Chapter 25-x

25
Stochastic Approach to Slope
Stability Analysis with In-Situ Data

Authors:
Jonathan Nuttall
Michael Hicks
Marti Lloret-Cabot

Motivation
Technologies to properly model the influence of soil heterogeneity on geotechnical
performance are desired. Traditional deterministic approaches based on single represent-
ative property values are to be replaced by an alternative stochastic approach, combining
random field theory with finite elements.

Main Results
A methodology for the stochastic approach has been developed incorporating the
spatial variation of material properties, thereby enabling a probabilistic evaluation of the
performance of slopes and other geotechnical structures.

1.0
Reliability

R = 95 %

Reliability R = 95%
P(f ) P(f ) = 0.05

527
25 Stochastic Approach to Slope Stability Analysis with In-Situ Data

25-1 Introduction
The inherent spatial variability of geo-material properties influences material behav-
iour and geo-structural response [Hicks and Onisiphorou, 2005]. It also leads to uncer-
tainty in design due to incomplete knowledge regarding in-situ conditions, and thereby
leads to the need for statistical definitions of material properties, probabilistic analysis,
and global response quantified in terms of reliability and probability of failure [Hicks,
2007]. Spatial variability is particularly important due to structural response typically
being governed by the soil profile, with failure mechanisms often following the weaker
zones within the soil [Griffiths and Fenton, 2000; 2001; 2004; Hicks and Samy, 2002a;
Hicks and Spencer, 2010]. Moreover, the need for adequate representation of soil proper-
ties and their variation has been recognized in geotechnical design codes, with the Eu-
ropean Union’s Eurocode 7 [Eurocode 7, 2004] introducing the concept of characteristic
values into the design process [Hicks and Nuttall, 2012].
Probabilistic modelling of slope stability problems has been carried out since the
1970s, albeit mainly through the use of limit equilibrium methods combined with various
statistical approaches [El-Ramly et al., 2002]. These statistical approaches have included
Monte Carlo methods, as well as so-called “approximate” methods such as the First Order
Second Moment (FOSM) and Point Estimation methods. Moreover, the representation
of soil variability has generally followed two approaches. [Tang et al., 1976; Harr, 1987;
Duncan, 2000] used the point statistics of a material property, implying an infinite spatial
correlation of properties; whereas [Vanmarcke, 1977; Mostyn and Soo, 1992; El-Ramly et
al., 2002; 2003; 2005] accounted for spatial variation by reducing the variance of material
properties along prescribed failure planes as a function of the correlation distance and
failure plane length.
However, the Finite Element Method (FEM) has more recently been adopted as a vi-
able alternative to the limit equilibrium method, while random field theory may be used
to provide more realistic modelling of the spatial variation of soil properties. For example,

Illustration of the statistics of property X : X as a function of depth (left) and F.25-1

probability density function of X (right) [Hicks and Samy, 2002a; 2002c]

µ
θ
Depth

pdf

σ σ

µ
X

528
 Site Characterization 25-2

[Paice and Griffiths, 1997; Griffiths and Fenton, 2000; 2004; Hicks and Samy, 2002a;
2002b; 2002c; 2004; Hicks and Onisiphorou, 2005] modelled failure mechanism devel-
opment by combining FEM and random field theory, an approach often referred to as the
Random Finite Element Method (RFEM) and which forms the basis of this paper.
This approach gives rise to the need for an adequate spatial representation of the soil,
as well as a suitable method of characterization. In particular, in addition to the stand-
ard statistical properties typically measured (i. e. mean, µ , and standard deviation, σ ), a
measure of the spatial variation is required. This is often defined by the scale of fluctua-
tion, θ , which is a measure of the distance between zones of similar property value, or, in
other words, the distance over which the property is significantly correlated [Vanmarcke,
1983]. It is important that a site is characterized adequately in terms of , in order to rep-
resent the spatial variability in both the horizontal and vertical directions, i. e. as given by
θ h and θv respectively.
This stochastic approach can be summarized by the following stages [Hicks and
Samy, 2002c]:
1) Statistical characterization: The material properties are represented in terms of statis-
tics that may be obtained through site investigation.
2) Prediction of spatial variability and analysis: The soil is modelled according to its
statistics, giving rise to an infinite number of possible soil profiles and the need for
Monte Carlo analysis, e. g. using the Random Finite Element Method (RFEM).
3) Probabilistic definitions of response: The RFEM results provide the probability of
failure and/or reliability; thereby providing the basis for a risk analysis.

