CASE STUDIES

Reliability Analysis of Earth Dams

G. L. Sivakumar Babu, M.ASCE1; and Amit Srivastava2

Abstract: In the present study, results of reliability analyses of four selected rehabilitated earth dam sections, i.e., Chang, Tapar,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 11/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Rudramata, and Kaswati, under pseudostatic loading conditions, are presented. Using the response surface methodology, in combination
with first order reliability method and numerical analysis, the reliability index 共␤兲 values are obtained and results are interpreted in
conjunction with conventional factor of safety values. The influence of considering variability in the input soil shear strength parameters,
horizontal seismic coefficient 共␣h兲, and location of reservoir full level on the stability assessment of the earth dam sections is discussed
in the probabilistic framework. A comparison of results with those obtained from other method of reliability analysis, viz., Monte Carlo
simulations combined with limit equilibrium approach, provided a basis for discussing the stability of earth dams in probabilistic terms,
and the results of the analysis suggest that the considered earth dam sections are reliable and are expected to perform satisfactorily.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000313
CE Database subject headings: Structural reliability; Dams, earth; Seismic effects; Dam safety.
Author keywords: Reliability; Earthen dams; Seismic effects; Dam safety.

Introduction addressed using the probabilistic approach. In the probabilistic

The risk-based design procedures for analyzing the role of uncer-
tainties in dam safety analysis are receiving increasing impor-
tance 关International Committee on Large Dams 共ICOLD兲 1999;
Bureau 2003兴. The Bhuj earthquake, in the Gujarat state of India
in 2001, resulted in the failure or severe damage of many earth
dams. Thus, there is a growing consensus for applying risk-based
design approaches for dams in India. For the stability analysis of
earth dams under earthquake conditions, the pseudostatic method
of analysis is employed. The Bureau of Indian Standards 共BIS
2002兲 共BIS 1893兲 provides guidelines in this direction. India is
divided into four zones in the increasing order of impact 共II, III,
IV, and V兲 and the dams that failed in the Bhuj region of Gujarat
belong to Zone V. The recommended value of design horizontal
seismic coefficient ␣h is given by ZISa / 2R f g, where Z = zone fac-
tor which is taken as 0.36 for Zone V; I = importance factor for
dams 共1.0 for ordinary embankments兲; and Sa / g = response accel-
eration coefficient which depends on-site conditions and funda-
mental period, and its value is obtained as 2.5. The term R f is the
response reduction factor, which is taken as 3.0 in the case of
earth dams. This leads to a design coefficient 共␣h兲 of 0.15. The
code also specifies an allowable factor of safety 共FS兲 of 1.0 for
earth dams under pseudostatic loading.
The variability in soil strength and stiffness characteristics
leads to variability in the estimated pseudostatic FS which can be
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore, India 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: gls@civil.iisc.ernet.in
2
Research Associate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore, India. E-mail: amisri@civil.iisc.ernet.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 19, 2008; approved on
December 29, 2009; published online on January 5, 2010. Discussion
period open until December 1, 2010; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 7, July 1,
2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2010/7-995–998/$25.00.
approach, the safety of a given structure is evaluated either in
terms of the probability of failure 共p f 兲 or reliability index 共␤兲. A
reliability index value of 3.0 is acceptable for above average per-
formance level and in the case of major structures, such as dams,
the value of ␤ should be close to 5.0 关United States Army Corps
of Engineers 共USACE兲 1997兴. The methods for the estimation of
reliability index 共␤兲 are available in literature 共Baecher and Chris-
tian 2003兲.
Objective of the Present Study
The reliability analysis of earth dams located in the Kachchh
region of Gujarat, India, using the response surface methodology
共RSM兲, in combination with first order reliability method
共FORM兲 and numerical analysis, is performed and results are
compared with the previous results obtained from the combina-
tion of Monte Carlo simulations 共MCS兲 and limit equilibrium
approach. The study highlights 共1兲 the effect of correlation in soil
parameters; 共2兲 choice of distribution 共normal to lognormal兲; 共3兲
seismic location of dam sections; 共4兲 variations in the location of
the reservoir full level 共RFL兲; and 共5兲 seismic acceleration acting
on the dam section 共expressed in terms of ␣h兲.
Probabilistic Analysis
In the probabilistic analysis, an explicit or implicit functional re-
lationship between input parameters and output response is re-
quired, which is sometimes difficult to establish except for simple
cases. Under such conditions the concept of RSM can be used.
RSM
In the RSM approach, for a range of expected variations in the
input variables 共x1 , x2 , x3. . .兲, an approximate explicit functional

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 995

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:995-998.

