See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305703458

Geotechnical Uncertainties and Reliability

Theory Applications

Article · August 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 49

2 authors:

Sadaf Qasim Indra Harahap

NED University of Engineering and Technolog… Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
18 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS 47 PUBLICATIONS 139 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Slope Strengthening Works by LRFD based Reliability Analysis Approach View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sadaf Qasim on 29 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 1 Issue 6, August - 2012

Geotechnical Uncertainties and Reliability Theory Applications

Sadaf Qasim and Indra Harahap
Civil Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
[email protected]

Abstract Slope engineering is nowadays in great demand of proper risk management. Predictions regarding slope
performances are subjugated by uncertainties. This includes uncertainties related to soil properties, model uncertainties
and human uncertainties. In this study author discusses reliability analysis principles in relation with conventional
practices and to prove its efficiency three case studies of Malaysian slope failures has been taken for further
clarification. It is also mentioned that the concluded probability of failure still needs more refinement as no human
uncertainties has been considered in this probabilistic analysis.
Probabilistic analysis afford greater insight into design reliability, hence, supporting the engineering judgment and
recuperating the decision making process. So, the intelligibility, effortlessness and cost/time effectiveness are
indispensable essentials in order to successfully express and commune a probabilistic methodology to practicing
engineers
. 1. Introduction with Pecks and Bazaaras model on SPT. The result
shows high level uncertainty. As ratio of observed to
In the field of geotechnical engineering (Phoon 2005) predict settlement carries a mean of 1.46 and standard
highlighted two major sources of uncertainties. First deviation of 1.32 (Baecher and Christian 2003).
source refers evaluation of design soil properties and Slope engineering is nowadays in great demand of
the second source is geotechnical calculation models. proper risk management. Predictions regarding slope
The first source of geotechnical uncertainty is complex performances are subjugated by uncertainties. This
because of spatial variability, quality of equipments, includes uncertainties related to soil properties, model
procedures used and models used to link field uncertainties. Slope failures and poor functioning of
measurement with design properties. In this regard a slopes are not rare; it is increasing worldwide.
significant role is played in furnishing realistic Conventional slope practices are unable to quantify the
statistical estimate of design soil properties and to offer uncertainties as it only runs with judgement and
strategies for calibration of geotechnical reliability experiences. These traditional practices have no
based design equations (Phoon, Kulhawy et al. 1995). provision of conquering the uncertainties. Reliability
Model uncertainty arises due to mismatching of index is more significant measure of safety/stability
theory, adopted in prediction models and reality. Model rather than factor of safety. Slopes having high
uncertainties may be numerical or conceptual, reliability index will expect to perform satisfactorily as
Numerical uncertainty consists of simplified compared to low reliability index slopes. If reliability
computational suppositions like 2-D model versus 3-D, index is alarmingly low, it may be categorize as hazard.
empirical calibrations as in case of SPT blow counts Reliability index of slopes is defined by mean safety
and settlements and mathematical estimations. factor separating from unity, divided by number of
Conceptual uncertainty reflects in progressive failure, standard deviations of safety factor. Once the shape of
progressive development of internal erosion, undrained probability density function is estimated, the reliability
against effective strength characterization, time index can be used to estimate the probability of failure.
dependent softening processes. Regarding model (Peterson 1999) reported in his work that through a
uncertainty, use of different databases statistics also fuzzy logic analysis of reply to a survey of geotechnical
observed as one of the major source in producing engineers, (Santamarina, Altschaeffl et al. 1992)
biased results (Lacasse and Nadim 1996). Referring ascertained Table 1. These criteria bracket together up
here for example current method of predicting offshore to standard levels of probability of failure with various
pile foundation capacities, they are on the basis of load design conditions. Criteria for minimum values of
tests having small diameter piles. The configuration of reliability index for natural slopes has also been fixed
piles means pile length, diameter and capacity is not by taking potential failure mode, location and type of
compatible in many cases. One most authentic way of slope and consequences into consideration (Chowdhury
quantifying model uncertainty is comparison of model and Flentje 2003) .
predictions with observed performance. If discussing (Husein Malkawi, Hassan et al. 2000) worked on the
about the comparison of settlement of footings on sand same lines to counter uncertainties by taking two \

www.ijert.org 1
 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 1 Issue 6, August - 2012

