Abstract
Probabilistic analysis of slopes has been used as an effective tool to evaluate uncertainty that is so prevalent in variables. In this paper, the jointly distributed random variables (JDRV) method is used as an analytical method to compare the reliability of four widely used limit equilibrium methods for slope stability analysis. These methods include the simplified Bishop, simplified Janbu, Morgenstern–Price, and Spencer’s methods. The selected stochastic parameters are angle of shearing resistance (φ), cohesion intercept (c), and unit weight (γ) of soil, which are modeled using a truncated normal probability distribution function. Geometric parameters such as height and angle of the slope relative to the horizontal are regarded as constant parameters. For reliability assessment, the reliability indices of the limit equilibrium methods for the critical surface with minimum factor of safety are determined by the particle swarm optimization (PSO) technique. It is shown that, among the assessed methods, the Janbu and Bishop methods are those with upper and lower probabilities of failure, respectively, in two conditions with and without considering cross correlation between c and φ.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
There are various methods used in slope stability analysis. Among these methods, the limit equilibrium method (LEM) of slices (Bishop 1955; Fellenius 1936; Janbu 1954, 1973; Moregenstern 1963; Morgenstern and Price 1965, 1967; Spencer 1967) has attracted considerable attention, because of its simplicity and accuracy. In this method, the ratio of resisting to driving forces on a potential sliding surface is defined as the factor of safety (FS).The limit equilibrium techniques are the most commonly used analytical methods to investigate the stability of landslides.
A slope is considered safe only if the calculated FS clearly exceeds unity. The LEM considers the material of the sliding body as a rigid body (Cheng and Zhou 2015; Zhou and Cheng 2013). However, due to the model and parameter uncertainties, even an FS greater than one does not confirm the safety against failure of the slope. Therefore, it is important to calibrate the deterministic methods considering the effect of different sources of model and parameter uncertainties. A common approach in the stochastic analysis of a slope by the LEM of slices is to determine the reliability index corresponding to the critical surface with the minimum FS.
The reliability analysis of slope stability has attracted considerable attention in the research community in the past few decades (Griffiths and Fenton 2004; Husein Malkawi et al. 2000). Many probabilistic methods have been used for slope stability analysis. These methods can be grouped into five main categories: approximate methods, Monte Carlo simulation (MCS), numerical methods, analytical methods, and artificial intelligence methods.
-
Initial research works on the probabilistic evaluation of slope stability were done by using approximate methods. Most of the approximate methods are modified versions of two methods, namely, the first-order second-moment (FOSM) method (Ang and Tang 1984) and the point estimate method (PEM) (Rosenblueth 1975). These approaches require knowledge of the mean and variance of all input variables, as well as the performance function that defines the FS (e.g., Bishop’s equation). Many attempts have been made to apply the PEM and FOSM method in the reliability analysis of slope stability. Some important researches by these methods are listed in Table 1.
-
MCS (Metropolis and Ulam 1949) is a computational algorithm that relies on repeated random sampling to address risk and uncertainty in quantitative analysis and decision-making. This method provides a range of possible outcomes and the probabilities that will occur for any choice of action. Many attempts have been made to analyze the stability of slopes using MCS. Some important researches by this method are listed in Table 1.
-
In numerical methods, a deterministic numerical method like the finite element method (FEM) has been merged by probabilistic approaches. These methods can be grouped into two main categories: random finite element method (RFEM) and stochastic finite element method (SFEM). RFEM combines elastoplastic finite-element analysis with random fields generated using the local average subdivision method. SFEM is an extension of the classical deterministic FE approach to the stochastic framework, i.e., to the solution of stochastic (static and dynamic) problems involving finite elements whose properties are random. A number of researches based on RFEM and SFEM are presented in Table 1.
-
In analytical methods, the probability density functions (PDFs) of input variables are joined together to derive a mathematical expression for the density function of the FS. These approaches can be grouped into the jointly distributed random variables (JDRV) method (Hoel et al. 1971; Stirzaker 1999; Tijms 2007) and the first-order reliability method (FORM) (Hasofer and Lind 1973). Considerable researches have been done on the application of the FORM to slopes. Limited attempts have been made to apply the JDRV method in the reliability analysis of slope stability, which are listed in Table 1.
-
Artificial intelligence is an approach based on the concepts of natural biological evolution to process information. This technique has the capability to respond to input stimuli, produce the corresponding response, and adapt to the changing environment by learning from experience. This method has been applied to the reliability analysis of slope stability. Some important researches using this approach are listed in Table 1.
