Z. Li, et al.
Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 132–147
based on Eq. (33) by using a personal computer (Intel(R) i5-8400 CPU
@2.80 GHz; RAM 16 GB). Correspondingly, the lower bound method
and upper bound method respectively required 38.5 min and 34.3 min
respectively. Although the calculation time of present methods was
about three times that of the M-P method, however, the computational
efficiency of present methods is acceptable compared with the com-
putational efficiency of finite element method.
The presented method of this paper does not need to assume the
failure mode of slopes in advance. The optimal safety factor and cor-
responding failure mode can be obtained by the optimization calcula-
tion, which can make up for the deficiency of the LEM. It is observed
from Table 2 and 3 that the mean and STD of the safety factor obtained
by lower and upper bound method are in good agreement with the
results obtained by the M-P method.
Fig. 9 shows the reliability probability density distribution of the factor
of safety calculated by the three methods. It is observed that the larger the
CV of the shear strength, the smoother the distribution of the probability
density curve and the greater the dispersion. The standard deviation of the
safety factor is mainly exhibited as: the solution of the M-P method > the
upper bound solution > the lower bound solution; therefore, the prob-
ability density curve of the M-P method is higher than that of the lower
bound method and upper bound method. Fig. 10 shows the cumulative
probability density of the factor of safety. The curve obtained by the lower
and upper bound method are located below the curve of the M-P method,
and the errors of the calculation results of the three methods are all small.
Based on the results of the velocity fields, the failure probability of
elements and the failure consequence coefficient of the rock slope are
calculated by Eqs. (30), (31), and (32) and the failure modes of the rock
slope are recognized by statistical calculation according to the mathe-
matical characteristics of the failure consequence coefficient. The
failure probability of the elements (rock blocks) in the rock slope is
shown in Table 4 and Fig. 11.
When c = 0.1 and = 0.05, 6 failure samples are obtained from
30,000 samples, among which failure of elements e1 and e2 occurs 6
times, and the failure risk coefficient of slope is 0.029 m3/m. When
c = 0.2 and = 0.10, 234 failure samples are obtained from 30,000
samples, among which element e1 fails 234 times, element e2 fails 169
times, element e3 fails 42 times, elements e4 and e5 fail 4 times, and the
failure risk coefficient of slope is 1.193 m3/m. When c = 0.3 and
= 0.15, 883 failure samples are obtained from 30,000 samples, among
which element e1 fails 883 times, element e2 fails 389 times, element e3
fails 399 times, element e4 fails 200 times, e5 fails 138 times, and the
failure risk coefficient of slope is 6.138 m3/m. It is observed from the re-
sults that the failure probability of each element in the slope is different
under the same coefficient of variation and the failure probability of the
same element under different coefficients of variation is also different. The
reason for this phenomenon is that there are multiple failure modes in the
slope, and the failure mode changes with the coefficient of the variation of
the shear strength and each failure mode contains different elements.
Mathematical statistical analysis is performed based on the magni-
tude of the failure consequence coefficient corresponding to each failure
sample of the slope. The failure modes of the slope can be divided into
five types, which are shown in Fig. 12 and Table 5. At the same time, the
velocity fields and failure mechanism of the five failure modes are drawn
in Fig. 13. When c = 0.1 and = 0.05, the slope fails 6 times in failure
mode 2; when c = 0.2 and = 0.10, the slope fails 27, 165, 38, and 4
times according to failure modes 1, 2, 3, and 5, respectively; when
c = 0.3 and = 0.15, the slope fails 29, 189, 201, 64, and 136 times
according to failure modes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. The variability
of the shear parameters is the direct cause of the different failure modes
in the slopes. With the increase of the CV, the quantity of failure modes
and the failure times of the slopes significantly increase. Each failure
mode contains different elements, resulting in the difference among the
failure probabilities of the elements. The failure probability of the
overlapped elements in multiple failure modes is the largest. The failure
probability of element e1 in Fig. 11 is the maximum (the failure
145
probabilities under the three coefficients of variation are 0.02%, 0.78%,
2.95%) because all of the failure modes contain element e1.
To obtain the failure risk level of the slope, three methods are used
to calculate the failure risk of the slope, as shown in Table 6. According
to the M-P method, the failure risk coefficient of the slope is counted
using Eq. (28) based on the results of failure mode 3 (the smallest safety
factor, the most dangerous failure mode), and then, the failure risk
coefficient of the slope is calculated using the lower and upper bound
method according to Eq. (29) and (32), respectively.
