International Journal of Performability Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 2, April, 2007, pp.

231 - 242
© RAMS Consultants
Printed in India

Slope Stability Assessment – A Comparison of Probabilistic,

Possibilistic and Hybrid Approaches
VAGEESHA S. MATHADA*1, G. VENKATACHALAM2 and A. SRIVIDYA3
1, 3
Reliability Engineering Group, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India

(Received on February 18, 2006)

Abstract: The deterministic limit equilibrium methods are widely used for assessing
the stability of slopes in geotechnical engineering practice. The input parameters
required for the calculations are very often inadequate and imprecise. At times
sufficient data may be available to define some of the uncertainties and at others
data may be scarce or based on expert judgment. In this case former can be modeled
based on probability theory and the latter needs fuzzy set theory for modeling. This
is a case where both types of uncertainty are present in the same problem. This paper
proposes a method of estimating reliability for fuzzy uncertain parameters, and
extends further for combination of uncertainties i.e. when some uncertainties are
fuzzy and others are random (Hybrid Approach). Later part is devoted to a
comparison of probabilistic, fuzzy set and hybrid methods of reliability analysis with
respect to its applicability for practical problems in geotechnical engineering,
especially slopes. This article shows the importance of proper modeling of
uncertainty. In general, possibilistic method gives the lowest value of reliability
index; probabilistic method yields the highest value of reliability index, whereas the
hybrid approach accommodates itself in between. This is in agreement with the
consistency principles proposed by Zadeh [14].

Keywords: slope stability, reliability, possibility, hybrid approach, uncertainty

modeling

1. Introduction

In the hilly terrains of India, including Himalayan mountains and Western Ghats, landslides
have been a major and widely spread form of natural disasters that occupy a position of
major concern. These landslides, year after year, bring about untold misery to human
settlements apart from causing devastating damages to transportation and communication
network. The assessment of slope stability is a complex geotechnical problem because of
the uncertainties involved. Due to the need to treat uncertainties and the inability of the
conventional deterministic methods of analysis to incorporate the variability of geologic
materials ,, there have been numerous attempts in recent years to use a probabilistic
approach complementary to the conventional approach for analyzing the slopes [2,7,9].

________________________________________
*
Corresponding author’s email: gvee@civil.iitb.ac.in 231
232 Vageesha S. Mathada, G. Venkatachalam and A. Srividya

Probability theory has been considered for many years as the only way to take account
of the uncertainties in the definition of the input variables. It has been recently underlined
that probability theory can be used when the variables are random in nature and when the
information required to define their probability density functions is available[5]. In the
following two cases at least the variables cannot be considered as random variables, since
the available body of information is small and their definitions come from subjective
judgment. The first case typically arises in geotechnical engineering design, where
statistical information on uncertain parameters may be scarce or even absent and the
definition of probabilistic quantities can be made only on the basis of normative
requirements. The second case arises when some variables, described with qualitative words
or phrases must be translated into linguistic variables and, finally, expressed in a numerical
way. The problems involving uncertain or subjective non-random variables especially, those
based on incomplete information can be treated in a consistent way in the context of the
theories of possibilities and fuzzy sets [4,5,7,15]. Possibility of an event is weaker
information than probability, but can be evaluated on the basis of available information
only. The advantage of possibility theory is that it is also able to point out those situations
where the body of information is scarce and no useful estimates of the occurrence of the
event can be obtained [5].

The uncertainties connected to measured geotechnical parameters, in fact, may be non-

stochastic in nature [10, 13]. In [10] fuzzy numbers were used to represent uncertainty and
a method was presented to assess stability of slopes by comparing the resulting fuzzy factor
of safety with predefined fuzzy sets of safety using credibility scores. The safety assessment
was based on linguistic terms without quantitative feel. The Fuzzy Point Estimate Method
(FPEM) was proposed in [4] through which fuzzy failure probability can be estimated.
Later, using the concepts proposed in [4], Fuzzy First Order Second Moment (FFOSM) was
developed to estimate the failure probability [7]. However, there were difficulties in these
methods. A stable method to calculate the failure probability using fuzzy uncertainties was
proposed in [11]. In many geotechnical problems, in particular, some of the uncertainties
can be defined by probability distribution functions as sufficient data is available for them
and others are to be modeled as fuzzy. The proposed hybrid method would be an alternative
which combines the probability distribution functions with fuzzy calculus for the purpose of
estimating safety.