This paper discusses these three steps in further detail, from the initial in-situ meas-
urements through to the final risk analysis.

25-2 Site Characterization

An important step in the stochastic approach is to characterize the material properties
at a site in terms of their point and spatial statistics. F.25-1 illustrates this process.
F.25-1 (left) shows the variation with depth of a property X in a soil layer. In a typical
deterministic analysis X would be represented by a single characteristic value, such as the
mean or lower bound. However stochastic analysis uses all the data, by expressing them in
the form of a probability density function, or pdf, characterized by the mean and standard
deviation of the property value, µ and σ respectively, as shown in F.25-1 (right). A third
statistical parameter, the scale of fluctuation, θ , defining the degree of spatial correlation
is required as indicated in F.25-1 (left). As θ increases, the degree of spatial correlation
increases and the distribution of the property values becomes more uniform.
There are various methods in literature for estimating the vertical scale of fluctuation,
θv , although there is little research on how to estimate the horizontal scale of fluctuation,
θ h . However a number of studies have demonstrated that θ h is an important considera-
tion in geotechnical modelling [Hicks and Samy, 2002a; 2002b; 2002c; 2004; Hicks and
Onisiphorou, 2005; Hicks and Spencer, 2010; Nuttall, 2011].

529
25 Stochastic Approach to Slope Stability Analysis with In-Situ Data

Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) may be used to estimate the statistics of the site. Due to
the high resolution of the CPT in the vertical direction, θv may be easily estimated. How-
ever the low resolution of data in the horizontal plane, due to the limited number of CPTs
that may be conducted across a site, means that θ h is more difficult to estimate.

25-2-1 Statistical Evaluation

[Wickremesinghe and Campanella, 1993; Wong, 2004; Lloret-Cabot et al., 2013]
discuss methods for estimating the scale of fluctuation, θ . The approach outlined in this
section was used by [Lloret-Cabot et al., 2013] to study the soil variability of artificial sand
islands constructed in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in the 1970s and 1980s; more specifi-
cally using data from the Tarsuit P-45 island, which had been the focus of several previous
studies [Hicks and Smith, 1988; Wong, 2004; Lloret-Cabot et al., 2012].
In this approach it is assumed that the in-situ data are statistically homogeneous (or
stationary), that is:
a) the data have a constant mean and constant standard deviation throughout the
profile;
b) the data have an autocorrelation function independent of location and depend-
ent only on the separation, or lag distance, τ , i. e. the correlation between property
values at two locations is only a function of the distance that separates them.

Condition a) is achieved by de-trending the data, as illustrated in F.25-2 for CPT tip re-
sistance data. F.25-2 (above) shows the original tip resistance data, qc , and the underlying

Example of a CPT profile: original data (above) and de-trended data (below) F.25-2
[Lloret-Cabot et al., 2013]

16

12
Tip resistance

trend
qc [MPa]

t(z) = mz+ b
8

0
6
qc* = qc − (mz + b) [MPa]

4
Trend removed tip

0 µ=0
−2

−4
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Depth [m]

530
 Modelling Spatial Variability 25-3

depth trend, t(z), whereas F.25-2 (below) shows the same data with the trend removed.
This approach has provided a useful approximation in a number of previous studies [Hicks
and Onisiphorou, 2005; Uzielli et al., 2005; Lloret et al., 2012]. A constant standard de-
viation, σ , and condition b) are likely to be present if the data are taken from the same soil
layer, as approximately uniform fluctuations are likely to occur in layers of the same soil
type [Phoon and Kulhawy, 1999]. However, the data can be de-trended if they exhibit a
depth trend in the standard deviation, by using a similiar procedure to that followed for
the mean. The next step in this approach is to estimate the scale of fluctuation, θ , by fit-
ting a theoretical correlation function, ρ (τ ) (E.25-1), to the experimental correlation func-
tion, ρˆ (τ ) (E.25-2), as illustrated in F.25-3. A number of correlation models exist [Fenton
and Griffiths, 2008]; however the exponential correlation model is given by:

 −2 | τ | 
ρ (τ ) = exp   E.25-1
 θ 

where θ can represent the scale of fluctuation in either the horizontal or vertical direc-
tions and τ is the lag distance. The experimental correlation function is given by:

n− j +1
1
ρˆ ( j ∆τ )
= ∑ ( X i − µˆ )( X i+ j − µˆ )
σˆ (n − j ) i =1
2
E.25-2

where µ̂ and σ̂ are the estimated mean and standard deviation respectively, taken from
the in-situ CPT data, and the interval ∆τ is the spacing of consecutive data [Fenton and
Griffiths, 2008].
F.25-3 illustrates the difficulty of estimating the horizontal scale of fluctuation, θ h ; that
is, in the horizontal direction there are often relatively few data points available over the
site, as indicated by the circles in F.25-3 (below).