-
The response surface method (RSM) is an approach that models and analyzes by a finite element. The simulation is repeated a limited number of times to give a point estimate of the response corresponding to uncertainties in the model parameters. A graduating function is then fitted to these point estimates (Wong 1985). The approximating function is called the response surface.
In this study, the reliability of four widely used limit equilibrium-based methods [including simplified Bishop (Bishop 1955), simplified Janbu (Janbu 1954, 1973), Morgenstern–Price (Morgenstern and Price 1965, 1967), and Spencer’s (Spencer 1967) methods] in the stability analysis of slopes is compared using the JDRV method. For this purpose, the FS relationships for PDFs of the above mentioned methods are derived analytically based on the selected stochastic parameters for any arbitrary slope. In numerical simulation methods such as MCS, the probability distribution of output parameters is obtain by a considerable number of iterations of deterministic analysis. Since iterative slope stability analysis is time-consuming, at the first step of this research, the JDRV method as a substitution method has been used, in which the results are approaching more accurately those of Monte Carlo in a lower computational time. In the next step, using the PDFs and mean values of the stochastic parameters, the critical surface with the minimum FS is determined by the particle swarm optimization (PSO) (Cheng et al. 2007; Kennedy 2010) technique. The reliability indices of the above four methods are calculated in two conditions with and without considering the correlation between c and φ.
Limit equilibrium methods
LEM is the most popular approach in slope stability analysis. This method is well known to be a statically indeterminate problem, and assumptions on the interslice shear forces are required to render the problem statically determinate.
In the LEM of slices, the sliding body is discretized into a number of columns with vertical interfaces (Zhou and Cheng 2015). The actual number of slices depends on the slope geometry and soil profile. Some methods assume a circular slip surface, while others assume an arbitrary noncircular slip surface. Procedures that assume a circular slip surface consider equilibrium of moments about the center of the circle for the entire free body composed of all slices. In contrast, the procedures that assume an arbitrary shape for the slip surface usually consider equilibrium in terms of the individual slices. In this paper, the slope stability analysis is evaluated by using simplified Bishop, simplified Janbu, Morgenstern–Price, and Spencer’s (Fredlund and Krahn 1977) methods. These methods are presented in the Appendix.
The JDRV method
The JDRV method is an analytical probabilistic method. In this method, the PDFs of input variables are expressed mathematically and joined together by statistical relations. By integrating into the adopted model, a mathematical expression of the PDF of the output parameter is derived (Hoel et al. 1971; Johari and Javadi 2012; Johari and Khodaparast 2013; Johari et al. 2013; Stirzaker 1999; Tijms 2007). If the joint PDF of continuous random variables k1, k2,…, kn is fK1,K2,…,Kn(k1, k2,…, kn), the PDF of the output parameter (FS) is:
where:
where u1, u2,…, un are change of variables k1, k2,…, kn, hi is a function of ui, and ∣J(u1, u2,…, un)∣ is the determinant of J(u1, u2,…, un):
Stochastic parameters
To account for the uncertainties in slope stability, three input parameters, including the angle of shearing resistance (φ), cohesion intercept (c), and unit weight (γ), have been defined as stochastic variables. The statistical distributions of these uncertainties have been studied by many researchers. Numerous researchers emphasized that the normal, truncated normal, and lognormal distributions are more compatible with the behavior of soil parameters (Brejda et al. 2000; Fenton and Griffiths 2003; Lumb 1966, 1970; Tobutt 1982). However, other distributions, such as triangular, Gumbel, Weibull, versatile beta, and generalized gamma, are also reported (Christian and Baecher 2002). In this paper, for simplicity in analytical calculations, the truncated normal distributions are used for modeling of the stochastic soil parameters. The parameters related to the geometry of a slope are regarded as constant parameters. The PDFs of truncated normal distributions for the stochastic parameters are as follows (Olive 2008):
where:
where:
- φmin:
-
Minimum values of soil angle of shearing resistance
- φmax:
-
Maximum values of soil angle of shearing resistance
- σφ:
-
Standard deviation of soil angle of shearing resistance
- cmin:
-
Minimum values of soil cohesion intercept
- cmax:
-
Maximum values of soil cohesion intercept
- σc:
-
Standard deviation of soil cohesion intercept
- γmin:
-
Minimum values of soil unit weight
- γmax:
-
Maximum values of soil unit weight
- σγ:
-
Standard deviation of soil unit weight
By considering the stochastic variables within the range of their mean plus or minus four times the standard deviation [Eq. (7)], 99.994% of the area beneath the normal density curve is covered. It should be noted that, for choosing the initial data, the following conditions must be observed for the angle of shearing resistance, cohesion intercept, and unit weight of soil in the sliding surface:
Probabilistic analysis
For reliability assessment of the FS of slopes using the JDRV method, the suggested FS equations of simplified Bishop, simplified Janbu, Morgenstern–Price, and Spencer’s methods are rewritten into terms of k1 to k4. The terms k1 to k4 are introduced in Eq. (9). The PDFs of each term and for each method are derived separately.
