Geostructural Systems
Geostructural Systems
Geostructural Systems
Abstract: This paper begins with an extensive review of the literature covering the development of design rules for geostructural systems,
beginning with traditional global safety factors and developing through partial factors for loads and resistances, and then considering the use
of mobilization factors to limit soil strains. The paper then aims to distinguish two possible functions for geotechnical factors: to compensate
for the uncertainty regarding soil strength, and to limit soil deformations that could compromise the associated structure before the soil strength
can be fully mobilized, whatever it is. At present, design procedures generally conflate and confuse ultimate limit state (ULS) checks
and serviceability limit state (SLS) deformation checks. Furthermore, most geotechnical engineers wrongly associate ULS with soil failure
rather than with structural failure. The paper addresses this fundamental confusion by advocating mobilizable strength design (MSD), which is
based on assumed soil-structure deformation mechanisms rather than soil failure mechanisms. It is argued that designs using MSD can guard
against damaging structural deformations, either small deformations giving SLS or large structural deformations that must be regarded as
ULS even though the associated soil strength may not yet be fully mobilized. This distinction effectively challenges much of the previous
literature on limit state design principles for geotechnical applications, even when probabilistic approaches have been proposed. Nevertheless,
the paper is informed by the concepts and techniques of decision making under uncertainty, and the paper concludes by considering whether
MSD can also be placed in a reliability framework. DOI: 10.1061/AJRUA6.0000849. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Geotechnical design; Safety; Serviceability; Factors of safety; Reliability; Review.
(e.g., the biased penny in a tossing trial). He also opined that param- used engineering term, but it is difficult for practitioners to define
eter uncertainty should generally be dealt with by the deterministic and justify. To this end, codes of practice are written with the in-
analysis of validated limit mechanisms, employing carefully selected tention to guide the engineer toward an appropriate factor of safety
worst-case values of parameters, rather than probability theory and thus to a safe design; they do this using various methodologies
(Bolton 1981). However, as will be explored, others have taken a and philosophies.
different view. Meyerhof (1970) defined the factor of safety as “the ratio of the
McMahon (1985) categorized six types of uncertainties that are resistance of the structure to the applied loads in order to ensure
encountered in geotechnical engineering (Table 2). Practitioners freedom from danger, loss or risks.” He then explained that “the
may attempt to deal with Type 3 uncertainties arithmetically, i.e., by magnitude of the safety factor required depends mainly on the reli-
using statistical and probabilistic thinking. However, other sources ability of the design data : : : ” as well as (amongst other things) the
of uncertainty can only be reduced if researchers develop better probability of failure, and the consequences of failure, should it
failure models for use in design, if practitioners maintain up-to-date occur (Meyerhof 1970). Terzaghi and Peck (1948) (in Article
skills, if clients release sufficient money for adequate ground inves- 53) stated: “First, the factor of safety of the foundation with respect
tigation and construction control, and if all project partners main- to the breaking into the ground should not be less than 3, which is the
tain open channels of communication. minimum factor of safety customarily specified for the design of the
Moreover, engineering judgment is essential even in purely tech- superstructure. Second, the deformation of the base of the structure
nical aspects of the design process. In his Laurits Bjerrum memorial due to unequal settlement should not be great enough to damage
lecture, Peck (1980) states that “judgment is required to set up the structure. There is no definite relation between the factor of safety
the right lines of scientific investigation, to select the appropriate with respect to breaking into the ground and the settlement.”
parameters for calculations, and to verify the reasonableness of Terzaghi and Peck (1948) gave some classical values of safety
the results.” Petroski (1993) described engineering judgment as factors for geotechnical engineering design (Table 3). Meyerhof
“the quality factor among those countless quantities that have come (1995) referred to the factors from Terzaghi and Peck (1948) as
to dominate design in our postcomputer age : : : [it] prevents mis- “customary total factors of safety.” Today the values in Table 3
takes, catches errors, detects flaws, and anticipates failure.” can be thought of as reference values that practicing engineers con-
Codes of practice clearly cannot remove the need for good sider when performing design calculations and drafting codes of
judgement and skill in engineering practice, nor is exhaustive com- practice. In many cases, even if a limit state design method is used,
putation in the absence of such judgement any panacea. Burland engineers will still refer to an equivalent factor of safety.
(2008a, b) attributed the following sentiment to Hugh Golder: When reviewing the use of a single factor of safety in geotech-
“Any design that relies for its success on a precise calculation is nical engineering, Simpson et al. (1981) concluded that it can
a bad design.” produce “sensible results when material strength is the greatest un-
One way of reducing uncertainty is to make the final design con-
certainty in the design,” or when it is applied as a load factor when
tingent on the prediction and then observation of field performance
loads are significantly more uncertain than material strength. Sig-
during the early stages of construction, called the observational
nificant problems arise, however, when both strength and loads are
method (Peck 1969). Peck (1969) pointed out that the essential
uncertain. Kulhawy (2010) described global factors of safety as
requirement for use of the observational method is a design that
“misleading” because they are usually assigned without consider-
can be modified during construction, which has implications for
ing “(1) any other aspects of the design process, such as the loads
the drafting of construction contracts. Application of this approach
to decision making is made more feasible by recent advances in
smart sensor technologies that promise cheap and reliable means to Table 3. Some Classical Factors of Safety for Geotechnical Practice (Data
monitor the deformation of geotechnical structures such as tunnels from Terzaghi and Peck 1948)
(Bennett et al. 2010; Cheung et al. 2010; Mohamad et al. 2010), Type of construction Quoted FOS value T&P article
piled foundations (Klar et al. 2006), and deep excavation works
(Schwamb et al. 2014). The most salient advantage is that such de- Retaining structures 1.5 (against sliding) Art. 46
1.5 (base heave) Art. 32
formation measurements directly address the degree to which per-
2.0 (strut buckling) Art. 48
formance requirements, such as those in Table 1, are being met. Slope stability 1.3–1.5 Art. 51
Embankments 1.5 Art. 52
1.1–1.2 with monitoring
Geotechnical Factor of Safety Foundations
Footings and rafts 2–3 Art. 53–55
Factors and Codes Single piles 2.5–3 (with load testing) Art. 56
6 (with Engineering News formula)
The factor of safety (FOS), also described as a factor of uncertainty Floating pile groups 2–3 (with respect to base failure)
(or a factor of ignorance e.g., Petroski 1994, p. 31), is a commonly
Schneider, H. R. (1999). “Panel discussion: Definition and determination of Vardanega, P. J., et al. (2013a). “Discussion: Laboratory measurement
characteristic soil properties.” Proc., 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics of strength mobilisation in kaolin: Link to stress history.” Géotech. Lett.,
and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 4, A. A. Balkema, Lisse, 3(1), 16–17.