25-3 Modelling Spatial Variability

Having statistically characterized a soil layer based on data obtained at discrete loca-
tions, it is possible to generate random field predictions of the spatial variability across
the entire site.

25-3-1 Random Field Generation

Random fields are generated using random field theory. The present strategy gener-
ates random fields using the Local Average Subdivision (LAS) method [Vanmarcke, 1983;
Fenton, 1990; Fenton and Vanmarcke, 1990]; a 2D algorithm was first developed [Hicks
and Samy, 2002a; 2004] and subsequently a 3D algorithm [Spencer, 2007; Nuttall, 2011].
The algorithm is broken down into the following basic steps [Hicks and Spencer, 2010]:

531
25 Stochastic Approach to Slope Stability Analysis with In-Situ Data

Example of estimating the scale of fluctuation θ : vertical direction, θv (above) F.25-3

and horizontal direction, θ h (below) [Lloret-Cabot et al., 2013]

1.5
Correlation function ρ (τ ) theoretical ρ (τ )
1 estimated ρ (τ )

0.5 Optimised θv = 0.24 m

−0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Vertical lag τ v [m]
1.5
theoretical ρ (τ )
Correlation function ρ (τ )

1 estimated ρ (τ )

0.5

0
Optimised θh = 12.67 m
−0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Horizontal lag τ h [m]

1) LAS [Vanmarcke, 1983; Fenton, 1990; Fenton and Vanmarcke, 1990] generates a
square (2D) or cubic (3D) isotropic standard normal (Gaussian) random field of size D.
The field is generated by uniformly subdividing the domain into square or cubic cells
of dimension d, maintaining the mean value of the subdivided cells through upward
averaging, with each cell value spatially correlated with its neighbours based upon
an exponential Markov covariance function [Fenton and Vanmarcke, 1990]. For 2D
this is given by:

 2 2 
 2τ 1   2τ 2  
β (τ 1 ,τ 2 ) =σ 2 exp  −   +   E.25-3
   θ1   θ2  
 

and for 3D:

 2 2 
2 |τ1 |  2τ   2τ 
β (τ 1 ,τ 2 ,τ 3 =) σ 2 exp  − −  2  + 3   E.25-4
 θ1 
 θ2   θ3  
 

where β is the covariance, τ is the lag distance and subscripts 1–3 denote the verti-
cal and the two lateral directions respectively. However, due to the overall statistics
being poorly preserved in the anisotropic process, the random field is initially gener-

532
 Modelling Spatial Variability 25-3

ated with a constant scale of fluctuation, i. e. θ= θ=1 θ2= θ3 , where θ is taken to be
the largest scale of fluctuation over the domain; in geotechnical practice this usually
corresponds to the horizontal plane, i. e. θ = θ h , due to the method of deposition for
most geo-materials.
2) An anisotropic field is generated by squashing the isotropic field; i. e. preserving θ h in
the horizontal plane while compressing θ in the vertical direction to become θv . The
compressing process averages several layers of cells into a single layer, the number of
these cells being equal to the degree of anisotropy of the heterogeneity, ξ = θ h / θv .
F.25-4 illustrates the effect of increasing ξ on a single post-processed random field.
3) The anisotropic field is transformed from a standard normal (Gaussian) distribution
to a normal, or other, distribution, by using a suitable transformation, i. e. for the
normal conversion:

( x ) µ ( z ) + σ ( z )Z ( x )
X= E.25-5

where x = ( x y z )T defines the centroid of the random field cell and Z(x ) is the local
average for a random field cell at location x. µ and σ are taken from the site statis-
tics and re-incorporate their respective depth trends, removed during the statistical
characterization, into the random field.