reliability analysis tools. This study specifically understanding of uncertainties fashioned from various
provides a methodology (Figure 1) to analyze the routes is analyzed methodically. Among other
uncertainties involved in slope stability. Two methods approaches reliability analysis is recognized as best
of First Order Reliability Method (FOSM) and Monte tool to surmount uncertainties generated from different
Carlo Simulation (MCS) have been taken into account sources. A reliability analysis aims to price the
to quantify the uncertainties present in calculated safety probability that capacity exceeds with respect to
factor. Two slopes are taken as an example the demand. As both capacity (bearing capacity) and
homogeneous slope and the layered slope). The results demand (loading) are uncertain (Whitman 2000).
were obtained by taking four prominent slope stability As reported by (Duncan 2000) that reliability theory
methods namely Jambu, Ordinary method of slices, is useful in measuring the combined effects of
Spencer and Bishops method. View of different static uncertainties. . Safety factor approach is logical as it is
equilibrium conditions in different slope stability experienced based but the only problem it does not
methods are shown in Table 2. have the ability to counter uncertainties. The same
value is used even for long term slope stability without
Table 1: Slope conditions and failure probabilities caring the degree of uncertainties present in its
(Santamarina, Altschaeffl et al. 1992) calculations. (Peck 1969) put forwarded the
Conditions Probability of Failures Observational method to deal with uncertainties but
Temporary structures 0.1 feasibility of this method only goes in those situations
with low repair cost where designs can be altered. Along with other
researchers (Christian, Ladd et al. 1994) also put
Existing large cut on 0.01 forward best examples in favour of reliability theory in
interstate highway geotechnical engineering. Like other disciplines
\Acceptable in most 0.001 geotechnical engineers have prepared some strategies
cases EXCEPT lives
to tackle the uncertainties (Christian 2004)
may be lost
a. Ignoring it
Acceptable for all 0.0001
slopes b. Being conservative
c. Observational method
Table 2: Limitations of different slope stability d. Quantifying uncertainties
methods (Husein Malkawi, Hassan et al. 2000) A simple application of reliability theory is defined in
Force Equilibrium
Figure 1. It representing some of the main element of
Moment reliability based design. In reliability analysis
Methods 1st 2nd Equilibrium
Direction Direction probability of failure (Pf) is represented by reliability
Ordinary Yes No Yes
index (β). The relationship between reliability indices
Bishop Yes No Yes
and failure probabilities is represented in Table 3.
Reliability index is defined as the distance between
Jambu Yes Yes No
mean safety margin and the failure limit. Initially for
Spencer Yes Yes Yes
reliability assessment of geotechnical structures, target
indices have to be taken. It is reported by U.S Army
In deterministic analysis, computed safety factor must
Corps of Engineers, that in any of the rehabilitation
be greater than 1 as this is the confirmation for safe
program better to work out the reliability indices, these
slopes but for probabilistic section statistical
calculated reliability indices must be more than the
parameters like mean and coefficient of variance are
target ones. The main theme of reliability index is to
workable. Factor of safety calculated through different
methods is basically reflecting the lump of give valued approximation of the coming performance .
uncertainties which has to be dealt by statistical
methods like FORM or Monte Carlo simulation
methods and that is what author is trying to highlight in
this study. The main objectives of this study are:
a. To discuss reliability analysis theory and its tools
b. To support reliability theory against conventional
practices (in reference with slope engineering)
c. To make it evident by reassessing Malaysian slope
failure cases through probabilistic means
2. Reliability theory
In Geotechnical engineering, uncertainties prevail from
site characterization till last stage of the project.
Uncertainties and risks are part and parcel in any of the
project. Level of risks can be minimized if proper

www.ijert.org 2
 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 1 Issue 6, August - 2012

Q 2.1.1. Mean value first order second

Probability of failure
moment
R First order second moment method lies in Level II.
First order second moment is used for the
computation of reliability index. Uncertainty relates
to the involved variables has been recognised only
by mean and variance. Variance can be replaced by
covariance in case of correlativity between the
variables. Usually bias factor statistics are used to
generate mean values of load and resistance.
Figure 1: Joint Probability Distribution Reliability index needs information of various
(Christian 2004) variables like dead load statistics (COVQD) live
Values of Rand Q
Table 3: Relationship between Reliability Index load statistics (COVQL) and dead load to live load
and Probability of Failure ratio (QD/QL).
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) The limit state function, ‘G” is linear at average
Performance Reliability Probability of
values of random variables. Taylor’s series
Level Index Failure expansion taking only first order term into
High 5 0.0000003 calculations worked to determine the mean and
Good 4 0.00003 standard deviation of G. The general limit state
Above average 3 0.001
function can be described as (Baecher and
Christian 2003)
Below average 2.5 0.006
Poor 2 0.023
(2)
Unsatisfactory 1.5 0.07
Hazardous 1 0.16