Because there are only considerations of the failure mode 3 in the
M-P method when calculating the failure risk, the possibility of the
occurrence of other failure modes is ignored, so it underestimates the
failure risk of the slope. Thus, the failure risk is relatively small. The
risk of failure calculated by Eq. (29) is nearly equal to that calculated by
Eq. (32), which indicates that Eq. (29) and Eq. (32) are equivalent
under the condition that all of the failure modes and corresponding
failure risks of the slope are known. However, the problem is that it is
relatively difficult to accurately obtain all the failure modes of the slope
when using the LEM and the FEM [22,30].
In the calculation of the presented method, Eq. (29) and Eq. (32) are
two different principles. Eq. (29) needs to count all of the failure modes
and corresponding failure consequences. This example corresponds to a
maximum of five failure modes. However, Eq. (32) only needs to cal-
culate the failure probability of each element of the slope directly ac-
cording to the velocity field results under the limit state. The failure
consequence coefficient (area of the element) of each element is fixed,
so Eq. (32) is computationally simpler than Eq. (29). Moreover, the
failure probability of elements obtained according to Eq. (32) is more
intuitive for judging the safety of each block of the slope.
9. Conclusion
A new formulation for rock slope reliability analysis with multiple
failure modes is proposed by combining the rigid finite element discrete
technique, plastic limit analysis theory, stochastic programming and
Monte Carlo method. This formulation can obtain the lower bound and
upper bound solutions of factor of safety and is especially suitable for
performing reliability analysis of rock slopes with multiple failure modes.
This formulation can also identify all the failure modes and corresponding
limit states of rock slopes and can reasonably calculate the failure prob-
ability and failure risk level of slopes under different failure modes.
Meanwhile, an estimation formula for element failure probability
based on velocity fields is proposed in this paper. The effect of multiple
failure modes on the slope failure risk can be deeply considered. The
estimation formula can simultaneously obtain the failure probability of
each element (or each rock block) and the occurrence probability of each
failure mode of slopes, which has an important reference significance for
comprehensively judging the safety of the slopes. The estimation formula
is more convenient to apply because only the failure probability of each
element needs to be calculated, it doesn't have to be the traditional way
to count every failure mode of the slope based on Eq. (33).
The reliability models for lower and upper bound limit analysis
proposed in this paper can be applied to the complicated jointed rock
slope. The influence of random variables, such as random variation of
groundwater, randomness of seismic loading, on the reliability of rock
slope should be considered in the future study. Furthermore, the esti-
mation method of element failure probability can be extended to the
field of reliability analysis for soil slope.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (grant No. 51564026, 41427802) and the Key Laboratory of
Rock Mechanics and Geohazards of Zhejiang Province (grant No. ZJRM-
2018-Z-02). Comments made by Reviewers have greatly improved the
quality of the paper.
Z. Li, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 132–147

Appendix A. . Notation

The following symbols are used in this paper:

Ai area of element i (m2)

a global yield matrix of all interface k
ak yield matrix of all interface k
CE equilibrium matrix of all elements
Cm failure consequence coefficient of the mth failure mode (m3/m)
Ci failure consequence coefficient of element i (m3/m)
Cw failure consequence coefficient of the integrated failure of rock slope (m3/m)
cr random variables of cohesion of interfaces (Pa)
ckr random variables of cohesion of the interface k (Pa)
ckr (t ) the tth Monte Carlo random variables of cohesion of interface k (Pa)
ck r ( t ) the tth Monte Carlo random variables of cohesion after strength reduction of interface k (Pa)
Dk constraint matrix of deformation compatibility condition for interface k
F global equivalent external force vector
Fa real external force vector which acts on the slope at present
Fc ultimate external force vector of slope
Fi equivalent external force vector acts on the centroid Ci of the rigid finite element i (N)
fxi equivalent external force along the x direction on the centroid Ci of the rigid finite element i (N)
f yi equivalent external force along the y direction on the centroid Ci of the rigid finite element i (N)
fk (Q k ) yield condition function of interface k
kF load multiplier of rock slope