Using the new form of independent input parameters, the PDFs of k1 to k3 are obtained by Eqs. (10) to (12):
The derivation of probabilistic relations based on Morgenstern–Price’s method is presented as follows (the other methods are presented in the Appendix). The Morgenstern–Price method assumes that the shear forces between slices are related to the normal forces as (Morgenstern and Price 1965, 1967):
where X and E are the vertical and horizontal forces between slices, respectively, λ is an unknown scaling factor that is solved for as part of the unknowns, and f(x) is an assumed function that has prescribed values at each slice boundary. In Morgenstern–Price’s method, the FS is determined by the following equation (Zhu et al. 2005):
where Ri is the sum of the shear resistances contributed by all the forces acting on the slices except the normal shear interslice forces and Ti is the sum of the components of these forces tending to cause instability (Zhu et al. 2005).
where αi is the base inclination and fi is f(xi) of the ith slice. According to variable conversion, u1, u2, and u3 are defined as independent and arbitrary parameters of variables such as k1, k2, and k3 as follows:
As the function between two series of points (k1, k2, k3) and (u1, u2, u3) is considered as an injective function, the following functions are defined as below. In this case, Eq. (14) is defined by the independent parameter k1:
Consequently, according to Eq. (1), the PDF of u1, u2, and u3 is calculated as below:
The Jacobian was determined by using Eq. (3):
where:
Equation (19) is the PDF of the slope stability safety factor, while the integral bounds are specified as below:
Using the mathematical functions for k1 to k3 [Eqs. (10) to (12)] and fK1(k1) to fK3(k3), a computer program was developed (coded in MATLAB) to determine the PDF curve for the safety factor of slope stability. In addition, for comparison, determination of the safety factor using MCS was also coded in the same computer program. To show the capabilities of the proposed method, an example with arbitrary data is presented in the following sections.
The JDRV method assumes that the parameters are uncorrelated. In this method, the governing mathematical equations cannot be solved by considering the correlation coefficient between the cohesion and the friction angle. To overcome this limitation, in this study, the two parameters c1 and φ are considered independent with truncated normal distributions and the distribution of parameter c was determined with the correlation coefficient ρ using the following equation:
Using Eq. (18), it can be seen that the parameter k1 is a function of u1, u2, and u3. In this equation, the values of k1 were determined using the numeric values defined for k2 and k3 and other input parameters. Accordingly, the values given for k1 and k2 in this step can be considered as c1 and φ in the above equation, respectively. Consequently, the probabilistic distribution of the cohesion can be defined by the given correlation coefficient of ρ with the internal friction angle.
Illustrative example
To examine the accuracy of the proposed method in determining the PDF of the FS, an illustrative example with arbitrary parameter values is demonstrated. A typical slope shape for this example is shown in Fig. 1. The stochastic parameters with truncated normal distributions are given in Table 2 and the deterministic parameters are given in Table 3.
Probabilistic analysis of slope stability
Using the selected deterministic and mean of stochastic parameters, the slip surface with minimum FS is determined by the PSO algorithm (Cheng et al. 2007; Kennedy 2010). Using Eqs. (A.1) to (A.26), a computer program was developed (coded in MATLAB) to determine the PDF of slope stability FS. In order to verify the results of the presented methods against those of MCS, the final PDFs for the FS are determined using the same data for both methods. For this purpose, 2,000,000 generations are used for MCS and for the four methods.
The results are shown in Figs. 2, 3, 4, and 5 for simplified Bishop, simplified Janbu, Spencer, and Morgenstern–Price’s methods. As can be seen in these figures, the results obtained using the developed methods are very close to those obtained using MCS.