In the first part of this paper, the fuzzy set theory, development of fuzzy model,
procedure for possibilistic reliability analysis and the proposed hybrid method are
presented. The main objective of this paper is to incorporate different types of uncertainty in
the reliability analysis of slopes. Emphasis will be given to comparison of different
methods. The well known probabilistic methods are not discussed. In the second part a
comparison between probabilistic, possibilistic and hybrid reliability analysis is done for a
simple case of a homogeneous slope.

2. Basics of Fuzzy Sets Theory

The generalization of ordinary or classical set theory is fuzzy set theory. It consists of
mathematical tools developed to model and process incomplete information and/or gradual
information, ranging from interval-valued numerical data to symbolic and linguistic
expressions. The concepts and definitions of the fuzzy set theory have been very well
summarized in [4, 12, and 13].
 Slope Stability Assessment – A Comparison of Probabilistic, Possibilistic and Hybrid Approaches 233

2.1 Fuzzy sets and membership functions

Fuzzy sets do not have sharp or precise boundaries as against crisp (or ordinary) sets. When
a fuzzy set is defined over a continuous domain, such as real numbers, analytical
representation is used. If the shape of the membership function is trapezoidal, the fuzzy set
is called Trapezoidal fuzzy number (TrFN). TrFN is characterized by the height and four
distinct elements of the fuzzy set interval (Fig. 1). Taking b = c , the fuzzy set reduces to
Triangular fuzzy number (TFN). The generic analytical expression for TrFN is given as:

 (a − x)
 (a h for a ≤ x ≤ b
 − b)
h for b ≤ x ≤ c
α A (x ) =  (1)
 (c − x)
h for c ≤ x ≤ d
 (c − d)
 0 otherwise


αA(x)
b c
1

Aα
α

0
a d X
Fig. 1: Trapezoidal Fuzzy Number with an α-cut

Some times nonlinear functions of the form of Gaussian fuzzy numbers are also used. The
normalized Gaussian fuzzy number is shown in Fig. 2. In that case the membership function
is given by
2
1  x−µ 
−  
2  σ
α A (x) = e  (2)

3. Construction of Fuzzy Numbers for Geotechnical Uncertainties

To characterize uncertainties in geotechnical properties and behavior, one needs to

combine, in addition to the actual test data, knowledge about the quality of data, and most
importantly engineering judgment and experience. Then, an appropriate material
formulation of uncertainty capturing these information is to be incorporated [13]. Usual
probability theory cannot capture majority of these uncertainties and needs large data sets to
characterize uncertainty [15]. Subjective information, judgmental opinions, scant evidence,
tentative facts, suspicious beliefs, ill defined boundaries and disjoint data can be modified
and manipulated using fuzzy sets theory in manner which reflects the degree of imprecision
in the original information and data [15].
234 Vageesha S. Mathada, G. Venkatachalam and A. Srividya

1  1  x−µ  2 
−    
2 σ  
 
α A ( x) = e 

α A(X )

0
X

Fig. 2: Gaussian Fuzzy Number

Due to the characteristics mentioned above, the construction of fuzzy numbers to

characterize uncertainty with whatever little available or with no information about the
variable becomes very important. The proposed methods in [12] are based on judgment
and/or statistical data. But there is no commonly accepted procedure for estimating the
possibility distribution of a variable. There are different ways by which these fuzzy numbers
can be constructed. In this study, a method based on the statistics of the available limited
data is used as follows:

3.1 Using the Statistics of the Insufficient Data

In this case the construction of fuzzy set depends on two things viz. the identification of
a suitable universe of discourse and the specification of an appropriate membership
function. For the TrFN as shown in Fig.1, a, b, c and d are calculated as:

a = E [ X i ] − k 1σ [ X i ] 

b = E [ X i ] − k 2σ [ X i ] 
 (3)
c = E [ X i ] + k 2σ [ X i ] 
d = E [ X i ] + k 1σ [ X i ] 

ki being the number of standard deviations between the expected value of the parameter and
the fuzzy set vertexes. The values of k1 and k2 in (3) allow for the judgment or experience of
the expert to consider the soil behaviors that cannot be formalized or tested. Some
guidelines for the proper choice of k1 and k2 are available in [4,10,13]. Suggested values of
k1 and k2 are in the ranges of 1-3 and 0-1, respectively depending on the data available and
the accuracy of the results desired. The values of k1 and k2 of 1.5 and 0.5, respectively to get
the fuzzy variable were used in [7]. The fuzzy information can also be better modeled using
Gaussian fuzzy numbers as shown in Fig. 2. In this paper different sets of k1 and k2, and
Gaussian fuzzy numbers are used to model fuzzy information.

4. Reliability Assessment of Slopes

 Slope Stability Assessment – A Comparison of Probabilistic, Possibilistic and Hybrid Approaches 235

4.1 Probabilistic Approach

There are several methods by which reliability of geotechnical structures can be found.
According to the Mean Value First Order Second Moment (MFOSM) method, which is
widely used in geotechnical engineering., taking the performance function and the limit
state as ( FS − 1 = 0 ), as applicable to slopes, the reliability index based on MFOSM
model is given by:

E ( FS ) − 1
β = (4a)
σ ( FS )
FS ( µ X i ) − 1
= (4b)
2
m
 ∂FS  m
 ∂FS   ∂FS 
∑  ∂X
i =1
 σ [X i

i 
]2 + 2 ∑  ∂X
i , j =1 i

  ∂X
 j


[ j]
 ρ ij σ [ X i ]σ X

i≠ j

where m = number of variables;

E [FS] = Expected value of factor of safety;
σ [FS] = Standard deviation of factor of safety
µXi = Mean value of parameter Xi
σ [Xi] = Standard deviation of parameter Xi
ρij = Correlation coefficient between parameters Xi and Xj

The partial derivatives in the above equation are calculated using the relation

∂FS FS + − FS −
= (5)
∂X i 2σ [ X i ]

where FS + and FS – are the values of FS obtained using the parameter values greater than
and less than the mean by an increment σ [Xi], respectively as per [9].

A common approach is to assume -FS to be a normally distributed function. In the case of a

lognormal probability density function for FS, the reliability index β is given by:
E [ln ( FS ) ]
β = (6)
σ [ln ( FS ) ]

  σ [ FS ] 
2 
where σ [ln ( FS )] = ln  1 +    (7)
  E [ FS ]  
 

and E [ln ( FS )] = ln ( E [ FS ]) −
(σ [ln ( FS )]) 2 (8)
2
In both the cases the probability of failure p f is calculated as:
236 Vageesha S. Mathada, G. Venkatachalam and A. Srividya

p f = Φ −1 ( − β ) (9)
where Φ is the standard normal variate.

4.2 Fuzzy Approach

Fuzzy sets based approaches for the computation of reliability index include Fuzzy Point
Estimate Method (FPEM) [4], Fuzzy FOSM [7] and Possibilistic method [11]. In the first
two methods the α-cuts near 1 are not considered. In FPEM and Possibilistic method, the
correlation coefficients are given equal rating while computing the weighting factors. The
method presented here removes the weighting factors from the equations presented in [11].
Its application to uncorrelated variables is given below.

Let us consider M multivariate uncertain parameters

X = [ X 1 , X 2 , X 3 , L L , X M ] and further let us assume that these uncertain
T

parameters are defined by fuzzy numbers. The fuzzy numbers may be either in the form of
TrFN of the form a , b , c , d (refer Fig. 1) or Gaussian fuzzy numbers (refer Fig. 2). Now
to decide upon the position of α-cuts, select the number of α-cuts (N), depending on the
accuracy required. Detailed trials by the authors (not presented here) with various values of
N has shown that a value of 10 for N is sufficient for most of the practical problems in
geotechnical engineering. The positions of these N α-cuts is thus given by:

i
αi = , i = 1, 2 , 3 , L L , N (10)
N

This step removes the ambiguity of selection and position of α-cuts, and does not miss
the information content at higher membership grades. Let W = g ( x ) is the performance
function. In this case g(x) is nothing but the factor of safety expression from any of the limit
equilibrium methods. The ultimate goal is to get fuzzy factor of safety so that its mean and
standard deviation can be computed. To get the resulting fuzzy set of factor of safety,
initially, the worst and best combination of these uncertain variables is to be established.
These variables can be classified as pro-variables or opposing-variables depending on
whether there is increase or decrease in FS, respectively with the increase in the value of
that variable. Usually strength variables such as c’ and φ’ are pro-variables and unit weight
γ, pore pressure ratio ru are opposing variables.