 Table 1. Statistical Parameters of the Soil Parameters for the Rehabili- Table 2. Pseudostatic FS Corresponding to Eight Sample Points in RSM
tated Chang Dam Section 共adapted from Sivakumar Babu et al. 2007兲 Analysis Using FLAC 5.0 with Horizontal Seismic Coefficient 共␣h
= 0.15兲
Dry unit weight Cohesion Angle of internal
Dam zone 共␥d兲 共c⬘兲 friction 共␾⬘兲 cc⬘ ␾c⬘ ␾s⬘
Number cc⬘ ␾c⬘ ␾s⬘ 共kPa兲 共°兲 共°兲 FS
Core 共␮兲 16.9 kN/ m 3
10 kPa 24°
Silty-clay 1 + + + 13.30 29.148 36.435 2.57
Shell 共␮兲 16.7 kN/ m3 — 30° 2 + + − 13.30 29.148 23.585 1.70
Gravels 3 + − + 13.30 18.852 36.435 2.10
COV 共%兲 7 20 13 4 + − − 13.30 18.852 23.565 1.23
5 − + + 6.700 29.148 36.435 2.48
6 − + − 6.70 29.148 23.565 1.62
relationship 共f兲 between input variables and output response 共y兲, 7 − − + 6.70 18.852 36.435 2.02
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 11/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

using regression analysis based upon least-squares error ap-
proach, is established as
y = f共x1,x2,x3 . . .兲 + e
The symbol “e” represents the other sources of uncertainty, not
accounted for in “f ⬘.” Myers and Montgomery 共2002兲 presented
an excellent literature on the use of RSM. Using the developed
response surface model, the reliability index 共␤兲 is calculated.
Reliability Analysis
Reliability index 共␤兲 is calculated on the basis of the matrix for-
mulation for the second moment, Hasofer-Lind reliability index
共␤兲, defined as
␤ = min冑共X − M兲TC−1共X − M兲
X苸F
where X = vector of random variables; M = vector of mean value of
random variables; C = covariance matrix of random variables; and
F = failure region. Reliability index is defined as the minimum
distance from the transformed failure surface to the origin of the
reduced variate space. Adopting the procedure explained by Low
and Tang 共1997兲, in which the above Eq. 共2兲 is used, the value of
␤ can be obtained with the help of “SOLVER,” an optimization
tool available in Microsoft’s Excel.
Results of the Analysis and Discussion
After the January 26, 2001 Bhuj earthquake, remedial measures
were taken to rehabilitate the damaged or failed earth dam sec-
tions located in the Kachchh region of Gujarat, India. Following
the procedure explained in the previous sections, the reliability
analyses of the selected dam sections, i.e., Chang, Tapar, Rudra-
mata, and Kaswati, are performed. To develop a linear response
8 − − − 6.70 18.852 23.565 1.15
共1兲 surface model between input and output variables, 2n 共n
= number of input variables兲 factorial design is used. The proce-
dure involves the determination of output response, i.e., pseudo-
static FS, for a combination of input parameters 共sample points兲,
and regression analysis, based upon the least-squares error ap-
proach, is performed to develop the response surface model. The
adequacy of the fitted model is examined on the basis of the
normal probability plot 共which should be approximately along a
straight line兲, and the comparison of computed values of the co-
efficients of multiple determination 共R2兲 and adjusted coefficients
of multiple determination 共R2adj兲.
The pseudostatic FS is evaluated using “strength reduction
共2兲 technique” available in the numerical code FLAC 共FLAC 5.0 ref-
erence manual 2007兲. The present analyses are effective stress
analyses using effective stress shear strength parameters, i.e., ef-
fective cohesion 共c⬘兲 and the effective friction angle 共␸⬘兲, which
are obtained from consolidated-undrained 共CU兲 triaxial tests 共CU
tests with pore pressure measurements兲 on soil samples collected
from the dam site. To take into account the influence of develop-
ing pore pressure on the degradation of strength and stiffness of
the soil due to earthquake loading, the measured effective cohe-
sion and the measured effective friction angle are reduced by 20%
before being used in the analyses. This reduction is similar to the
adjustment to the undrained shear strength suggested by Makdisi
and Seed 共1978兲 and Seed 共1979兲. The following sections provide
a discussion on typical results obtained for the rehabilitated
Chang dam section.
The typical values of soil properties used in the reliability
analysis of the Chang dam section are summarized in Table 1. In
the absence of a large amount of test data from the sites consid-
ered, the coefficient of variation 共COV兲 共%兲 is chosen based on
the values suggested in the literature 共Duncan 2000兲.

