Reliability Analysis of Long Multi-Segment Earth Slopes

Erik Vanmarcke1, M.ASCE and Yuki Otsubo2, S.M.ASCE

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 06/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
08544; evm@princeton.edu
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544;
yotsubo@princeton.edu

ABSTRACT: A three-dimensional stochastic model, proposed earlier for single-segment earth

slopes having statistically homogeneous cross-sectional properties, is extended to multi-segment
cases. For the two-segment model it is shown how the probability of a local failure, centered at a
point near the segment boundary, rises or falls in function of various adjacent-segment properties
such as their mean safety factors. The method also enables evaluation of the ““system reliability””
for multi-segmented long linear slopes. The case study for the two-segment case indicates that
single- and multi-segment models may be expected to yield significantly different system
reliabilities. The proposed multi-segment model is suitable for use in risk assessment and
management of this class of civil infrastructure systems, and for extension to the case when there
are external load conditions such as earthquake induced shaking.

INTRODUCTION

Many studies aimed at determining the risk of slope failure –– by Wu & Kraft (1970),
Yucemen et al. (1973), Alonso (1976), Matsuo (1976), Hachich & Vanmarcke (1983), Christian
et al. (1994), Li & Lumb (1987), Griffiths & Fenton (2004), Low et al. (1998 & 2007), among
others –– work within the framework of conventional plane strain analysis of slope stability. In the
first paper to treat the three-dimensional slope stability problem in a probabilistic framework
(Vanmarcke 1977b), the sliding soil mass is modeled as a portion of a cylinder with finite length
bounded by vertical end sections. This 3-D stochastic methodology, initially applied to slopes in
cohesive soil (when the use of undrained strength is appropriate), was generalized in Vanmarcke
(1980) to deal with slopes with more general (Mohr-Coulomb-type) strength characteristics under
drained, undrained or partially drained conditions. The methodology permits treatment of fairly
general shapes of failure surfaces, in part by representing effects attributable to the two end
sections of the failure surface in a simplified manner. Herein, we extend the 3-D stochastic
methodology to deal with slopes consisting of segments with different properties, as is usually the
case for real slopes. The failure zone may consist of a number of segments with different
deterministic or statistical properties, and we seek to evaluate the probability of failure
somewhere along a multi-segmented slope.

BASIC THREE DIMENSIONAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES

In the basic single-segment 3-D reliability model, a slope is assumed to be statistically

homogeneous and the sliding mass is idealized as shown in Figure 1. The 3-D sliding mass has
the same cross-sectional characteristics over a finite width b along the slope axis x, and has
vertical cutoffs at both ends. If the cross-section through the sliding mass is a circular arc, the

520

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY 521

backside of 3-D failure surface is cylindrical. In the probabilistic treatment of the reliability
problem, the probability of failure pf(b) involving a failure-zone segment of width b corresponds
to the area under the probability density function of the safety factor Fb at values less than one.
For a sliding mass located between (x0 –– b/2) and (x0 + b/2), the factor of safety, in the three-
dimensional formulation, can be expressed as follows:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 06/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

b x0
B

Figure 1. Idealized 3-D sliding mass model.

ୖୣୱ୧ୱ୲୧୬୥୑୭୫ୣ୬୲ ୑౎ǡౘ ሺ୶బ ሻାୖ౛

ୠ ሺš଴ ሻ ൌ ୈ୰୧୴୧୬୥୑୭୫ୣ୬୲
ൌ
୑ీǡౘ ሺ୶బ ሻ
ǡ (1)

in which MR,b(x0) = the integral of the resisting moment, MD,b(x0) = the total driving moment, and
Re = the contribution of the end sections of the failure zone to the resisting moment. In a
simplified probabilistic treatment of the problem, the resisting moment MR is treated as a random
variable along axis, with mean  ഥ ୖ and standard deviation  ෩ ୖ . The mean and standard deviation
averaged over width b can be written as follows:

ഥ ୖǡୠ ൌ „
 ഥ ୖǡ (2)

෩ ୖǡୠ ൌ „
 ෩ ୖ īሺ„ሻǡ (3)

where ī(b) is a reduction factor. The latter expresses how the standard deviation of MR decreases
under local averaging in function of the averaging-window size b. In terms of the scale of
fluctuation į, the reduction factor can be approximated as follows (Vanmarcke 1977a & 1983):