A random field has now been generated that exhibits statistical properties that are
consistent to those of the in-situ conditions. An infinite number of possible random fields
exist for a given set of statistics. The aim is to analyze the geotechnical problem for a suf-
ficient number of random fields, so as to give a statistically representative solution. One
such method is the Random Finite Element Method (RFEM) [Griffiths and Fenton, 2004;
Hicks and Onisiphorou, 2005; Nuttall, 2011].
Note that the range of random fields may be reduced by conditioning the random
fields to the field measurements (e. g. CPT data) [Lloret-Cabot et al., 2012].

25-3-2 Random Finite Element Method (RFEM)

Although the Random Finite Element Method (RFEM) has been around in various
guises since the 1980s, the technique was developed by [Fenton and Griffiths, 1993a;
1993b] in the 1990s. It involves mapping a random field onto a finite element mesh and
subsequent analysis of the problem by finite elements. The mapping of the properties in-

Illustration of the effect of increasing anisotropy for a single random field F.25-4

Increasing ξ

533
25 Stochastic Approach to Slope Stability Analysis with In-Situ Data

volves assigning each random field cell value to a finite element, or sampling point within
the element, thus mapping the spatial variation of the properties to the deterministic FE
analysis. Due to the range of possible random fields, the analysis is carried out within a
Monte Carlo framework, where, in each realization, the random field is mapped onto the
FE domain, a deterministic FE analysis is undertaken, and the required measure of perfor-
mance is recorded. This repetitive process continues until the performance measure has
statistically converged to within an acceptable tolerance.
The results are typically presented in the form of a “performance” pdf or cumulative
distribution function (cdf ), which expresses the probability of occurrence of a structure
response, e. g. in terms of reliability, or probability of failure, P(f ), as shown in F.25-5.

25-4 Risk
Risk may be defined as (probability of failure) × (consequence of failure). Although
RFEM provides the probability of failure of a given structure, until recently little research
had been carried out to quantify the consequence. The consequence of a given failure
can be far reaching and is often a matter of opinion or conjecture, going beyond the mere
financial cost of a failure. Therefore it is difficult to quantify consequence in a simple man-
ner or cost estimation. It could be argued that the ultimate cost, or consequence, of a fail-
ure is proportional to the size of the failure; for example, the consequence of a landslide,
or liquefaction slide, may be considered to be proportional to the volume of the failure,
whereas the consequence of a dike or dam failure may be proportional to the depth of the
failure within the structure. Hence:

Consequence ∝ Failure (volume, length, etc.) E.25-6

and therefore:

Risk ∝ P(f ) ⋅ Failure (volume, length, etc.) E.25-7

Illustrations of performance from an RFEM analysis F.25-5

Total area = 1.0

1.0
pdf

cdf

Reliability
R = 95 %

Reliability R = 95 %
P(f ) P(f ) = 0.05

Structure response Structure response

534
 Case Study 25-5

This approach to risk makes it possible to estimate a value for the relative risk associ-
ated with a particular structure and failure using RFEM. During each realization, not only
is the structure analyzed for global response (or failure), but also the corresponding con-
sequence of the response is measured; i. e. the volume, depth and/or length of the failed
zone are determined, which can be used to estimate risk according to E.25-7.

25-5 Case Study

To explore this methodology, a case study is presented using RFEM. F.25-6 shows the
geometry and mesh for a 45° slope founded on a 3 m layer of soil. The slope and founda-
tion are considered to be from the same layer. The problem is modelled using eight node
quadratic finite elements with 2 × 2 Gaussian integration [Smith and Griffiths, 2004]. The
boundary conditions are that the left and right sides of the domain are allowed to move
vertically, whereas the base is fixed.
In this analysis the soil is modelled as an elastic, perfectly plastic Von Mises material,
characterized by a spatially varying undrained shear strength, cu , defined at the sampling
points. The spatial statistics for the soil layer have been defined to illustrate the applica-
tion, instead of using actual site data, although in reality they would be taken from in-
situ data using the procedure set out in section 25-2. Therefore, random fields of cu have

