instance, a
material like steel responds elastically to increments in force effects up to a yield point
where additional increments in loading result in failure usually termed as permanent or
plastic deformation. The use of ASD method in the structural design of such materials
made a great deal of sense since design can be safely made within the known elastic
range which of course is the safe region.

However, materials like concrete exhibit elastic qualities under compression to a

stress value that is about half (½) of its compressive strength. The implication of this is
that, the safe region of concrete ostensibly lies for below its compressive strength and it
is thus applied in design.

The multiple factors format in LRFD is primarily and carefully structured to

address inter alia the above weakness for both structural and geotechnical solutions.

The Origin of LRFD

Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) method in geotechnical engineering is
not entirely a new method of design. It is essentially a rationalization of the global factor
of safety into partial factors whose quantities and proper allocation are determined by
more reliable and sophisticated techniques that specifically address the prominent areas
of uncertainties and ambiguities in the substructure design process. There have been
many attempts in the recent past to develop LRFD for both structural and geotechnical
engineering communities by well-established agencies and individuals like National
Research Council of Canada (NRC 1995), Canadian Highway Bridge Design code 1-3
6
(CHBDC 2000), Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM 1992), etc. with
Hansen (1965) and AASHTO Bridge Code (AASHTO 2002) being the first and the most
recent known initiatives. Presently, more than two-third (2/3) of American State
Department of Transportation adopt LRFD methods in Bridge designs.

The term LRFD has its widest application and use in the United States, and it
refers to all techniques used in controlling limit states by the application of individual
factors collectively referred to as multi-factors format, and it may be equated with the
partial factor approach commonly used in Europe and LSD in Canada (Phoon, 2004).
The adoption of LRFD started in Canada and USA in a significant but rather relaxed
manner in which its application was permitted with the resistances factors provided in a
non-mandatory column of the users’ guide as seen in National Building Code of Canada
(NBCC) (1977). LRFD has addressed the age long problem of performance assessment
of some of the traditional safety factors often used in geotechnical designs and thus
making it possible to carry out designs within a predetermined safety margin. This in
turn has incorporated provision for cost consideration and control in the process, making
the model more attractive and desirable than the status – quo.

What is LRFD
The term Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) connote the design method
that distinguishes between and separate the treatment of uncertainties associated with the
determination of the load effects and the resistance of the load bearing soil. In the
traditional method of design, a single factor of safety is used to cater for both
uncertainties. The distinction made between the two in the LRFD method allows for
separate determination of each of the factors based on the statistics of their relevant
parameters.

The following terms of probability and uncertainties are used to work out on load
and resistance factor design:
7
1- Alaetory Uncertainty:
The term alaetory refers to those things which for the purpose of modeling or otherwise
are assumed to be caused by chance. This is associated with the inherent randomness of
natural processes manifesting as variability over time for phenomenon that take place at
single location (temporal variability) or as variability over space for phenomenon that
take place at different locations but at a single time (spatial variability) or as variability
over both time and space Baecher and Christian (2003).
2- Epistemic Uncertainty:
Epistemic uncertainty is simply knowledge of uncertainty. It relates to erroneous or
insufficient data about the end result of the physical phenomenon that form and modify
the geological materials in the ground. Epistemic uncertainty can be modeled from the
statistics of the field or laboratory measurements of soil parameters.
3- Priori Probability:
This is a probability or prediction of an outcome based purely on historical records of
events in the vicinity. It has little to do with the existing physical likelihood or even data.
It is usually not used in isolation, but combined with other likelihood on weights,
determined by the presence or absence of data.
The above uncertainties are provided for as much as humanly possible by the
application of multiple factors in the load or action called load factor and in the
resistance offered by soil or material called resistance factor. This goes beyond the mere
segregation and redistribution of the global factors of safety in engineering designs to a
more complex but reliable way of arriving at the right amount of factor to be applied to
the right quantity in the substructure designs.

Foundation Design
Foundation is defined as “the part of the substructure in contact with and
transmitting loads to the ground” (Tomlinson, 1983). Because of the importance of the
pressure bearing soil, geotechnical engineers consider foundation to include both the
8
substructure and the geological materials immediately interfacing it. The stability of any
superstructure depends largely on the stability of the stability of substructure and the
supporting soil.
Foundation are designed to support particular structures and therefore its
geotechnical and structural elements must be such that meet safety and serviceability of
requirements of the superstructure.
Foundation Types
The depth of embedment is used to categorize foundation into two main types,
that is; Shallow and Deep foundations. Shallow foundations are those whose depths are
not greater than its smallest dimension. Majority of residential building foundations fall
in this category though the definition cannot be strictly applied because of varying site
conditions. Deep foundations on the other are those whose depths below ground level
are greater than its smallest dimension; they are consciously designed either to support
heavy structures or to solve specific site problems, high rise buildings and bridge
foundations fall in this category, for example bridges piers, file foundation etc.
Therefore foundations no hard and fast rule about their classification. A number of
criteria may be used in the classification, with each criterion resulting in a unique form
of classification. Prominent among these criteria are shape, depth, nature and
arrangement of the supported columns.
The shape of foundation is another criterion for classification. Some authors have
developed slightly different models for the design of different shapes. The common
shapes in this category are square, rectangular, and circular foundations. Spread or
continuous footing is individually designed to support a single column load and transmit
it by spreading it laterally to the soil. By this, the concentration of stress at a point is
avoided.
Strip or continuous footings is predominately used in residential buildings to
support load bearing walls or line of multiple columns. Foundation shapes are not just