kF (t ) the tth load multiplier of rock slope
Ii (t ) failure performance function of the element
IZ (t ) integrated failure performance function of the rock slope
kL (i ) minimum safety factor corresponding to the parameter sample i calculated using the LEM
kLm (i) safety factor corresponding to the failure mode m and parameter sample i calculated by the LEM
km factor of safety of the rock slope
km(t ) the tth factor of safety of the rock slope
lk length of the interface k (m)
Nk constraint matrix for flow rule of interface k
N number of Monte Carlo random samples
Nf number of rock slope failure modes
Nk normal force along nk direction on interface k (N)
nb number of the elements with zero velocity on the boundary
ne number of all rigid finite elements in rock slope
nk number of all interfaces in rock slope
Pf ,m failure probability of the mth failure mode (%)
Pf, i failure probability of the rigid finite element i (%)
Pf,Z integrated failure probability of rock slope (%)
Q global internal force vector
Qb internal force vector at the boundary
Q̄b known force vector applied to the boundary
Qk internal force vector acting on the centroid of interface k (N)
qk velocity discontinuity vector on the interface k
qkf velocity discontinuity vector on the interface k obtained by yield condition
RI failure risk coefficient of the whole slope calculated from the failure probability of elements (m3/m)
RM failure risk coefficient of slope based on multi-sliding modes (m3/m)
RZ integrated failure risk coefficient of rock slope (m3/m)
Tb coordinate transformation matrix from global coordinates to local coordinates on the boundary
Tk coordinate transformation matrix of equilibrium equation
ub velocity vector of the elements on the boundary
ui velocity vector acts on the centroid Ci of rigid finite element i
ui velocity along the x direction in the centroid Ci of rigid finite element i
ui / j velocity vector of adjacent rigid finite element i and j
Vk tangential force along sk direction on interface k (N)
vi velocity along the y direction in the centroid Ci of rigid finite element i
X random variable of the limit state function
Z limit state function of rock slope reliability
ukn velocity discontinuity along the nk direction of interface k
vks velocity discontinuity along the sk direction of interface k
i volume weight of element i (kN/m3)
c coefficient of variation of the cohesion
coefficient of variation or the friction angle
k inclination angle of the nk -axis with respect to the x-axis measured anticlockwise (°)
k nonnegative plastic multipliers vector of the interface k
1
k,
2
k
two nonnegative plastic multipliers of the interface k
f global yield matrix of all interfaces
f yield matrix of all interface k
k
r random variables of the internal friction angle of interfaces (Pa)
r
k
random variables of the internal friction angle of the interface k (Pa)

146
Z. Li, et al.
r
k (t )
the tth Monte Carlo random variables of internal friction angle of interface k (°)
r
k (t )
the tth Monte Carlo random variables of internal friction angle after strength reduction of interface k (°)
Appendix B. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.02.021.
References
[1] Griffiths DV, Huang J, Fenton GA. Influence of spatial variability on slope reliability
using 2-D random fields. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2009;135(10):1367–78.
[2] Phoon KK, Kulhawy FH. Characterization of geotechnical variability. Can Geotech J
1999;36(4):612–24.
[3] Phoon KK, Kulhawy FH. Evaluation of geotechnical property variability. Can
Geotech J 1999;36(4):625–39.
[4] Park HJ, West TR, Woo I. Probabilistic analysis of rock slope stability and random
properties of discontinuity parameters, Interstate Highway 40, Western North
Carolina, USA. Eng Geol 2005;79(3–4):230–50.
[5] Li AJ, Cassidy MJ, Wang Y, Merifield RS, Lyamin AV. Parametric monte carlo stu-
dies of rock slopes based on the hoek–brown failure criterion. Comput Geotech
2012;45(45):11–8.
[6] Johari A, Momeni M, Javadi A. An analytical solution for reliability assessment of
pseudo-static stability of rock slopes using jointly distributed random variables
method. Iran J Sci Technol Trans B Eng 2015;39(C2):351–63.
[7] Faravelli L. Response-surface approach for reliability analysis. J Eng Mech
1989;115(12):2763–81.
[8] Li D, Chen Y, Lu W, Zhou C. Stochastic response surface method for reliability
analysis of rock slopes involving correlated non-normal variables. Comput Geotech
2011;38(1):58–68.
[9] Dadashzadeh N, Duzgun HSB, Yesiloglu-Gultekin N. Reliability-based stability
analysis of rock slopes using numerical analysis and response surface method. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 2017;50(8):2119–33.
[10] Duzgun HSB, Yucemen MS, Karpuz C. A methodology for reliability-based design of
rock slopes. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2003;36(2):95–120.