Mesh geometry for 2D slope stability analysis F.25-6

10 m 5m 10 m
5m
3m

A realization of the cu random field F.25-7

535
25 Stochastic Approach to Slope Stability Analysis with In-Situ Data

been generated using the LAS method assuming a normal property distribution, with µ  =
40 kPa, σ = 8 kPa, θv = 1 m and θ h = 12 m (i. e. ξ = 12).
For each realization of the random field (F.25-7), the factor of safety of the slope is
calculated, by repeatedly analyzing the slope for increasing gravity loading until failure
occurs [Nuttall, 2011]. From these results the probability of failure P(f ) of the slope is
calculated as a function of the factor of safety (FOS), using a Monte Carlo simulation, in
this case with 350 realizations (F.25-8). F.25-8 shows the probability of failure of the slope
against FOS. It also indicates the value of FOS computed for a deterministic analysis of the
same slope based only on cu = µ = 40 kPa (i. e. without the influence of heterogeneity).
This graph clearly shows that the spatial variability has a significant impact on the failure
of the slope. In comparing the homogeneous and stochastic analyses, it is seen that, for
the slope based only on µ , the factor of safety corresponds to a probability of failure of
P(f ) ≅ 81.5 % when spatial variation is incorporated.
Furthermore, the circles in F.25-8 indicate the failure volumes of the slope, which can
be combined with the reliability results to give the associated risk of designing the slope
to a specific factor of safety, using E.25-7.

25-6 Conclusions
This paper has demonstrated that traditional deterministic slope stability analyses
(i. e. ignoring heterogeneity) provide results that can overestimate the strength of a slope.
An alternative stochastic approach has been presented; this starts with the characteriza-
tion of a soil layer using in-situ data, then representing the soil profile using a random
field generated using Local Average Subdivision (LAS), and finally conducting a reliability
analysis using the Random Finite Element Method (RFEM). The inclusion of failure volume

Probability of failure and failure volume versus factor of safety (FOS) F.25-8

100
P(f )
Volume
Deterministic
80
P(f ) [%] / Vol [%]

60

40

20

0
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7
FOS

536
 References 25

and consequence, to the analysis, has led to an evaluation of risk that can be incorporated
into the design process.

References
Duncan, J. M., 2000. Factors of Safety and Reliability in Geotechnical Engineering. J Geotech
Eng, 126(4):307–316.
El-Ramly, H., Morgenstern, N. R. and Cruden, D. M., 2002. Probabilistic Slope Stability
Analysis for Practice. Can Geotech J, 39(3):665–683.
El-Ramly, H., Morgenstern, N. R. and Cruden, D. M., 2003. Probabilistic Stability Analysis of
a Tailings Dyke on Pre-Sheared Clay-Shale. Can Geotech J, 40(1):192–208.
El-Ramly, H., Morgenstern, N. R. and Cruden, D. M., 2005. Probabilistic Assessment of Sta-
bility of a Cut Slope in Residual Soil. Géotechnique, 55(1):77–84.
Eurocode 7, 2004. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design. Part 1: General Rules. EN 1997-1. Euro-
pean Commitee for Standardisation (CEN).
Fenton, G. A., 1990. Simulation and Analysis of Random Fields. PhD Thesis, Princeton Uni-
versity, USA.
Fenton, G. A. and Griffiths, D. V., 1993a. Seepage Beneath Water Retaining Structures
Founded on Spatially Random Soil. Géotechnique, 43(6):577–587.
Fenton, G. A. and Griffiths, D. V., 1993b. Statistics of Block Conductivity through a Simple
Bounded Stochastic Medium. Water Resources Research, 29(6):1825–1830.
Fenton, G. A. and Griffiths, D. V., 2008. Risk Assessment in Geotechnical Engineering. John
Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA.
Fenton, G. A. and Vanmarcke, E. H., 1990. Simulation of Random Fields via Local Average
Subdivision. J Eng Mech, 116(8):1733–1749.
Griffiths, D. V. and Fenton, G. A., 2000. Influence of Soil Strength Spatial Variability on the
Stability of an Undrained Clay Slope by Finite Elements. In Slope Stability 2000, Proceed-
ings of Sessions of Geo-Denver, ASCE, 184 –193.
Griffiths, D. V. and Fenton, G. A., 2001. Bearing Capacity of Spatially Random Soil: the Und-
rained Clay Prandtl Problem Revisited. Géotechnique, 51(4):351–359.
Griffiths, D. V. and Fenton, G. A., 2004. Probabilistic Slope Stability Analysis by Finite Ele-
ments. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, 130(5):507–518.
Harr, M. E., 1987. Reliability-Based Design in Civil Engineering. McGraw-Hill.
Hicks, M. A., 2007. Risk and Variability in Geotechnical Engineering. Ed., Thomas Telford.
Hicks, M. A. and Nuttall, J. D., 2012. Influence of Soil Heterogeneity on Geotechnical Perfor-
mance and Uncertainty: A Stochastic View on EC7. Proceedings 10th International Proba-
bilistic Workshop, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, 215–227.
Hicks, M. A. and Onisiphorou, C., 2005. Stochastic Evaluation of Static Liquefaction in a
Predominantly Dilative Sand Fill. Géotechnique 55(2):123–33.
Hicks, M. A. and Samy, K., 2002a. Influence of Heterogeneity on Undrained Clay Slope Stabil-
ity. Quart J Eng Geol Hydrogeol, 35(1):41–49.
Hicks, M. A. and Samy, K., 2002b. Influence of Anisotropic Spatial Variability on Slope Relia-
bility. Proceedings 8th International Symposium on Numerical Models in Geomechan-
ics, Rome, 535–539.