To compare the four slope stability methods (i.e., Bishop, Janbu, Spencer, and Morgenstern–Price), the predictions of the PDF and cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the FS by the proposed method are plotted in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. It can be seen that the simplified Janbu’s method predicted the upper probability of failure with respect to the other assessed methods. Additionally, for assessing the influence of the correlation coefficient between c and φ, the PDF and CDF of the FS are determined with the correlation coefficient − 0.5. Figures 8 and 9 show these curves for the above methods. It can be seen that, again, the simplified Janbu’s method predicted the upper probability of failure with respect to the other assessed methods.
Based on the governing assumptions of the simplified Janbu method, the predicted average slope stability safety factor by this method is lower than the corresponding values by the other methods (Fig. 10). In this method, the shear force between the components is not directly considered; however, the correction coefficient is used to account for this force. Comparison of the reliability coefficient with different LEMs of slices has been presented in the literature (Fredlund and Krahn 1977). In this figure, lambda (λ) is a ratio of interslice forces for slices.
Based on the PDF of the FS, the reliability indices of the four methods are determined using the following equation (Husein Malkawi et al. 2000):
where β is the reliability index, E(FS) is the mean value of the FS, and σ(FS) is the standard deviation of the FS.
Comparisons of reliability indices for the different methods without and with considering the correlation coefficient are given in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. It can be seen that the simplified Janbu’s method shows the lower reliability index or upper probability of failure with respect to the other methods in both conditions with and without considering the correlation coefficient between c and φ. However, the reliability indices of the LEMs is greater for the cases where the correlation coefficient is considered compared with those without considering cross correlation.
For direct comparison, the reliability indices determined by the methods are plotted using a bar chart in Fig. 11.
Parametric analysis
For further verification of the proposed model, a parametric analysis is performed using Janbu’s method. The main goal is to determine how each parameter affects the stability of slopes. Figure 12 presents the predicted values of the probability of failure (instability) as a function of each parameter, with the others remaining constant. For this purpose, in six steps, the PDF of each stochastic input parameter is increased based on their standard deviation (new pdf = old pdf + 1/3 × std). For further explanation, the values used for this analysis are listed in Table 6. The results of the parametric analysis indicate that, as expected, the probability of failure (instability) continuously increases due to increasing unit weight. The probability of failure decreases with increase in the internal friction angle and cohesion. Also, it can be seen that the curve of change in the internal friction angle with respect to the probability of failure has a steeper slope than the others, indicating that it is the most influential parameter.
Comparison of the JDRV method and MCS
To compare the proposed method and MCS in predicting the probability of failure, Janbu’s method is selected. Figures 13 and 14 indicate the variation of the probability of failure with respect to the number of generations while Janbu’s method is used by JDRV and MCS, respectively. From these figures, it can be understood that, for reaching the same probability of failure, more generations (samples) is required in MCS compared with the JDRV method. Additionally, the required computational time for the two approaches is compared in Tables 7 and 8. As demonstrated in these tables, the time required to reach the same probability of failure is greater for MCS than the JDRV method. The analysis was performed using a desktop computer with a Core i7 CPU @3.50 GHz and 24.0 GB of RAM.
The number of required MCS iterations is dependent on the desired level of confidence in the solution and the number of variables. It can be estimated using the following equation (Harr 1987):
where N is the number of Monte Carlo simulations, d is the standard normal deviate corresponding to the level of confidence, E is the desired level of confidence (0 to 100%) expressed in decimal form, and n is the number of variables.
Conclusion
In this paper, the jointly distributed random variables (JDRV) method was used to compare the reliability of four limit equilibrium methods (LEMs), including the simplified Bishop, simplified Janbu, Morgenstern–Price, and Spencer’s methods, in the slope stability analysis of slices. The selected soil stochastic parameters were internal friction angle, cohesion, and unit weight, which were modeled using a truncated normal probability density function (PDF). The parameters related to the geometry, height, and angle of the slope were regarded as constant parameters.
The factor of safety (FS) relationships for the PDFs of the mentioned methods were derived analytically based on the selected stochastic parameters and for an arbitrary slope. For this purpose, first using the mean value of the stochastic parameters, the critical surface with the minimum FS was determined by the particle swarm optimization (PSO) technique. Then, by considering the soil parameters’ uncertainty, the PDFs of the FS of the methods were obtained by the JDRV method.
For reliability assessment, the reliability indices of the LEMs were calculated. It was shown that the Janbu’s method is the method with the upper probability of failure with respect to the assessed methods in two conditions with and without considering the correlation coefficient between c and φ. However, the reliability indices of the LEMs is greater for the cases where the correlation coefficient is considered compared with those without considering cross correlation.