į ଵΤଶ
ቀ ቁ Ǣ „ ൒ į
īሺ„ሻ ൎ ൝ ୠ (4)
ͳ Ǣ Ͳ ൑ „ ൑ įǤ

ഥ ୈ ), the mean of random variable

Treating the driving moment as deterministic (constant at 
Fb(x0) can be expressed as:
ഥ ഥ ഥ
ത ୠ ൌ ୑౎ ୠାୖ౛ ൌ ୑౎ ሺୠାୢሻ ൌ ത ቀͳ ൅ ୢቁǡ (5)
ഥ ୠ
୑ ీ ୑ഥ ୠ ీ ୠ

in which † ൌ  ഥ ୖ ൌ ʹȀƐ, where A = the area of cross-section above the failure arc, and Ɛ =
ഥ ୣ Τ
the length of the arc. Since the shear strength throughout any cross-section is random, the
resistance contribution Re will also be random. However, the uncertainty in Re has only a

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 522 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY

secondary effect on the results of the probabilistic stability analysis and will not be explicitly
treated herein. Also, ത in the last term is the plane strain mean safety factor obtainable by taking
asymptotic limit bĺf of ത ୠ ,
ഥ
ത ൌ Ž‹ୠ՜’ ത ୠ ൌ ୑౎ Ǥ (6)
ഥ
୑ ీ

The standard deviation of the safety factor Fb(x0) equals the standard deviation of MR,b
divided by the mean of MD,b, namely:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 06/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

෩
෨ ୠ ൌ ୠ୑౎ īሺୠሻ ൌ īሺ„ሻ ෨ ൌ īሺ„ሻ୊ ത ǡ (7)
ഥ
ୠ୑ ీ

where ෨ ൌ  ෩ ୖ Τ
ഥ ୈ is the standard deviation of the cross-sectional safety factor, and ୊ ൌ ෨ Τ ത is
coefficient of variation of the safety factor.
Using these derived expressions for the mean and the standard deviation of the safety factor,
we now examine the probability of failure pf(b) involving a failure-zone segment of width b
centered at any given location x0 along the slope axis. The probability of failure is equivalent to
the probability that the factor of safety is less than one, and can be expressed as:
ഥౘ
୊ౘ ି୊
’୤ ሺ„ሻ ൌ ሾ ୠ ൏ ͳሿ ൌ  ቂ ෩ ൏ െȕୠ ቃ ൌ ൣ ൏ െȕୠ ൧ ൌ ୙ ൫െȕୠ ൯ǡ (8)
୊ౘ

where, FU(·) is the cumulative probability distribution of the standardized variable  ൌ

ሺ ୠ െ ത ୠ ሻΤ ෨ ୠ which has zero mean and unit standard deviation. The reliability index ȕb is
expressed in terms of the mean and standard deviation of the safety factor as follows:
ഥౘ ିଵ
୊
ȕୠ ൌ ෩ౘ Ǥ
୊
(9)

As seen in Figure 2, The probability of failure pf(b) expressed above gives very small values
when b is low due to the high mean values, and at large b-value, pf(b) is also very small because
of a low standard deviation. At the ““critical value”” bcr, which is the most likely failure-zone
width, pf(b) is at its maximum value. The critical failure-zone width bcr is the larger of two
quantities, „‫ כ‬ൌ ത †Τሺ ത െ ͳሻ, the b-value that minimizes ȕb, and the scale of fluctuation į.

Probability of failure
Centered at x0

㽢
10-4
10-5
10-6

bcr Failure-zone width

Figure 2. Failure probability vs. failure-zone width of single segment.