2.1. Reliability analysis tools

There are basically three broad categories of
(3)
reliability analysis. It includes direct reliability
analysis, event / fault trees methodologies and other
statistical techniques (Christian 2004). According
to (Ayyub and Assakkaf) direct reliability analysis 2.1.2. First order reliability method
probabilistically belongs to level II and level III. Advanced methods are not in favour to simplify the
Level II. Level II needs simple statistical mathematical rules done in Mean Value First Order
parameters of random variables, sometimes taking Second Moment (MVFOSM). Advance methods
linear approximation of non linear limit state not only pursue mean and the standard deviation
Advanced first order second moment (AFOSM) is but also the normal and lognormal distribution.
the example of level 11 also known as first order Process of FOSM is as follows:
reliability method (FORM). Level III is complex a. Rosenblatt transformation is used to
as it requires full probabilistic information of each change variables from X space to U space
random variable. Level I includes mean value first b. Locate the most probable point in U space
order second moment (MVFOSM), it is less c. Determine reliability index
accurate as it does not take into consideration the d. Find probability of failure/reliability
distribution of the variables. Taking two variables The approach of (Low and Tang 2007) is in actual
and linear performance function the reliability the modified version of the approach, put
index (β) can be stated as: forwarded in 2004. Considering correlation
between variables not distributed normally. No use
(1) of calculating equivalent normal mean ( and
equivalent normal standard deviation ( in 2007
approach. Getting ‘ ’ minimum by changing
where values of Xi is the main aim. Iteration needs
= mean value of resistance Rackwitz and Fiessler equivalent normal
= mean value of load transformation. In the following equations ‘C’
= standard deviation of resistance refers to covariance matrix and ‘R’ shows matrix of
= standard deviation of load correlation.

The reliability index mentioned above is known as

Hasofer and Lind reliability index.
(4)

www.ijert.org 3
 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 1 Issue 6, August - 2012

Alternatively distribution. These generated random variables are

joined together to form a limit state function ‘G’
β= (5) (on the basis of already determined limit state
function). Taking the definition of failure G<0,
number of failing runs will count.
Where
2.1.4. Importance sampling technique
(6) Importance sampling is a proficient approach
which can trim down the number of simulations
essential while attaining equivalent precision as in
the basic Monte Carlo Simulation (Alf 1986). The
x- (7) valuation of reliability or feasibility is habitually a
In comparison with above mentioned 2004 computationally exhaustive practice in reliability
approach, (Low and Tang 2007) approach is design. In one of the study an importance sampling
reported more efficient as it skips some tedious based reliability analysis method is projected to
steps without showing any changes on conclusion. accurately and efficiently approximate the
reliability, prearranged the distributions of input
β= (8) variables (Fan and Wu 2007). In the proposed
For every trial, original basic random variable Xi is approach, the Most Probable Point MPP is sited
determined by design. and used to reduce the simulation territory. The
random variables are influenced around the MPP,
Where so the number of simulations can be condensed
radically.
Xi= (9)

and = standard normal cumulative

distribution. Discussing about Second Order
Reliability Method (SORM/, it is in actual the
extension of First Order Reliability Method
(FORM). In comparison with FORM, SORM found
less efficient but more accurate as shown in Table
4. In case of number of performance functions to
work out its efficiency, it requires more iteration
but for geotechnical problems, results observed
from SORM is almost same to FORM (Lacasse and
Nadim 1999).
Figure 2: MPP based Importance Sampling
Table 4: Comparison of reliability index methods
(Lacasse and Nadim 1999)
Methods FORM SORM
In short, the central idea of importance sampling is
Probability of to draw the variables according to a substitute set
8.6908 8.7813 of distributions such that more samples will be in
failure
No of the failure zone. Hence more samples will chip in
88 550 the probability estimation. Mathematically it can be
evaluations
defined as:
2.1.3. Monte Carlo simulation
(11)
This is a computerized mathematical technique. It
randomly generates values for uncertain variables
(12)
to simulate a model. Large numbers of iterations
are involved to approximate the probability of
certain outcomes by using random variables.
Mathematically it can be expressed as: Where is the importance-sampling density
but same as original density except that the
means values of X are trade by the Most Probable
(10)
Point (MPP).
The concept of importance sampling also can be
applied in relation with system reliability (Song
Random variables are generated according to
1997). The work stands on the probability formula
already calculated basic statistical parameters of
of the union of events and the conception of the
mean, coefficient of variance and type of
importance sampling, a technique for computing