In another part of the paper, to assess the efficiency of the proposed method with respect to Monte Carlo simulation (MCS), the time required to reach the same probability of failure by the JDRV method and MCS was compared. The results show that the time required by MCS is several times greater than the JDRV method.
Furthermore, the results of the parametric analysis indicate that the probability of failure continuously increases due to increasing unit weight. The probability of failure decreases with increase in the internal friction angle and cohesion. Also, it can be seen that the curve of change in the internal friction angle with respect to the probability of failure has a steeper slope than the others, indicating that it is the most influential parameter.
References
Abbaszadeh M, Shahriar K, Sharifzadeh M, Heydari M (2011) Uncertainty and reliability analysis applied to slope stability: a case study from Sungun copper mine. Geotech Geol Eng 29:581–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-011-9405-1
Ahangar-Asr A, Toufigh MM, Salajegheh A (2012) Determination of the most probable slip surface in 3D slopes considering the effect of earthquake force direction. Comput Geosci 45:119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2011.10.024
Alonso EE (1976) Risk analysis of slopes and its application to slopes in Canadian sensitive clays. Géotechnique 26:453–472. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1976.26.3.453
Ang AH-S, Tang WH (1984) Probability concepts in engineering planning and design, vol. 2: decision, risk, and reliability, illustrated edition. Wiley, New York
Au S-K, Beck JL (2001) Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation. Probab Eng Mech 16:263–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-8920(01)00019-4
Au SK, Beck JL (2003) Subset simulation and its application to seismic risk based on dynamic analysis. J Eng Mech 129:901–917. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2003)129:8(901)
Au SK, Cao ZJ, Wang Y (2010) Implementing advanced Monte Carlo simulation under spreadsheet environment. Struct Saf 32:281–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.03.004
Bhattacharya G, Chowdhury R, Metya S (2017) Residual factor as a variable in slope reliability analysis. Bull Eng Geol Environ 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1085-5
Bishop AW (1955) The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes. Géotechnique 5:7–17
Brejda JJ, Moorman TB, Smith JL, Karlen DL, Allan DL, Dao TH (2000) Distribution and variability of surface soil properties at a regional scale. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:974–982. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.643974x
Cheng H, Zhou X (2015) A novel displacement-based rigorous limit equilibrium method for three-dimensional landslide stability analysis. Can Geotech J 52:2055–2066. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2015-0050
Cheng YM, Li L, Chi S, Wei WB (2007) Particle swarm optimization algorithm for the location of the critical non-circular failure surface in two-dimensional slope stability analysis. Comput Geotech 34:92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2006.10.012
Cho SE (2007) Effects of spatial variability of soil properties on slope stability. Eng Geol 92:97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.03.006
Cho SE (2009) Probabilistic stability analyses of slopes using the ANN-based response surface. Comput Geotech 36:787–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.01.003
Cho SE (2010) Probabilistic assessment of slope stability that considers the spatial variability of soil properties. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136:975–984. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000309
Cho SE (2013) First-order reliability analysis of slope considering multiple failure modes. Eng Geol 154:98–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.12.014
Christian JT, Baecher GB (2002) The point-estimate method with large numbers of variables. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 26:1515–1529. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.256
Christian JT, Ladd CC, Baecher GB (1994) Reliability applied to slope stability analysis. J Geotech Eng 120:2180–2207. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:12(2180)
Cui L, Sheng D (2005) Genetic algorithms in probabilistic finite element analysis of geotechnical problems. Comput Geotech 32:555–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2005.11.005
Dai Y, Fredlund DG, Stolte WJ (1993) A probabilistic slope stability analysis using deterministic computer software. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Probabilistic Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Canberra, Australia, February 1993, pp 267–274
Duncan JM (2000) Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126:307–316. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:4(307)
Duncan JM, Wright SG (2005) Soil strength and slope stability. Wiley, New York
El-Ramly H, Morgenstern NR, Cruden DM (2002) Probabilistic slope stability analysis for practice. Can Geotech J 39:665–683. https://doi.org/10.1139/t02-034
El-Ramly H, Morgenstern NR, Cruden DM (2005) Probabilistic assessment of stability of a cut slope in residual soil. Géotechnique 55:77–84. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2005.55.1.77
