Load and Resistance Factor Design – Past, Present and Future

"Limit states design (LSD), or load and resistance factor design (LRFD), is a method to account for the uncertainty in loads and resistance through a reliability calibration that requires all applicable limit states (strength, service and extreme) to be checked during foundation design. LRFD has been in use internationally for several decades; however it wasn’t until recently that engineers working on highway projects were required to use the method for the design of highway bridges and other appurtenances. Although the bridge community has been using a form of limit states design for structural components since the early 1970s, the design of foundations for bridges, walls and other geotechnical features had long been performed using allowable stress design (ASD), whereby all uncertainty in loads and material resistance is combined in a single factor of safety. While the move to LRFD was viewed as a more rational approach for the design of bridges and structures, the transition to its use for geotechnical engineering has been met by many with confusion and difficulties in application. This article will revisit the history of transition from ASD to LRFD for geotechnical engineering, summarize the status of the transition and issues with its use, and briefly discuss some emerging research opportunities for improving and advancing the design platform.Background and HistoryUntil about a decade ago, foundations and substructures for bridges were traditionally designed using ASD, while the superstructure was designed using load factor design (LFD), a precursor to LRFD that incorporated factored design loads but no risk assessment. This combination led to uncertain and incompatible safety margins in design for the various bridge components. In 1986, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures (SCOBS) concluded that the standard bridge specifications in use at the time for U.S. transportation projects had significant inconsistencies and gaps, wasn’t up to date with emerging technology and that the development of new specifications was warranted. The proposed solution by the subcommittee was to transition to a more coherent method of design where applicable failure and serviceability conditions could be evaluated considering the uncertainties associated with loads and resistance."