At each α-cut, the lower bound and upper bound values for all uncertain parameters are
obtained as:
xα i − = inf
α ( xi ) ≥α i
( )
X αi 

x α i + = sup X α i  ( ) for pro - variables

α ( xi ) ≥α i  (11)
x α i − = sup X α i  ( 
)
α ( xi ) ≥α i
 for opposing variables
xα i + = inf (X αi )
α ( x i ) ≥α i 
 Slope Stability Assessment – A Comparison of Probabilistic, Possibilistic and Hybrid Approaches 237

Then for each α i ( 0 < α ≤ 1 ; i = 1, 2 , 3, L , N ) , the size [ X α i + ] and [ X αi − ] is

M × 1.

For the function W = g ( x ) , the function evaluation is carried out as below:

The average of the function values at each α-cut level is calculated as:

g r ( X αi+ ) + g r ( X αi− )
r
Wα = for i = 1, 2 , K , N (12)
i 2
The rth moment and the standard deviation are then obtained by using the relations:
1  r 
N −1
EWr = [ ] N 
Wα + 2
N ∑
α i Wαr  ;
i 
r = 1, 2 (13 a)
i =1 

σ [W ] = [ ]
E W 2 − ( E [W ]) 2 (13 b)

Equation (13 a) derives considerations from f-weighted possibilistic mean of fuzzy

numbers with f ( α ) = 2α proposed in [6]. From equation (13) the expected value and
standard deviation of the variable function can be obtained. The reliability index is then
calculated using either equation (4a) or equation (6) depending on the assumption of FS
distribution for the slopes and this β is termed as β Possibilistic. The important advantage in this
approach is that there is no ambiguity in the selection and position of α-cuts as against some
of the available approaches, and the solution converges as the number of α-cuts increases.

4.3 Hybrid Approach

The representation of uncertainty by a probability distribution function rather than fuzzy

numbers, even when faced with lack of information may lead to non-conservative
estimation of risk [8]. It is rather appropriate to consider modeling parameter uncertainty in
terms of possibilities rather than probabilities when sufficient information does not exist. If
a given model involves some parameters that are justifiably represented by probability
density functions (in particular, sufficient data exists to substantiate these pdfs), while
others are considered to be more adequately represented by fuzzy numbers, a method should
be derived to combine these two modes of representation of uncertainty. This might be
achieved by either possibility or probability transformations or belief functions. Even
though different alternatives exist, the proposed approach is more intuitively amenable to
use by a practicing geotechnical engineer. The proposed Hybrid procedure is explained
below:

E [ FS ] or β = f ( P1 , P2 , L , Pk , F1 , F2 , L , Fm ) (14)

where f is the function; P1, P2, …….., Pk are k uncertain parameters each being represented
by a p.d.f.; and F1, F2, …….., Fm are m uncertain parameters that are represented by fuzzy
numbers. FOSM method is combined with the method of α-cuts of fuzzy calculus for the
calculation of E [ FS ] or β . The stepwise procedure is given in detail in [14]. The
important points are summarized below:
238 Vageesha S. Mathada, G. Venkatachalam and A. Srividya

a) An α-cut level is selected. The 2m end points of each α-cut of all the fuzzy variables
would lead to 2m well defined combinations for m fuzzy uncertainties. These can now
be considered as deterministic inputs in the function evaluation.
b) With one of these fuzzy combinations as the input for fuzzy variables, the problem now
reduces to a problem with only k random uncertainties. Any of the standard methods
(FOSM, RPEM, etc.) can be used to compute 2m values of E [FS], σ [FS] and β ,after
assuming the type of distribution for FS.
c) 2m combinations of fuzzy variables will lead to 2m values of E [FS], σ [FS] and β at
each α-cut level. Select the minimum and maximum for E [FS], σ [FS] and β from the
respective 2m values for each of these at each α-cut level -using the guidelines given in
section 4.2.
d) Repeat this procedure for all α-cut levels and finally construct the fuzzy sets of E[FS],
σ [FS] and β..FS will have fuzzy-random distribution with fuzzy mean and fuzzy
standard deviations, and the resulting reliability index is fuzzy in nature.
e) To get an equivalent single value of β the following procedure is suggested:

i. Compute mean of fuzzy random distribution of FS, E[FS] FR as mean of fuzzy

E[FS].
ii. Compute the mean of fuzzy standard deviation, mean σR, due to randomness of
some of the properties (using equation 13 a). This mean standard deviation is
approximated as the invariant standard deviation (σ) of fuzzy random FS due to
randomness.
iii. Compute the variance of fuzzy mean (σµ2). Then the variance of fuzzy random
distribution is given by:

Var [ FS ] = σ 2 + σ µ2 (15)

iv. Now, β H for the hybrid approach is calculated using the relations given in
equations (4) or (6) depending upon the assumption of distribution of FS.

The hybrid approaches take advantage of the rich information provided by PDFs, but retains
the conservative character of fuzzy calculus to account for these parameters for which
representation by unique PDFs is not justified by the available data [8] and the proposed
method is also along those lines.

5. Illustrative Example

The relationship between the performance function and the conventional factor of safety can
be written simply as:

G (X) = FS (X) -1 (16)

In slope stability analysis X is a vector of soil properties and pore water pressures. The
error associated with the method of analysis, amounting to about 5% in computed FS for
even the relatively better techniques, is small compared to uncertainties arising in the
selection of these properties. In the following examples, the Bishop’s simplified method is
used. However, the method developed can be used with any other well known limit
equilibrium method of slope stability analysis. A homogeneous slope from [3], with height
 Slope Stability Assessment – A Comparison of Probabilistic, Possibilistic and Hybrid Approaches 239

H=10m and the slope inclination 1V:3H, is considered for the examples discussed in this
section (Fig. 3). The properties considered are given in Table 1.

10 m 1

Fig. 3: The Geometry of Slope

To compare probabilistic, possibilistic and hybrid methods, this example is analyzed by

considering the uncertainties in input parameters as (a) probabilistic variables, (b) fuzzy
variables and (c) some of the variables as fuzzy and some as random. For the possibilistic
analysis, the construction of fuzzy number for an uncertain variable is done as below:
i) k1 = 0.12566 and k2 = 2.33 i.e. 1%, 45%, 55% and 99% fractiles are used as a,
b, c and d respectively, in the TrFN.
ii) k1 = 0.5 and k2 = 1.5 as used in [7].
iii)Gaussian fuzzy numbers.

Table 1: Properties of Soil for the Illustrative Example (from [3])

Soil Parameter Mean Standard Deviation
Cohesion c’ (kN/m2) 12 2
Friction angle φ’ (Deg.) 15 2.5
Unit weight γ (kN/m3) 20 1.2
Pore pressure ratio ru 0.2 0.02

Table 2 gives the standard deviations of the different fuzzy numbers ,calculated using
the approach given in section 4.2. While doing the hybrid analysis, c’ and φ’ are considered
as fuzzy variables and γ and ru are considered as random variables. Ten α-cuts are
considered in fuzzy and hybrid analysis.

Table 2: Standard Deviations obtained for Different Fuzzy Numbers

Type of Fuzzy k1 k2 σFuzzy Model / σ
Number
Trapezoidal 0.12566 2.33 1.0002
Trapezoidal 0.5 1.5 0.8631
Gaussian - - 0.9921

Probabilistic reliability analysis was done using standard MFOSM method as given in
section 4.1. Similarly, the possibilistic (fuzzy) reliability analysis is carried out using the
method proposed in section 4.2, while the hybrid approach follows the steps of section 4.3.
All these analyses were done on the critical deterministic surface as critical reliability
240 Vageesha S. Mathada, G. Venkatachalam and A. Srividya

surface and critical deterministic surface almost coincide for homogeneous slopes [13]. The
results are tabulated in Tables 3, 4 and 5 for probabilistic, possibilistic and hybrid analysis.