Table 3. Comparison of Results of the Reliability Analysis of Rehabilitated Dam Sections at RFL
␤ 共MCS兲 ␤ 共RSM兲
a
Dam sections Slope Mean FS ␤ Mean FS ␤
Chang 共H = 15.50 m兲 U/S 关1V:2.5H兴 1.92 2.98 1.86 2.87
D/S 关1V:2.0H兴 1.86 2.86 1.73 2.76
Tapar 共H = 17.75 m兲 U/S 关1V:2.0H兴 5.67 6.31 4.27 5.88
D/S 关1V:2.25H兴 1.61 2.47 1.54 2.39
Kaswati 共H = 15.74 m兲 U/S 关1V:3.0H兴 1.92 3.21 1.85 2.97
D/S 关1V:2.5H兴 1.30 3.68 1.21 3.32
Rudramata 共H = 27.57 m兲 U/S 关1V:3.0H兴 1.74 3.25 1.64 3.15
D/S 关1V:4.5H兴 1.32 3.08 1.25 2.89
a
Values are adapted from Sivakumar Babu et al. 共2007兲.

996 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:995-998.

 Table 4. Reliability Index Values for Four Dam Sections under Different Seismic Environments
Chang Dam Tapar Dam Kaswati Dam Rudramata Dam
Zone U/S D/S U/S D/S U/S D/S U/S D/S
II 4.63 4.47 9.01 3.85 5.09 4.79 4.92 4.73
III 3.93 3.78 7.64 3.25 4.32 4.06 4.17 4.01
IV 3.31 3.21 6.47 2.75 3.81 3.42 3.66 3.39
V 2.87 2.76 5.88 2.39 3.32 2.97 3.15 2.89

Becker 共1996兲 suggested that the selection of the characteristic the procedure for the reliability analysis is followed for the other
values of geotechnical parameters and corresponding confidence three seismic zones 共II, III, and IV兲 in India, which is based upon
intervals should be incorporated in reliability based designs. In the seismic coefficients provided in the code. From the results
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 11/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the present study, a combination of lower 共␮ − 1.65␴兲 and upper
limit 共␮ + 1.65␴兲 values of the input variables 共␮ = mean value;
␴ = standard deviation兲 are used for the selection of sample points
and the output response 共i.e., pseudostatic FS兲 for each sample
point is calculated. The upper limit and lower limit values are
based upon the assumption that soil parameters follow normal
distribution and upper and lower limit values have probabilities of
being exceeded by 5 and 95%, respectively. The pseudostatic FSs
calculated for the eight combinations of input parameters 共or
sample points兲 are provided in Table 2. Using these data, regres-
sion analysis is performed to obtain a linear response surface
model as
FS = − 1.3762 + 0.0125c⬘c + 0.0454␾⬘c + 0.0674␾s⬘
共R2 = 0.999;R2adj = 0.998兲
where c⬘c , ␾⬘c = effective stress parameters, i.e., cohesion and fric-
tional angles for core material, respectively, and ␾s⬘ = effective
frictional angle for the shell material. It can be noted that the
values of R2 and R2adj are close to 1.0 and the normal probability
plot is also approximately along a straight line 共not shown兲, which
ensures the adequacy of the fitted model. Using the linear re-
sponse surface model, the reliability index value is obtained as
2.87. A summary of results obtained for four dam sections is
presented in Table 3 and it is compared with previous results
共Sivakumar Babu et al. 2007兲. It can be noted that the pseudo-
static FSs values for the rehabilitated dam sections are well above
the acceptable limit, i.e., 1.0. However, based on ␤ values, it can
be noted that the performance levels of the dam sections are just
“above average” as per USACE 共1997兲 guidelines. Taking into
consideration the effect of seismic location on dam safety issues,
presented in Table 4, it can be noted that the values of ␤ are
higher in these regions.
Effects of Correlation among Input Parameters
The values of correlation coefficient 共␳兲 between cohesion 共c⬘c 兲
and friction angle 共␾⬘c 兲 are taken as ⫺0.25, ⫺0.50, and ⫺0.75
共Baecher and Christian 2003兲, and the results are summarized in
Table 5. It can be noted that the consideration of correlation be-
tween the parameters marginally improves the reliability index
共␤兲 values.
Consideration of Lognormal Distribution for Input
Parameters
共3兲
Table 5 provides ␤ values evaluated for the uncorrelated lognor-
mally distributed input soil parameters, c⬘c , ␾⬘c , and ␾s⬘. It can be
observed that the values are relatively higher than the correspond-
ing values obtained for normally distributed input parameters.
Baecher and Christian 共2003兲 made similar observations.
Uncertainties in the ␣h and RFL Values
Considering the case of the Chang dam section, the mean value of
␣h and depth of RFL are taken as 0.15 and 14.0 m 共H = 15.5 m
and free board= 1.5 m兲, respectively. The COVs in the ␣h value
and RFL are taken as 25 and 5%, respectively, in accordance with
Yanmaz and Beser 共2005兲. The input parameters are taken as
uncorrelated lognormally distributed continuous random vari-
ables. The corresponding linear response surface model is given
by