El-Ramly H, Morgenstern NR, Cruden DM (2006) Lodalen slide: a probabilistic assessment. Can Geotech J 43:956–968. https://doi.org/10.1139/t06-050
Fellenius W (1936) Calculation of the stability of earth slope. In: Proceedings of Transactions of the 2nd Congress on Large Dams, Washington, DC, pp 445–462
Fenton GA, Griffiths DV (2003) Bearing-capacity prediction of spatially random c – ϕ soils. Can Geotech J 40:54–65. https://doi.org/10.1139/t02-086
Fredlund DG, Krahn J (1977) Comparison of slope stability methods of analysis. Can Geotech J 14:429–439. https://doi.org/10.1139/t77-045
Goh ATC, Zhang W (2012) Reliability assessment of stability of underground rock caverns. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 55:157–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.07.012
Griffiths DV, Fenton GA (2004) Probabilistic slope stability analysis by finite elements. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130:507–518. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:5(507)
Griffiths DV, Huang J, Fenton GA (2009) Influence of spatial variability on slope reliability using 2-D random fields. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135:1367–1378. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000099
Griffiths DV, Huang J, Fenton GA (2011) Probabilistic infinite slope analysis. Comput Geotech 38:577–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2011.03.006
Hasofer AM, Lind NC (1973) An exact and invariant first-order reliability format. Solid Mechanics Division, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
Harr ME (1987) Reliability-based design in civil engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York
Hassan AM, Wolff TF (1999) Search algorithm for minimum reliability index of earth slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125:301–308. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:4(301)
Hicks MA, Samy K (2002) Influence of heterogeneity on undrained clay slope stability. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 35:41–49. https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh.35.1.41
Hoel PG, Port SC, Stone CJ (1971) Introduction to probability theory. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
Hong HP, Roh G (2008) Reliability evaluation of earth slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134:1700–1705. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:12(1700)
Huang X-C, Zhou X-P (2017) Reliability analysis of a large-scale landslide using SOED-based RSM. Environ Earth Sci 76:794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-7136-1
Huang J, Griffiths DV, Fenton GA (2010) System reliability of slopes by RFEM. Soils Found 50:343–353. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.50.343
Huang XC, Zhou XP, Ma W, Niu YW, Wang YT (2017) Two-dimensional stability assessment of rock slopes based on random field. Int J Geomech 17:04016155. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000858
Husein Malkawi AI, Hassan WF, Abdulla FA (2000) Uncertainty and reliability analysis applied to slope stability. Struct Saf 22:161–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4730(00)00006-0
Janbu N (1954) Application of composite slip surfaces for stability analysis. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Stability of Earth Slopes, Stockholm, Sweden, September 1954, pp 43–49
Janbu N (1973) Slope stability computations. In: Hirschfeld RC, Poulos SJ (eds) Embankment dam engineering: Casagrande Memorial volume). Wiley, New York, pp 47–86
Ji J (2014) A simplified approach for modeling spatial variability of undrained shear strength in out-plane failure mode of earth embankment. Eng Geol 183:315–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.09.004
Jiang S-H, Li D-Q, Zhang L-M, Zhou C-B (2014) Slope reliability analysis considering spatially variable shear strength parameters using a non-intrusive stochastic finite element method. Eng Geol 168:120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.11.006
Johari A, Javadi AA (2012) Reliability assessment of infinite slope stability using the jointly distributed random variables method. Sci Iran 19:423–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2012.04.006
Johari A, Khodaparast AR (2013) Modelling of probability liquefaction based on standard penetration tests using the jointly distributed random variables method. Eng Geol 158:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.02.007
Johari A, Fazeli A, Javadi AA (2013) An investigation into application of jointly distributed random variables method in reliability assessment of rock slope stability. Comput Geotech 47:42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.07.003
Kennedy J (2010) Particle swarm optimization. In: Sammut C, Webb GI (eds) Encyclopedia of machine learning. Springer US, Boston, MA, pp 760–766
Li KS (1992) A point estimate method for calculating the reliability index of slope. In: Proceedings of the 6th Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Christchurch, New Zealand, February 1992, pp 448–451
Li D, Chen Y, Lu W, Zhou C (2011) Stochastic response surface method for reliability analysis of rock slopes involving correlated non-normal variables. Comput Geotech 38:58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.10.006
Li D-Q, Zheng D, Cao Z-J, Tang X-S, Phoon K-K (2016) Response surface methods for slope reliability analysis: review and comparison. Eng Geol 203:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.09.003