9
designed to raise the aesthetic quality of the overall structure but to address specific soil
problems, ensure compatibility with the superstructure design or to mitigate anticipated
uplift pressures.
Working Stress Design
Working stress design was defined by Demetriose and Tonnias (1995) as an
approach in which structural members are designed so that unit stresses do not exceed a
predetermined allowable stress. Allowable stress is the Limiting Stress divided by a
factor of safety. That is:
fy
f allowable = ...………………………..
FS

Where:
fy = Minimum yield stress
FS = Factor of safety
Limit State Design
The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) defined Limit State as the
condition which represents the limit of structural usefulness; Designs based on this
principle are known as Limit State Designs.
Strength and Serviceability Limit States
Demetriose and Tonnias (1995) defined strength and serviceability limit state as
follows: “Strength is the limit state which defines the safe operation and adequacy of the
structure”. The criteria which are used to define this are yielding, plastic strength,
overturning, shear failure etc. serviceability is the limit state which defines the
performance and behavior of the structure e.g. deflection, vibration, settlement etc.
Foundation Pressure
This is the intensity of total pressure on the soil beneath the foundation after the
structure has been erected and fully loaded (Tomlinson, 1983). It includes the total
overburden pressure.

10
Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Ultimate bearing capacity is the value of the minimum contact pressure between
the foundation and foundation soil at which the soil fails in shear.
Presumed Bearing Pressure
Tomlinson (1983) defined presumed bearing pressure as the “Net loading intensity
considered appropriate to the particular type of ground for preliminary design purposes”.
Site Geology Modeling and Characterization
The enterprise of inferring the engineering properties of soil/rock from a limited
sample test is all about statistical reasoning and the application of weight of available
information in data. Site characterization entails all activities geared towards obtaining
engineering information about local geological materials formation which could
influence design decisions in any way.
According to Beacher and Christian (2003) is carried out to ascertain:
a- The geological nature of deposits and formation,
b- The location, thickness and material composition of the formations,
c- Engineering properties as they may affect facility performance and
d- Ground water level and fluctuations.
The exercises is based on the logic of decision making as it applies to what is
regarded as sufficient and what is not, in geological information gathering in given
circumstance of project execution.
Site characterization activities
The complimentary natures of exploration and investigation make the
combination a necessary tool in site characterization, though the subsequent
development of hypothesis associated with exploration has rendered it incompatible with
data-based statistical and probabilistic models. Exploration is more or less the nominal
process of gathering relatively large information upon which to hypothesize the rationale
behind important measurement decisions (that is measurement size, arrangement,

11
methods etc.). Activities like interpretations of regional geology/local geology history
and prediction of significant anomalies in geological formation are part of exploration.
On the other hand, investigation involves comprehensive acquisitions of field/ laboratory
test data upon which statistical summaries of strength, stratigraphy and permeability
characteristic of a proposed project site are derived. The combination of exploration and
investigation is what is often employed in modeling site characterization; however, one
takes off from where the other stopped.
Site Characterization Stages
The organization of various tasks in site characterization is commonly done in
three stages. These are reconnaissance survey, primary investigation and detailed
investigation.
Reconnaissance survey entails the formation of qualitative hypothesis based on
nominal knowledge of the geological anomalies gathered from the study of aerial
photographs, geological and topographic literatures/maps and integrated with the records
of on-site inspection
Primary investigation is the first stage of soil/rock physical data collection via a good
scatter of a limited number of borings over the entire site. The products of this stage, in
addition to the formation of the initial quantitative hypothesis, validate or otherwise
nullify the qualitative hypothesis of the reconnaissance survey.
Detailed investigation is the stage of comprehensively mapped out program of detailed
laboratory and in-situ tests and geographical survey. The relevance of the product of this
stage lies in the extent to which it confirms the previous hypothesis and thus it supplies
rich information on geometry, material properties and anomalies to support the initial
descriptive geometry of formation, engineering properties estimates and establishes the
location and extent of geological anomalies or otherwise reduces the possibility of their
unnoticed occurrence.

12
 The above procedures would certainly not be applied in all projects because the
costs of detailed site characterization are not justified by the nature of some projects.
The good practice is to select the level of site characterization according to the degree of
importance, risk involved and complexity of local geology. The summary of activities
involved in each of the stages and their relationships are demonstrated in figure below.
The essence of most traditional methods of design is to ensure that foundation and
foundation soil do not exceed their limits of elastic resistance and the level of assurance
in doing this is reflected in the selection of traditional factor of safety. Historically, the
uncertainties in both load and resistance are jointly compensated for by this traditional
factor of safety which is selected based on subjective judgment and experience of the
designer. However, these uncertainties are quantifiable using probability theory.
Conclusion
From this assignment we can deduct the following conclusion:
- In the past the

13