www.ijert.org 4
 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 1 Issue 6, August - 2012

structural system failure probability is build up. In MVFOSM reliability index. If safety factor is less
Melcher’s method, all importance sampling than 1, validity of this will become doubtful.
functions consequent to the structural worth failure By taking an example of homogeneous and non
modes should be pooled by some criteria, and they homogeneous slopes, it is shown in two layered
would affect the exactitude of results or soil slope problem; Factor of safety obtained is
computational efficiency (Melchers 1989). In this 1.695, considering FOS a normal variant,
study of (Song 1997), the developed technique is MVFOSM gives a reliability index value of 3.82.
on the numerous simulation using every importance Following back procedure gives a FOS value of
sampling function in spin, the criterion for 0.8. It is now confirmed that MVFOSM result
combination is not needed, so, the inadequacy of corresponds to a failure point deep inside unsafe
Melcher’s method is overlooked. region in the material space and calculated
reliability index automatically underestimates the
3. Reliability theory applications in probability of failure. Hasofer and Lind approach
slope stability criteria also proves by giving a reliability index of 2.26.
Propagation of probabilistic methods for slope In relation with circular slip surfaces and ordinary
stability analysis has also been pinpointed in a method of slices a new technique of Importance
study of (Christian, Ladd et al. 1994). This study sampling is presented. As it is known that ordinary
describes how probabilistic information of soil method not bothers about iterations, importance
properties can be attained from field or laboratory sampling is used to search appropriate locations of
data and incorporated into stability analysis. Mean IS PDF, followed by subsequent computation of
value first order second moment approach is taken probability of failure (Ching, Phoon et al. 2009).
to elaborate with a design example of embankment By taking case histories of different slopes, dealing
dam having multi stage and single stage with ordinary method of slices, FORM, Monte
construction Carlo simulation and Importance sampling
The confirmation that reliability of slopes is better techniques has been utilized. Results of these three
judged through whole system has been put techniques are shown in Table 5
forwarded in the study of (Oka and Wu 1990) .The
substantiation of the stability of the slopes is done Table 5: Examples of Different Methods (Ching,
customarily by calculating one single factor of Phoon et al. 2009)
Method MCS IS FORM
safety which is distinct characteristically as the
Sample size 10,000 100 1,000
ratio of the strength (capacity) to the demand and is -
N
changeable from case to case. In this coming Computation 12 105
1
research, author tries to reveal the fact of slope al time
instabilities/failures of Malaysian region by using Estimated 0.0044 0.0038 0.0041
probability 0.0016
probabilistic theory. The probabilistic tools of failure
discussed before is going to utilized to make an Estimator 15.04% 20.9% 6.62%
-
objective comparison of the various types of COV %
conditions what was not acquired through old Required N 5,655 109 109
to achieve -
deterministic approach. The probabilistic approach
COV =20%
is used to set standards/criteria for the codes and
It is pretty sure now after having so much
the standards dealing the calculation of the slopes
discussion that stability of slopes can easily be
by putting reliability indices and probability of affected through different sources of uncertainties.
failures instead of empirical total safety factor
Again by taking the case study of slope at El
approach taking relation of the random dispersion
Berrinche, (Flores Peñalba, Luo et al. 2009), it is
of the soil parameters of cohesion, friction and soil
instituted that the variant in the stability of the
unit/ weight.
slope is mostly depending on the uncertainty in
One of the research also authenticated the use of shear strength factors and the inequality in the
Mean Value First Order Second Moment piezometric elevation. In radiance of these
(MVFOSM) method to estimate the reliability of
uncertainties, it is measured desirable to calculate
slopes (Hsu, Lin et al. 2007). In case of
the failure potential in terms of the probability of
inhomogeneous soil slopes this method most often
slope failure.
underestimates the failure probability. In other
Quantification of uncertainties wishes reliability
words it overestimates the reliability of the slopes. approaches and reliability analysis tools. It is
To counter this issue, projection method is used to totally a delusion that an abundant amount of data
authenticate the results of MVFOSM through
and thorough probabilistic knowledge requires in
geometrical means. Results of MVFOSM are
using reliability theory. Reliability theory can
extended to locate equivalent most probable failure
easily be applied on the same data and judgments
point in material space. Critical safety factor
used in conservative analyses. The two
calculated through this follow up must be equal to methodologies limit state design or load resistance
1, as this is the only reason of supporting