Liu Y, Lee F-H, Quek S-T, Beer M (2014) Modified linear estimation method for generating multi-dimensional multi-variate Gaussian field in modelling material properties. Probab Eng Mech 38:42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2014.09.001
Liu Y, Lee F-H, Quek S-T, Chen EJ, Yi J-T (2015) Effect of spatial variation of strength and modulus on the lateral compression response of cement-admixed clay slab. Géotechnique 65:851–865. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.14.P.254
Low BK (2007) Reliability analysis of rock slopes involving correlated nonnormals. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:922–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.02.008
Low BK, Tang WH (1997a) Reliability analysis of reinforced embankments on soft ground. Can Geotech J 34:672–685. https://doi.org/10.1139/t97-032
Low BK, Tang WH (1997b) Probabilistic slope analysis using Janbu’s generalized procedure of slices. Comput Geotech 21:121–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-352X(97)00019-0
Low BK, Tang WH (2004) Reliability analysis using object-oriented constrained optimization. Struct Saf 26:69–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4730(03)00023-7
Low BK, Tang WH (2007) Efficient spreadsheet algorithm for first-order reliability method. J Eng Mech 133:1378–1387. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:12(1378)
Low BK, Gilbert RB, Wright SG (1998) Slope reliability analysis using generalized method of slices. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124:350–362. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:4(350)
Lumb P (1966) The variability of natural soils. Can Geotech J 3:74–97. https://doi.org/10.1139/t66-009
Lumb P (1970) Safety factors and the probability distribution of soil strength. Can Geotech J 7:225–242. https://doi.org/10.1139/t70-032
Ma Z, Qin S, Chen J, Lv J, Chen J, Zhao X (2017) A probabilistic method for evaluating wedge stability based on blind data theory. Bull Eng Geol Environ 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1204-3
Metropolis N, Ulam S (1949) The Monte Carlo method. J Am Stat Assoc 44:335–341
Moregenstern N (1963) Stability charts for earth slopes during rapid drawdown. Géotechnique 13:121–131. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1963.13.2.121
Morgenstern NR, Price VE (1965) The analysis of the stability of general slip surfaces. Géotechnique 15:79–93. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1965.15.1.79
Morgenstern NR, Price VE (1967) A numerical method for solving the equations of stability of general slip surfaces. Comput J 9:388–393. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/9.4.388
Olive DJ (2008) Applied robust statistics. Unpublished online text, see http://lagrange.math.siu.edu/Olive/ol-bookp.htm
Phoon K-K, Kulhawy FH (1999) Characterization of geotechnical variability. Can Geotech J 36:612–624. https://doi.org/10.1139/t99-038
Rosenblueth E (1975) Point estimates for probability moments. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 72:3812–3814
Salgado R, Kim D (2014) Reliability analysis of load and resistance factor design of slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 140:57–73. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000978
Spencer E (1967) A method of analysis of the stability of embankments assuming parallel inter-slice forces. Géotechnique 17:11–26. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1967.17.1.11
Stirzaker D (1999) Probability and random variables: a beginner’s guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Suchomel R, Mašín D (2010) Comparison of different probabilistic methods for predicting stability of a slope in spatially variable c–φ soil. Comput Geotech 37:132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.08.005
Tang WH, Yucemen MS, Ang AH-S (1976) Probability-based short term design of soil slopes. Can Geotech J 13:201–215. https://doi.org/10.1139/t76-024
Thornton S (1994) Probability calculation for slope stability. Comput Methods Adv Geomech 2505–2509
Tijms H (2007) Understanding probability: chance rules in everyday life, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tobutt DC (1982) Monte Carlo simulation methods for slope stability. Comput Geosci 8:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-3004(82)90021-8
Vanmarcke EH (1977) Reliability of earth slopes. J Geotech Eng Div 103:1247–1265
Wang Y (2012) Uncertain parameter sensitivity in Monte Carlo simulation by sample reassembling. Comput Geotech 46:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.05.014
Wang J-P, Huang D (2012) RosenPoint: a Microsoft Excel-based program for the Rosenblueth point estimate method and an application in slope stability analysis. Comput Geosci 48:239–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.01.009
Wang Y, Cao Z, Au S-K (2011) Practical reliability analysis of slope stability by advanced Monte Carlo simulations in a spreadsheet. Can Geotech J 48:162–172. https://doi.org/10.1139/T10-044
Wong S (1985) Slope reliability and response surface method. J Geotech Eng 111:32–53. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:1(32)
Wu XZ (2013) Probabilistic slope stability analysis by a copula-based sampling method. Comput Geosci 17:739–755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-013-9353-3