[11] Low BK. Efficient probabilistic algorithm illustrated for a rock slope. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 2008;41(5):715–34.
[12] Yarahmadi Bafghi AR, Verdel T. Sarma-based key-group method for rock slope
reliability analyses. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2010;29(10):1019–43.
[13] Li DQ, Jiang SH, Chen YF, Zhou CB. System reliability analysis of rock slope sta-
bility involving correlated failure modes. KSCE J Civ Eng 2011;15(8):1349–59.
[14] Shamekhi E, Tannant DD. Probabilistic assessment of rock slope stability using
response surfaces determined from finite element models of geometric realizations.
Comput Geotech 2015;69:70–81.
[15] Tiwari, G., Gali, M. L. Reliability Analysis of a Himalayan Rock Slope Considering
Uncertainty in Post Peak Strength Parameters. In Geo-Risk. 2017. pp. 183-192.
[16] Griffiths DV, Fenton GA. Probabilistic slope stability analysis by finite elements. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2004;130(5):507–18.
[17] Li DQ, Xiao T, Cao ZJ, Zhou CB, Zhang LM. Enhancement of random finite element
method in reliability analysis and risk assessment of soil slopes using Subset
147
Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 132–147
Simulation. Landslides 2016;13(2):293–303.
[18] Jimenez-Rodriguez R, Sitar N, Chacon J. System reliability approach to rock slope
stability. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2006;43(6):847–59.
[19] Zhang J, Zhang LM, Tang WH. New methods for system reliability analysis of soil
slopes. Can Geotech J 2011;48(7):1138–48.
[20] Jiang SH, Li DQ, Cao ZJ, Zhou CB, Phoon KK. Efficient system reliability analysis of
slope stability in spatially variable soils using Monte Carlo simulation. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 2014;141(2):0401–4096.
[21] Jiang SH, Li DQ, Zhang LM, Zhou CB. Time-dependent system reliability of an-
chored rock slopes considering rock bolt corrosion effect. Eng Geol 2014;175:1–8.
[22] Li DQ, Xiao T, Cao ZJ. Auxiliary slope reliability analysis using limit equilibrium
method and finite element method. Chin J Geotech Eng 2016;38(6):1004–13.
[23] Sloan SW. Lower bound limit analysis using finite elements and linear program-
ming. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1988;12(1):61–77.
[24] Sloan SW, Kleeman PW. Upper bound limit analysis using discontinuous velocity
fields. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1995;127(1–4):293–314.
[25] Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Upper bound limit analysis using linear finite elements and
non-linear programming. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2002;26(2):181–216.
[26] Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Lower bound limit analysis using non-linear programming.
Int J Numer Meth Eng 2002;55(5):573–611.
[27] Xiong Z, Lingxi Q. Rigid finite element and limit analysis. Acta Mech Sin
1993;9(2):156–62.
[28] Chen J, Yin JH, Lee CF. Upper bound limit analysis of slope stability using rigid
finite elements and nonlinear programming. Can Geotech J 2003;40(4):742–52.
[29] Li Z, Zhou Y, Guo Y. Upper-bound analysis for stone retaining wall slope based on
mixed numerical discretization. Int J Geomech 2018;18(10):04018122.
[30] Liang L, Baochen L. Lower bound limit analysis on bearing capacity of slope and its
reliability. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 2001;20(4):508–13.
[31] Huang J, Lyamin AV, Griffiths DV, Krabbenhoft K, Sloan SW. Quantitative risk
assessment of landslide by limit analysis and random fields. Comput Geotech
2013;53:60–7.
[32] Ali A, Lyamin AV, Huang J, Li JH, Cassidy MJ, Sloan SW. Probabilistic stability
assessment using adaptive limit analysis and random fields. Acta Geotech
2017;12(4):937–48.
[33] Li AJ, Cassidy MJ, Wang Y, Merifield RS, Lyamin AV. Parametric Monte Carlo
studies of rock slopes based on the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Comput Geotech
2012;45:11–8.
[34] Zhang XY, Zhang LX, Li Z. Reliability analysis of soil slope based on upper bound
method of limit analysis. Rock Soil Mechanics 2018;39(5):1840–50.
[35] CPLEX, I. I. 12.7, User’s Manual for CPLEX, 2016. CPLEX division.
[36] MathWorks, T. (2016). MATLAB documentation. Disponıvel em.