www.ijert.org 5
 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 1 Issue 6, August - 2012

factor design LRFD) tries to integrate reliability SOLVE main window is the mean factor of safety
based design into practice. Till date their of all Monte Carlo tryouts.
application in structural engineering is winning as Probabilistic /reliability analysis needs some
compared to Geotechnical engineering more clarification and addition in unit weight,
cohesion and friction. The mean, standard
4. Methodology application deviation, coefficient of variation are three required
In this section author is going to deal with the very basic statistical parameters used to carry out
disastrous landslides of Malaysian region, to prove probabilistic analysis (Refer Table 6).
the above mentioned theory of reliability analysis.
In connection landsides of Bukit Antarabangsa Table 6: Statistical parameters of variables
2008 and the very previous Highland Towers 1993 Variables Mean Standard Coefficient
are taken into consideration. The question of why Deviation of Variance
selecting these particular landslides? The reply is Weight of 19 1.2 0.06
very straight forward, these landslides have been Soil (approx taken
as 1)
taken place on almost the same location, reported
Friction 31 0.66 0.02
soil properties are more or less same but the Angle (Round off to 1)
geometry of the slopes differs in heights and Cohesion 9 1.6 0.18
gradient. In one manner this will also help the (Round off to 2)
author to determine that whether heights and Though the safety factor methods differs in their
gradients pose its influence on the reliability of the nuts and bolts, like some of the methods satisfies
slopes or not. only moment equilibrium, other follows both force
In this regard Slope W software is utilized. and moment equilibrium, some of them neglect
SLOPE/W is a commanding slope stability analysis interslice horizontal forces and carry only the shear
program. Using limit equilibrium, it has the skill to forces. The author has used four different methods
fix diverse soil types, composite stratigraphic and but more or less safety factor from all the selected
slip surface geometry, and uneven pore-water methods shows the same value. On the other hand
pressure conditions using a large assortment of soil derived safety factor value is also not satisfactory.
models. Analyses can be carrying out by When probabilistic analysis is performed,
deterministic or probabilistic input parameters. It reliability index for three different cases of soil
can execute probabilistic slope stability analyses, parameters has been taken (Refer Table 7). An
taking into account the variability and uncertainty inherent probabilistic tool of Monte Carlo
allied with the analysis input parameters. A simulation of Slope W software is utilized by
probabilistic analysis agrees to statistically reckon having 1000, 2000 and 3000 trials. As the number
the probability of failure of a slope via Monte Carlo of trials, make the vision more clear or present the
method. The results from all Monte Carlo attempts results in more refined manner.
can then be used to figure out the probability of Table 7: Three Different Cases of Soil Parameters
failure, factor of safety probability density and Standard
distribution functions. Changeability can be Case I Case II Case III
Deviation
considered for material parameters such as unit Unit Weight 1 1 1
weight, cohesion and friction angles, pore-water Cohesion 1 1 2
pressure conditions. Friction 1 2 2
The search of the position and radius of critical slip The output of the analysis is offered (in Table 8)
surface is the trickiest part of the slope stability shows that the probability of failure is a logical
analysis. It is not only depending on the geometry measure of the likelihood of the slope failure.
of the slope being analyzed but also on the strength Results of this study have demonstrated that the
parameters. In deterministic analysis of slope, mean probability of failure gives better assess of slope
values of input parameter are always used and this stability in contrast to the factor of safety. As it
will acquiesce on a particular failure surface. In provides an array of value, not a single value. As
SLOPE/W the use of a probabilistic analysis will calculated through deterministic analysis safety
not impinge on the deterministic solution. factor value is around 1.18 (Refer Table 8).
SLOPE/W calculates the factor of safety of all slip According to the safety factor classification of the
surfaces first and determines the critical slip slope it is not soundly safe, reliability indices and
surface as if no probabilistic analysis is elected. probability of failure shows slope is around average
The probabilistic investigation is than performed, or above average for Case II and Case III. If
on the deterministic critical slip surface. referring Case I according to reliability index
The factor of safety existing on the SOLVE slopes have been maintaining good stability. This
main window during the probabilistic analysis is classification (proposed by U. S. Army Corps of
the deterministic minimum factor of safety of all Engineers) is already given by author in Table 9.
considered slip surface; nevertheless when the Variation in the reliability indices for Case I, Case
analysis is ended, the factor of safety offered on the II and Case III is due to uncertainties in soil