Xu B, Low BK (2006) Probabilistic stability analyses of embankments based on finite-element method. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132:1444–1454. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:11(1444)
Xue J-F, Gavin K (2007) Simultaneous determination of critical slip surface and reliability index for slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133:878–886. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:7(878)
Zeng P, Jimenez R (2014) An approximation to the reliability of series geotechnical systems using a linearization approach. Comput Geotech 62:304–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.08.007
Zhang W, Goh ATC (2012) Reliability assessment on ultimate and serviceability limit states and determination of critical factor of safety for underground rock caverns. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 32:221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.07.002
Zhang J, Huang HW, Phoon KK (2013) Application of the kriging-based response surface method to the system reliability of soil slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139:651–655. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000801
Zhou XP, Cheng H (2013) Analysis of stability of three-dimensional slopes using the rigorous limit equilibrium method. Eng Geol 160:21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.03.027
Zhou XP, Cheng H (2015) The long-term stability analysis of 3D creeping slopes using the displacement-based rigorous limit equilibrium method. Eng Geol 195:292–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.06.002
Zhou X-P, Huang X-C (2018) Reliability analysis of slopes using UD-based response surface methods combined with LASSO. Eng Geol 233:111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.12.008
Zhou X-P, Zhu B-Z, Juang C-H, Wong LNY (2018) A stability analysis of a layered-soil slope based on random field. Bull Eng Geol Environ 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-018-1266-x
Zhu DY, Lee CF, Qian QH, Chen GR (2005) A concise algorithm for computing the factor of safety using the Morgenstern–Price method. Can Geotech J 42:272–278. https://doi.org/10.1139/t04-072
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
The slope stability methods and derivations of mathematical functions k1 to k4 and factor of safety (FS) for all of the methods are presented in this appendix:
Simplified Bishop’s method
In the simplified Bishop’s method, the forces on the sides of the slice are assumed to be horizontal (i.e., there are no shear stresses between slices). This method considers equilibrium of moments about the center of the circle. The FS is determined by the following equation (Bishop 1955; Duncan and Wright 2005):
where:
- wi:
-
γ.bi.hi
- c:
-
Cohesion intercept
- Δli:
-
Area of the base of the slice for a slice of unit thickness
- αi:
-
Angle of the base of the slice
- wi:
-
Weight of the slice
- γ:
-
Unit weight of soil
- bi:
-
Width of the slice
- hi:
-
Height of the slice at the centerline
- φ:
-
Internal friction angle
- FS:
-
Factor of safety
By the change of variables:
the following equations can be written:
The PDF of the FS can be obtained by Eq. (A.5). This equation is developed by Eq. (1) directly.
where:
and
Simplified Janbu’s method
The simplified Janbu’s method is based on the assumption that the interslice forces are horizontal. This assumption alone almost always produces FS that are smaller than those obtained by more rigorous procedures that satisfy complete equilibrium (Janbu 1954). Janbu proposed some correction factors based on a number of slope stability computations (Janbu 1973). The FS is determined as (Duncan and Wright 2005):
where
where:
- f0:
-
Correction factors
- L:
-
The length joining the left and right exit points
- d:
-
The maximum thickness of the failure zone with reference to this line
Spencer’s method
Spencer’s method is based on the assumption that the interslice forces are parallel (i.e., all interslice forces have the same inclination). The specific inclinations of the interslice forces are unknown and are computed as one of the unknowns in the solution of the equilibrium equations. Spencer originally presented this procedure for circular slip surfaces, but the procedure is easily extended to noncircular slip surfaces (Duncan and Wright 2005; Spencer 1967).
The equation for force equilibrium can be written as:
where Qi is the resultant of the interslice forces. For moment equilibrium, moments can be summed about any arbitrary point. Taking moments about the origin (x = 0, y = 0) of a Cartesian coordinate system, the equation for moment equilibrium is expressed as:
where xb is the x (horizontal) coordinate of the center of the base of the slice and yb is the y (vertical) coordinate of the point on the line of action of the force, Qi, directly above the center of the base of the slice. Qi is determined by following equation:
where θ is the interslice force inclination. By change in variation:
where:
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johari, A., Mousavi, S. An analytical probabilistic analysis of slopes based on limit equilibrium methods. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78, 4333–4347 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-018-1408-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-018-1408-1