1009
Eighteenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium:
Limit States Design For Foundations. Part II.
Development for the National Building Code of
Canada: Discussion1
L.D. Baikie
The following comments and observations deal only with the
direct calibration of the limit states design (LSD) method by
fitting with the traditional working stress design (WSD)
method. However, it is observed by the author that the results
of direct fitting calibration are quite similar to those obtained
by calibrating the LSD method with reliability theory as dis-
cussed in the paper.
In the WSD method a design is considered acceptable if
Rn $ FSΣ Sni, while in the LSD method a design is acceptable
if ΦRn $ Σαi Sni. In these expressions Rn is the nominal resis-
tance and Sn is the nominal load. If it is assumed that the
nominal loads are the same in both design methods then we
have the following relationship which applies to all limit states,
e.g., bearing capacity, sliding:
Rn LSD  αe 
= =β
Rn WSD  Φ(FS) 
[1]
where αe is the effective load factor. For dead (D) and live (L)
loads it is given by
αe = (αD + nαL) / (1 + n)
in which n = L / D.
Equivalent designs are obtained using the WSD and LSD
methods when β is equal to one. Resistance factors are shown
in Fig. 1 for a range in FS values and for αe values of 1.25 and
1.50. The value of β is one at any point along the curves for
αe = 1.25 or 1.50. This figure may be used to obtain values of
Φ that give equivalent designs for WSD and LSD using the
specified values of FS and αe. It follows then that if the speci-
fied αe, Φ, and FS result in a value of β less than or greater
than one, equivalent designs are not obtained using the two
design methods. The relationship given by eq. [1] represents a
slightly different approach than that taken by the author, who
generated Φ values that (for a given footing, load combination,
and factor of safety) resulted in equivalent limit states and
working stress designs. The relationship used by the author is
that represented by eq. [5], and the Φ values generated are
Received February 23, 1997. Accepted July 5, 1997.
L.D. Baikie. Department of Civil Engineering, Technical
University of Nova Scotia, P.O. Box 1000. Halifax, NS
B3J 2X4, Canada.
1
Paper by D.E. Becker. 1996. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 33: 984–1007.
Can. Geotech. J. 34: 1009–1011 (1997).
given in Table 2 of the original paper. The two approaches
result in the same Φ values.
Considering square footings of width B on sand or clay, it
is possible using eq. [1] to develop a relationship for
BLSD/BWSD. From eq. [1]
( qULT B2)
LSD
[2] =β
( qULT B2)
WSD
where qULT is the ultimate bearing capacity. In the case of
footings on sand, with Df/BWSD = Df/BLSD, the width ratio is
obtained from [2] as
BLSD
[3] = β1/3
BWSD
and for footings on clay,
BLSD
[4] = β1/2
BWSD
The width ratios, eqs. [3] and [4], are shown in Fig. 2, with Φ = 0.5
as proposed in the original paper, αe values of 1.25 to 1.50, and
factors of safety of 2, 2.5, and 3. The width ratio for sands,
when Df has a constant value, lies between the sand and clay
lines shown in Fig. 2. Width ratios of one are obtained only
when β is equal to one as discussed. When β is greater than one
the LSD width is larger than the WSD width, and when it is
less than one the LSD width is smaller than the WSD width. In
Fig. 2 it is seen that the LSD footing width is within 5 to 10%
of the WSD footing width when a factor of safety of 2.5 or 3.0
is used in the WSD method. However, when a factor of safety
of 2 is used, the difference between the methods is from about
10 to 22%, with the LSD method having the larger footings. In
view of these differences it would be desirable to have differ-
ent values of Φ for different load combinations, as is the case
in the WSD method where the factor of safety ranges from 2
to 3 depending on the loading conditions. The various load
combinations would result in different αe values and the appro-
priate Φ value could, for example, be obtained from Fig. 1.
Consider the case of a reinforced concrete retaining wall
with a horizontal backfill, founded on sand or clay, where the
base width is governed by sliding stability. From eq. [1], for a
sand foundation
Rv LSD tan δB
[5] =β
Rv WSD tan δB
or
© 1997 NRC Canada
1010 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997

Fig. 1. Resistance factors.

Fig. 2. Width ratio for square footings.

Rv LSD for the LSD method are 0.83 and 1.00 for αe values of 1.25 and
=β 1.50, as shown in Fig. 1. If Rv were to be modified by the load
Rv WSD
factor αD = 0.85, the corresponding values of Φ would be 0.98
where Rv is the unfactored vertical load. If Rv is factored using and 1.18.
αD = 0.85, then β from eq. [1] is For a clay foundation, from eq. [1]
αe cABLSD
β= [6] =β
ΦαD(FS) cABWSD
and larger values of Φ would need to be used in order to obtain or
equivalent designs. This increase in Φ is illustrated by the Φ BLSD
values generated by the author in Table 6 of the paper for [6] =β
BWSD
frictional resistance, as compared with those for adhesion–
cohesion. Applying a load factor to Rv is a form of double A factor of safety of 2.0 is usually used in the WSD method for
factoring, as the resistance is no longer the nominal resistance sliding stability of retaining walls on clay, and equivalent de-
but a factored resistance. For sliding stability of retaining walls signs are obtained using the LSD method when Φ = 0.625 for
on sand, a factor of safety of 1.5 is generally used in the WSD αe = 1.25 and Φ = 0.75 for αe = 1.50, as shown in Fig. 1.
method, and in order to obtain equivalent designs the Φ values The recommended Φ values in the NBCC 1995 are those

© 1997 NRC Canada

Discussions
proposed by the author in Table 7 of the paper. If these were
to be specified to apply to retaining walls with αL = 1.50 for
earth pressures, as is now the case, then significantly larger
footings would result when sliding stability is the governing
criterion. In the case of a sand foundation with a factor of
safety of 1.5 in the WSD method, the ratio of Rv LSD to Rv WSD
from eq. [5] is 1.25, while in the case of a clay foundation the
ratio of BLSD to BWSD from eq. [6] is 1.25 when a factor of
1011
safety of 2 is used in the WSD method. In comparison, if
αL = 1.25 for earth pressures both of these ratios are equal to
1.04.
These observations with respect to retaining walls support
the argument given by the author that a load factor of 1.25
seems appropriate for earth pressures as long as the recom-
mended Φ values remain unchanged.
© 1997 NRC Canada