Netherlands, 2271–2274. Vardanega, P. J., et al. (2014). “Discussion: Bored pile design in stiff clay. I:
Schwamb, T., et al. (2014). “Fibre optic monitoring of a deep circular codes of practice.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 167(1), 87–88.
excavation.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 167(2), 144–154. Vardanega, P. J., and Bolton, M. D. (2011). “Strength mobilization in clays
Schweiger, H. F., Thurner, R., and Pöttler, R. (2001). “Reliability analysis and silts.” Can. Geotech. J., 48(10), 1485–1503.
in geotechnics with deterministic finite elements: Theoretical concepts Vardanega, P. J., and Bolton, M. D. (2012). “Corrigendum: Strength mo-
bilization in clays and silts.” Can. Geotech. J., 49(5), 631.
and practical application.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532
Vardanega, P. J., and Bolton, M. D. (2013). “Stiffness of clays and silts:
-3641(2001)1:4(389), 389–413.
Normalizing shear modulus and shear strain.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Scott, B., Kim, B. J., and Salgado, R. (2003). “Assessment of current load
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000887, 1575–1589.
factors for use in geotechnical load and resistance factor design.” Vardanega, P. J., and Bolton, M. D. (2014). “Stiffness of clays and silts:
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003) Modeling considerations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/
129:4(287), 287–295. (ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001104, 06014004.
Simpson, B. (2000). “Partial factors: Where to apply them?” 〈http://www Vardanega, P. J., Kolody, E., Pennington, S. H., Morrison, P. R. J., and
.finzi-ceas.it/ceas/Docs/melbourne.pdf〉 (Sep. 10, 2015). Simpson, B. (2012a). “Bored pile design in stiff clay. I: codes of prac-
Simpson, B., Pappin, J. W., and Croft, D. D. (1981). “An approach to limit tice.” Proc., Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 165(4), 213–232.
state calculations in geotechnics.” Ground Eng., 14(6), 21–26, 28. Vardanega, P. J., Lau, B. H., Lam, S. Y., Haigh, S. K., Madabhushi, S. P. G.,
Skempton, A. W., and MacDonald, D. H. (1956). “Allowable settlement of and Bolton, M. D. (2012b). “Laboratory measurement of strength mo-
buildings.” ICE Proc. Eng. Div., 5(6), 727–768. bilization in kaolin: Link to stress history.” Géotech. Lett., 2(1), 9–15.
Stokoe, K. H., Zalachoris, G., Cox, B., and Park, K. (2011). “Field eval- Vardanega, P. J., Williamson, M., and Bolton, M. D. (2012c). “Bored pile
uations of the effects of stress state, strain amplitude and pore pressure design in stiff clay. II: Mechanisms and uncertainty.” Proc., Inst. Civ.
generation of shear moduli of geotechnical and MSW materials.” Proc., Eng. Geotech. Eng., 165(4), 233–246.
5th Int. Symp. on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, C.-K. Vardanega, P. J., Williamson, M., and Bolton, M. D. (2013b). “Corrigen-
Chung, Y.-H. Jung, H.-K. Kim, J.-S. Lee, and D.-S. Kim, eds., Vol. 1, dum: Bored pile design in stiff clay. II: Mechanisms and uncertainty.”
IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 120–140. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 166(5), 518.
Terracina, F. (1962). “Foundations of the tower of Pisa.” Géotechnique, Whitman, R. V. (2000). “Organising and evaluating uncertainty in geotech-
nical engineering.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
12(4), 336–339.
1090-0241(2000)126:7(583), 583–593.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B. (1948). Soil mechanics in engineering prac-
Zhang, D. M., Phoon, K. K., Huang, H. W., and Fu, Q. F. (2015). “Char-
tice, Wiley, New York.
acteristation of model uncertainty for cantilever deflections in undrained
TRB (Transportation Research Board). (2015). “Bridges for service life clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
beyond 100 years: Service limit design.” 〈http://onlinepubs.trb.org/ .0001205, 04014088.
onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2prepubR19B.pdf〉 (Sep. 10, 2015). Zhang, J., Andrus, R. D., and Juang, C. H. (2005). “Normalised shear
U.S. Department of the Interior Teton Dam Failure Review Group. (1977). modulus and material damping ratio relationships.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
“Failure of Teton dam: A report of findings.” U.S. Government Printing viron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(453), 453–464.
Office, Washington, DC. Zhang, L., Tang, W. H., and Ng, C. W. W. (2001). “Reliability of axially
Vanmarcke, E. H. (1977). “Probabilistic modelling of soil profiles.” J. Geo- loaded driven piles groups.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/
tech. Eng., 103(11), 1227–1246. (ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:12(1051), 1051–1060.