537
25 Stochastic Approach to Slope Stability Analysis with In-Situ Data

Hicks, M. A. and Samy, K., 2002c. Reliability-based Characteristic Values: a Stochastic Ap-
proach to Eurocode 7. Ground Engineering, 35(12):30–34.
Hicks, M. A. and Samy, K., 2004. Stochastic Evaluation of Heterogeneous Slope Stability. Ital
Geotech J, 38(2):54–66.
Hicks, M. A. and Smith, I. M., 1988. Class A Prediction of Artic Caisson Performance. Géo-
technique, 38(4):589–612.
Hicks, M. A. and Spencer, W. A., 2010. Influence of Heterogeneity on the Reliability and Fail-
ure of a Long 3D Slope. Computers and Geotechnics, 37(7–8):948–955.
Lloret, M., Hicks, M. A. and Wong, S. Y., 2012. Soil Characterisation of an Artificial Island Ac-
counting for Soil Heterogeneity. In GeoCongress 2012, San Francisco, 2816–2825.
Lloret-Cabot, M., Hicks, M. A. and van den Eijnden, A. P., 2012. Investigation of the Reduc-
tion in Uncertainty due to Soil Variability when Conditioning a Random Field using Krig-
ing. Géotechnique letters, 2(3):123–127.
Lloret-Cabot, M., Hicks, M. A. and Nuttall, J. D., 2013. Investigating the Scales of Fluctua-
tion of an Artificial Sand Island. Proceedings International Conference on Installation
Effects in Geotechnical Engineering, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 192–197.
Mostyn, G. R. and Soo, S. W., 1992. The Effect of Autocorrelation on the Probability of Failure
of Slopes. Proceedings 6th Australia – New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics: Geo-
technical Risk, New Zealand, 542–546.
Nuttall, J. D., 2011. Parallel Implementation and Application of the Random Finite Element
Method. PhD Thesis, University of Manchester, UK.
Paice, G. M. and Griffiths, D. V., 1997. Reliability of an Undrained Clay Slope Formed from
Spatially Random Soil. Proceedings 9th International Conference on Computer Meth-
ods and Advances in Geomechanics, Wuhan, 543–548.
Phoon, K.-K. and Kulhawy, F. H., 1999. Characterization of Geotechnical Variability. Can
Geotech J, 36(4):612–624.
Smith, I. M. and Griffiths, D. V., 2004. Programming the Finite Element Method. 4th ed., Wiley
& Sons.
Spencer, W. A., 2007. Parallel Stochastic and Finite Element Modelling of Clay Slope Stability
in 3D. PhD Thesis, University of Manchester, UK.
Tang, W. H., Yucemen, M. S. and Ang, A. H. S., 1976. Probability-Based Short-Term Design of
Slopes. Can Geotech J, 13(3):201–215.
Uzielli, M., Vannucchi, G. and Phoon, K.-K., 2005. Random Field Characterisation of Stress-
Normalised Cone Penetration Testing Parameters. Géotechnique, 55(1):3–20.
Vanmarcke, E. H., 1977. Reliability of Earth Slopes. J Geotech Eng Div, 103(11):1247–1265.
Vanmarcke, E. H., 1983. Random Fields: Analysis and Synthesis. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
The MIT Press.
Wickremesinghe, D. S. and Campanella, R. G., 1993. Scale of Fluctuation as a Descriptor
of Soil Variability. Proceedings Conference on Probablistic Methods in Geotechnical
Engineering, Canberra, 233–239.
Wong, S. Y., 2004. Stochastic Characterisation and Reliability of Saturated Soils. PhD Thesis,
University of Manchester, UK.

538