www.ijert.org 6
 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 1 Issue 6, August - 2012

properties. By fluctuating standard deviation of 5. Results and Conclusion

cohesion and friction, posses clear difference on By taking the three landslides of approximately
probability of failures or reliability indices values. same location Bukit Antarabangsa 2008, Bukit
It is evident now that safety factor approach is Antarabangsa 1999 and Highland Towers 1993
conservative or in other words misleading for slope stability analysis has been performed from
design. both ways: deterministically and probabilistically.
Table 8: Mean safety factor With the help of Slope W software three different
Methods Moment Force scenarios has been observed. In case of Highland
Ordinary 1.098 - Towers 1993 reliability index is alarming low, but
Bishop 1.190 - safety factor seems to be satisfactory, for Bukit
Jambu - 1.086 Antarabangsa 1999 concluded reliability index is in
Morgenstern 1.183 1.181
negative and for Bukit Antarabangsa 2008
Price
reliability index is very much on the safer side.
From both types of analysis, it can visibly be noted
Table 9: Probabilistic Results of Case I, II and III
Trial Output Case
that there is no relation between safety factor and
Case I Case II probability of failure. Secondly make sure the
Quantities III
Reliability 4.55 3.13 2.42 concluded probability of failure is also have
Index deficiency as it only accommodates soil/model
1000
Probability of 0.0002 0.084 0.76 uncertainties, not human uncertainties in relation
Failure (%)
Reliability 4.59 3.02 2.43 with slope stability..
Index The appraisal of the stability of slopes, mostly
2000
Probability of 0.0001 0.12 0.73 natural slope, is one class of problems that is
Failure (%) subjugated by uncertainties. Geological
Reliability 4.63 3.06 2.45
Index
incongruities, material properties, environment
3000
Probability of 0.00015 0.10 0.70 conditions and analytical models are all factors
Failure (%) participating to uncertainty. Conventional slope
design practices do not report for these
Like Bukit Antarabangsa 2008 landslide reliability uncertainties, fully believed with the adequacy of
assessment of Highland Towers are also concluded. predictions. On the other hand, reliability analysis
The same program of Slope W is followed. Safety for slope stability proffers a proficient framework
level of the slope has been measured both for rational methodical inclusion of uncertainty,
deterministically and probabilistically. Concluded thus given that a more logical basis for design. It is
safety factor is maximum 1.502 even from the most tacit that there is uncertainty in any type of
rigorous method of Morgenstern-Price. Output analysis. Conventional slope stability analysis has
quantities are mentioned below (Refer Table 10 faith on a factor of safety approach to account for
and Table 11). In this specific landslide analysis uncertainty. This approach does not essentially give
author has followed the same strategy. up compact profitable designs. Nor does it clearly
Table 10: Mean Safety factor offer a set hint of the safety of the design. While
Methods Moment Force Probabilistic slope analysis, (on the other hand)
Ordinary 1.425 - openly balance the uncertainty. The output of the
Bishop 1.499 - probabilistic analysis, in terms of failure
Jambu - 1.403 probability or reliability index, is a measure of the
Morgenstern 1.502 1.503 reliability of the design. Probabilistic analysis
Price afford greater insight into design reliability, hence,
supporting the engineering judgment and
Table 11: Probabilistic Results of Case I, Case II recuperating the decision making process. So, the
and Case III intelligibility, effortlessness and cost/time
Trials Output Case effectiveness are indispensable essentials in order
Case I Case II
Quantities III to successfully express and commune a
Reliability 1.03 1.13 1.10 probabilistic methodology to practicing engineers
Index .
1000
Probability of 12.12 12.88 13.45
Failure (%) 6. References
2000 Reliability 1.01 1.04 1.09 Alf, H. (1986). "An efficient sampling method for
Index probability of failure calculation." Structural
Probability of 11.98 11.99 12.14 Safety 3(2): 109-115.
Failure (%) Ayyub, B. M. and I. A. Assakkaf "Reliability-Based
Structural Design."
3000 Reliability 1.05 1.07 1.01
Baecher, G. B. and J. T. Christian (2003). Reliability and
Index
Statistics in Geotechnical Engineering, John
Probability of 10.98 11.12 11,18
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Failure (%)

www.ijert.org 7
 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 1 Issue 6, August - 2012