Table 3: Results of Probabilistic Analysis

E[FS] σ[FS] β(N) pf(N) β(ln) pf(ln)
1.32923 0.16957 1.94163 0.02609 2.17652 0.01476

Table 4: Results of Possibilistic (Fuzzy) Analysis

Fuzzy
Number k1 k2 E[FS] σ[FS] β(N) pf(N) β(ln) pf(ln)
Type
TrFN 0.1257 2.33 1.3420 0.2833 1.2072 0.1137 1.3044 0.0961
TrFN 0.5 1.5 1.3387 0.2437 1.3901 0.0823 1.5256 0.0636
Gaussian - - 1.3418 0.2806 1.2182 0.1116 1.3178 0.0938
Table 5: Results of Hybrid Analysis (c’, φ’ are fuzzy and γ, ru are random)
Fuzzy
Number mean
Type E(FS)FR σFR σ meanF σR β(Ν)FR pf(N)FR β(ln)FR pf(ln)FR
TrFN(1)a 1.3309 0.2314 0.2281 0.0389 1.4300 0.0764 1.5702 0.0582
TrFN(2)b 1.3305 0.2005 0.1967 0.0388 1.6480 0.0497 1.8301 0.0336
Gaussian 1.3310 0.2296 0.2263 0.0387 1.4419 0.0747 1.5844 0.0566
a
TrFN (1) is a Trapezoidal Fuzzy Number with k1 = 0.1257 and k2 = 2.33
b
TrFN (2) is a Trapezoidal Fuzzy Number with k1 = 0.5 and k2 = 1.5

6. Discussions

From the results it is clear that the least failure probability is obtained from the probabilistic
analysis, highest failure probability (possibility) is obtained from fuzzy analysis and the
hybrid analysis gives the failure probability in between the two. The differences in
reliabilities are significant even though the uncertain material properties are modeled to
have similar standard deviations in both probabilistic and fuzzy modeling. The results
confirm the fact that force fitting a probabilistic distribution with insufficient information
may lead to non-conservative risk. It is also true that ignoring the available information
content may lead to uneconomical designs, which is clear in hybrid analysis. The trend in
the results is the same in all the analyses. The results in Tables 3-5 show that although the
difference between the expected values of FS by different approaches for a particular case is
small, the standard deviation of FS is very different in all, and hence the difference in
reliability index. In a real case of layered slope, if the floating surface is used instead of a
fixed surface, one may get a band indicating the failure zone in the case of fuzzy analysis
and in hybrid analysis. There are conflicting views on the usage of floating surfaces as it
does not give any physical meaning. For the problem analyzed this will not arise as the
minimum reliability surface and critical deterministic surface almost coincide.

7. Conclusions

A simple and clear deductive procedure has been proposed for computing the safety of
slopes when fuzzy uncertainties are present as well as when some of the uncertainties are
 Slope Stability Assessment – A Comparison of Probabilistic, Possibilistic and Hybrid Approaches 241

fuzzy and others are random. The possibility of an event being greater than probability [14]
as per Zadeh’s Consistency Principle, the proposed PoRAM answers the need for an
appropriate measure where a probabilistic estimate would be on the unsafe side. In practical
situations where some variables are random and others fuzzy, the proposed Hybrid method
is recommended. It enables a realistic estimate of the reliability index which lies between
those of probabilistic and possibilistic values. Given a target β it is possible to evaluate the
degree of safety accomplishment in a slope.