Table 5. Reliability Index Values Evaluated for Various Conditions

Reliability index 共␤ b兲 共correlation coefficients兲
a c d
Dam sections Slope ␤ ⫺0.25 ⫺0.50 ⫺0.75 ␤ ␤
Chang 共H = 15.50 m兲 U/S 关1V:2.5H兴 2.87 2.90 2.93 2.96 4.20 3.32
D/S 关1V:2.0H兴 2.76 2.79 2.82 2.85 4.04 3.19
Tapar 共H = 17.75 m兲 U/S 关1V:2.0H兴 5.88 5.94 6.00 6.07 8.60 6.11
D/S 关1V:2.25H兴 2.39 2.42 2.47 2.47 3.50 2.49
Kaswati 共H = 15.74 m兲 U/S 关1V:3.0H兴 2.97 3.00 3.03 3.06 4.35 3.35
D/S 关1V:2.5H兴 3.32 3.36 3.39 3.42 4.86 3.74
Rudramata 共H = 27.57 m兲 U/S 关1V:3.0H兴 3.15 3.18 3.22 3.25 4.61 3.39
D/S 关1V:4.5H兴 2.89 2.92 2.95 2.98 4.23 3.11
a
Uncorrelated normally distributed input parameters.
b
Correlated normally distributed input parameters.
c
Uncorrelated lognormally distributed input parameters.
d
Considering uncertainties related to the PGA value and the location of RFL.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 997

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:995-998.

 FS = − 0.274 + 0.143c⬘c + 0.055␾⬘c + 0.0237␾s⬘ − 5.324␣h
− 0.0045RFL
R2 = 0.984, R2adj = 0.981 共4兲
Using the above response surface model 关Eq. 共4兲兴 the reliability
index 共␤兲 value for the U/S slope of the Chang dam section is
evaluated as 3.32. The results of the reliability analyses for all the
dam sections are summarized in Table 5. A comparison of results
共Columns 7 and 8兲 indicates that uncertainties in the ␣h and RFL
lead to approximately 20 to 25% reduction in the calculated reli-
ability index 共␤兲 values.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by LIBRARY PERIODICALS on 11/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Conclusions
The results of the reliability analyses of the four selected dam
sections located in the Kachchh region of Gujarat, India, using the
combination of RSM approach, FORM, and numerical analysis,
are comparable with those obtained by the combination of MCS
and limit equilibrium approach. It can be observed that the calcu-
lated FSs for all the dam sections are well above the prescribed
limits. Using the probabilistic approach it was found that the con-
sideration of variability in the geotechnical parameters, in peak
ground acceleration 共PGA兲 value and in the location of RFL, has
significant influence on the reliability index values.
References
Baecher, G. B., and Christian, J. T. 共2003兲. Reliability and statistics in
geotechnical engineering, Wiley, New York.
998 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:995-998.
Becker, D. E. 共1996兲. “Eighteenth Canadian geotechnical colloquium:
Limit state design for foundations. Part I. An overview of the foun-
dation design process.” Can. Geotech. J., 33, 956–983.
BIS. 共2002兲. “Part 1: Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures,
general provisions and buildings.” BIS 1893, New Delhi, India.
Bureau, G. J. 共2003兲. Dams and appurtenant facilities in earthquake en-
gineering, W. F. Chen and C. Scawthorn, eds., CRS, Boca Raton, Fla.
Duncan, J. M. 共2000兲. “Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical
engineering.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 126, 307–316.
FLAC 5.0 reference manual. 共2007兲. Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Min-
neapolis.
International Committee on Large Dams 共ICOLD兲. 共1999兲. “Bulletin on
risk assessment: Risk assessment as an aid to dam safety manage-
ment.” Draft 24.08.99, 102.
Low, B. K., and Tang, W. H. 共1997兲. “Efficient reliability evaluation
using spreadsheet.” J. Eng. Mech., 123共7兲, 749–752.
Makdisi, F. I., and Seed, H. B. 共1978兲. “Simplified procedure for estimat-
ing dam and embankment earthquake induced failures.” J. Geotech.
Engrg. Div., 104共GT7兲, 849–867.
Myers, R. H., and Montgomery, D. 共2002兲. Response surface methodol-
ogy, Wiley, New York.
Seed, H. B. 共1979兲. “Consideration of the earthquake resistance design of
earth and rockfill dams.” Geotechnique, 29共3兲, 215–263.
Sivakumar Babu, G. L., Srivastava, A., and Sahana, V. 共2007兲. “Analysis
of stability of earth dams in Kachchh region, Gujarat, India.” Eng.
Geol., 94, 123–136.
USACE. 共1997兲. Risk-based analysis in geotechnical engineering for
support of planning studies, engineering and design, Dept. of Army,
USACE, Washington, D.C., 20314–100.
Yanmaz, A. M., and Beser, M. R. 共2005兲. “On the reliability-based safety
analysis of Porsuk dam.” Turk. J. Eng. Environ. Sci., 29, 309–320.