Ching, J., K.-K. Phoon, et al. (2009). "Efficient Peterson, J. L. (1999). Probability Analysis of Slope
Evaluation of Reliability for Slopes with Stability. Civil and Environmental
Circular Slip Surfaces Using Importance Engineering, College of Engineering and
Sampling." Journal of Geotechnical and Mineral Resources, West Virginia University,
Geoenvironmental Engineering 135(6): 768- Morgantown, West Virginia. Master of
777. Science.
Chowdhury, R. and P. Flentje (2003). "Role of slope Phoon, K. K. (2005). Reliability- Based Design
reliability analysis in landslide risk Incorporating Model Uncertainties. 3rd
management." Bulletin of Engineering International Conference on Geotechnical
Geology and the Environment 62(1): 41-46. Engineering combined with 9th Yearly
Christian, J. T. (2004). "Geotechnical Engineering Meeting of the Indonesian Society for
Reliability: How Well Do We Know What We Geotechnical Engineering, Samarang,
Are Doing?" Journal of Geotechnical and Indonesia.
Geoenvironmental Engineering 130(10): 985- Phoon, K. K., F. H. Kulhawy, et al. (1995). Reliability-
1003. Based Design of Foundations for Transmission
Christian, J. T. (2004). "Geotechnical Engineering Lline Structures Report TR-105000, Electric
Reliability: How well do we know what we are Power Research Institute, Palo Alto.
doing?" Journal of Geotechnical and Santamarina, J., A. Altschaeffl, et al. (1992). Reliability
Geoenvironmental Engineering 130: 985. of Slopes: ncorporating Qualitative
Christian, J. T., C. C. Ladd, et al. (1994). "Reliability Information, Transportation Research Record
applied to slope stability analysis." Journal of 1343,
Geotechnical Engineering;(United States) Song, B. F. (1997). "A technique for computing failure
120(12). probability of a structure using importance
Duncan, J. M. (2000). "Factors of Safety and Reliability sampling." Computers and Structures 62(4):
in Geotechnical Engineering." Journal of 659-665.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Whitman, R. (2000). "Organizing and Evaluating
Engineering 126(4): 307-316. Uncertainty in Geotechnical Engineering."
Fan, L. and T. Wu (2007). An Importance Sampling Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Based Approach for Reliability Analysis. Engineering(july).
Automation Science and Engineering, 2007.
CASE 2007. IEEE International Conference
on.
Flores Peñalba, R., Z. Luo, et al. (2009). "Framework for
probabilistic assessment of landslide: a case
study of El Berrinche." Environmental Earth
Sciences 59(3): 489-499.
Hsu, Y.-C., J.-S. Lin, et al. (2007). "Projection Method
for Validating Reliability Analysis of Soil
Slopes." Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 133(6): 753-
756.
Husein Malkawi, A. I., W. F. Hassan, et al. (2000).
"Uncertainty and reliability analysis applied to
slope stability." Structural Safety 22(2): 161-
187.
Lacasse, S. and F. Nadim (1996). Model uncertainty in
pile axial capacity calculations. Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston Texas.
Lacasse, S. and F. Nadim (1999). Risk Analysis in Geo
Engineering Proceedings of Rocksite 1999.
International Conference on Rock Engineering
Techniques for Site Characterization Banglore
India
Low, B. K. and W. H. Tang (2007). "Efficient
spreadsheet algorithm for first-order reliability
method." Journal of Engineering Mechanics
133: 1378.
Melchers, R. E. (1989). "Impoortance Sampling in
Structural System." Structural Safety 6(1): 3-
10.
Oka, Y. and T. H. Wu (1990). "System reliability of
slope stability." Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 116: 1185.
Peck, R. B. (1969). "Advantages and Limitations of the
Observational Method in Soil Mechanics."
Geeotechnique 19: 171-187.

www.ijert.org 8
View publication stats