References

[1] Chao Ru-Jen and B. M. Ayyub., Distributions with Fuzziness and Randomness, Proc.
of ISUMA-NAFIPS ’95, IEEE, pp. 668-673, 1995.
[2] Christian, J. T., C. C. Ladd and G. B. Baecher, Reliability Applied to Slope Stability
Analysis. J. Geotech. and Geoenv. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 120, pp. 2180-2207, 1994.
[3] Chowdhury, R. N. and D. W. Xu, Reliability Index for Slope Stability Assessment –
Two Methods Compared, Reliability Engrg. and Sys. Safety, Vol. 37, pp. 99-108,
1992.
[4] Dodagoudar, G. R. and G. Venkatachalam, Reliability Analysis of Slopes using Fuzzy
Sets Theory, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 27, pp. 101-115, 2000.
[5] Ferarri, P. and M. Savoia, Fuzzy Number Theory to Obtain Conservative results with
respect to Probability, Computer Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., Vol. 160, pp. 205-222,
1998.
[6] Fuller, R. and P. Majlender, On Weighted Possibilistic Mean and Variance of Fuzzy
Numbers, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 136, pp. 363-374, 2003.
[7] Giasi, C. I., P. Masi, and C. Cherubini, Probabilistic and Fuzzy Reliability Analysis of
a Sample Slope near Aliano. Engrg. Geol., Vol. 67, pp. 391-402, 2003.
[8] Guyonnet, D., B. Bourgine, , D. Dubios, H. Fargier, B. Côme, and J. Chilès, J.,
Hybrid Approach for Addressing Uncertainty in Risk Assessments, Journal of
Environmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129, pp. 68-78, 2003.
[9] Hassan, A. M. and T. F. Wolff, Search Algorithm for Minimum Reliability Index of
Earth Slopes, J. Geotech. and Geoenv. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 125, pp. 301-308, 1999.
[10] Juang, C. H., Y.-Y.Jhi, and D. H. Lee, Stability Analysis of Existing Slopes
Considering Uncertainty., Engrg. Geol., Vol. 49, pp. 111-112, 1998.
[11] Mathada, V. S., G. Venkatachalam, and A. Srividya,, A method for Possibilistic
Reliability Analysis of Slopes, Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Struct. Safety and
Reliability (ICOSSAR ‘2005), CD-ROM Version, pp 993-998, 2005.
[12] Misra, K. B. (Ed.), New Trends in System Reliability Evaluation, Elsevier, 1993.
[13] Nawari, N. O. and R. Liang, Fuzzy-based approach for determination of characteristic
values of measured geotechnical parameters, Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 37, pp. 1131-
1140, 2000.
[14] Venkatachalam, G., A. Srividya, V. S. Mathada, and D. Niranjani, A Hybrid
Approach for Uncertainty Modelling in Slope Stability Evaluation, NSAGE 2004,
Indian Inst. of Science, Bangalore, pp. 139-144, 2004.
[15] Zadeh, L. A., Probability Measures of Fuzzy Events, J. of Math. Anal. And
Applications, Vol. 23, pp.421-427, 1968.

Vageesha S. Mathada is a Ph.D. Student in Reliability Engineering at Indian Institute of

Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India. He received his B.E. degree in Civil engineering from
Mysore University and M.Tech. in Geotechnical Engineering from Mangalore University,
242 Vageesha S. Mathada, G. Venkatachalam and A. Srividya

India. He has more than 12 years of teaching experience in India and abroad. His research
interests included Reliability and Risk Estimation in Geotechnical Engineering, Ground
Improvement and Soil-Structure Interactions.

G. Venkatachalam is Professor of Civil Engineering at Indian Institute of Technology,

Bombay, India since 1985. He has been working in the areas of Geotechnical, Remote
Sensing, GIS and Centrifuge Modelling as applied to reliability and risk analysis of slopes.
Since 1972, when he joined IIT Bombay, he has been actively involved in teaching,
research, consultancy and development of content for continuing education activities. He
has supervised eleven Doctoral students and over seventy Master’s students in the areas of
Geotechnical Engineering and Remote Sensing. He has over 120 publications and many
reports to his credit. He has jointly authored, coordinated and edited a book on Soil
Mechanics for distance education. He received his Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from
Leningrad Polytechnic and M.Tech (Soil Engg.) from IIT Bombay.

A. Srividya joined IIT Bombay in 1988 and is currently Associate Professor in Reliability
Engineering. She has supervised 3 Ph.D.s and 34 Masters in the area of Reliability in
Engineering Design, Structural Reliability, Quality Management, Modelling and
Simulation. She has over 62 publications in various journals and conferences. She has
served as Guest Editor of special issue of IETE Technical Review on Quality Management
in Electronics, Telecommunications & IT, 2001. She has organized and has been conference
co-chairperson of various international conferences like ICQRC 2001 and ICQRIT 2003.
She has received the award for “Leadership in Reliability Engineering Education &
Research” (2003) by Society of Reliability Engineering, Quality & Operational
Management at ICQRIT – 2003.