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY 523

RELIABILITY OF MULT-SEGMENT SLOPES

Mean and Standard Deviation of the Factor of Safety of a Multi-Segment Slope

In general, a slope may not be statistically homogeneous and may consist of several
segments with different properties. For risk assessment of real slopes, it is useful to expand the 3-
D probabilistic analysis method to the multi-segment case. As the simplest case of multi-segment
slopes, we consider a two-segment model having different mean safety factors ത ଵ and ത ଶ , while
other properties such as the scale of fluctuation į and the coefficient of variation VF are kept the
same. The total width of failure zone is b, the sum of failure-zone widths b1 and b2 of segments 1
and 2, respectively. Figure 3 shows sliding mass model of a two-segment slope. The mean ത ୠ and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 06/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the standard deviation ෨ ୠ of the whole failure zone, consisting of two segments, are as follows:

ത ୠ ൌ ത ൅ ୅ ሺ ത ଵ ൅ ത ଶ ሻǡ (10)
ୠƐ

ത ൌ ଵ ሺ„ଵ ത ଵ ൅ „ଶ ത ଶ ሻǡ (11)
ୠ

෨ ୠ ଶ ൌ „ଵ ଶ ෨ ଵ ଶ ൅ „ଵ ଶ ෨ ଶ ଶ ൅ ʹȡ„ଵ „ଶ ෨ ଵ ෨ ଶ ǡ (12)

෨ ଵ ൌ īሺ„ଵ ሻ୊ ത ଵ ǡ  ෨ ଶ ൌ īሺ„ଶ ሻ୊ ത ଶ ǡ (13)

in which ȡ denotes the coefficient of correlation of the local averages of the resisting moments
within the two segments. It may be expressed as follows (Vanmarcke 2010):

ିୠభ మ īమ ሺୠభ ሻିୠమ మ īమ ሺୠమ ሻାሺୠభ ାୠమ ሻమ īమ ሺୠభ ାୠమ ሻ

ȡൌ ଶୠభ ୠమ īሺୠభ ሻīሺୠమ ሻ
Ǥ (14)

a
b2 B2
b
b1 x0
B

x B1

Figure 3. Two-segment 3-D sliding mass model.

Combining these expressions, the probability of failure involving a failure-zone segment of

width b is obtained by calculating the area under the probability density function of Fb for value
below one. These equations are also applicable, with minor modification, to cases when the
failure zone consists of more than two segments. When the failure zone involves n segments,
where ith segment has mean safety factor Fi and length of bi and the total failure zone width is b,
the mean and standard deviation of the safety factor and the coefficient of correlation can be
expressed as follows:

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 524 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY

ത ୠ ൌ ത ൅ ୅ ሺ ത ଵ ൅ ത ୬ ሻǡ (15)
ୠƐ

ത ൌ ଵ σ୬୧ୀଵ „୧ ത ୧ ǡ (16)
ୠ

෨ ୠ ଶ ൌ σ୬୧ୀଵ „୧ ଶ ෨ ୧ ଶ ൅ ʹ σ୬୧ୀଵ σ୨ழ୧ ȡ „୧ „୨ ෨ ୧ ෨ ୨ ǡ (17)

୧୨

෨ ୧ ൌ īሺ„୧ ሻ୊ ത ୧ ǡ (18)

౟
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 06/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ୠబ మ ୻మ ሺୠబ ሻିୠభ మ ୻మ ሺୠభ ሻାୠమ మ ୻మ ሺୠమ ሻିୠయ మ ୻మ ሺୠయ ሻ

ɏ୧୨ ൌ ǡ (19)
ଶୠ౟ ୠౠ ୻ሺୠ౟ ሻ୻൫ୠౠ ൯

୨ିଵ ୨ିଵ ୨ ୨ିଵ

„଴ ൌ σ୫ୀ୧ାଵ „୫ ǡ „ଵ ൌ σ୫ୀ୧ „୫ ǡ „ଶ ൌ σ୫ୀ୧ „୫ ǡ „ଷ ൌ σ୫ୀ୧ିଵ „୫ Ǥ (20)

Risk of Failure At Any Specific Location

Here, we calculate the probability of failure centered at x0 along a two-segmented slope,
where the distance from the border of two segments is a as shown in Figure 3. The probability of
failure depends on the failure-zone width b, not only because of the dependency of the mean and
standard deviation on b, but also because the number of segments involved –– one versus two ––
tends to increase as the failure width b gets longer. When b/2 is shorter than a –– that is, when the
failure zone lies fully within a segment containing the center x0 –– the probability of failure is
found by calculating the reliability of a single segment. When b/2 becomes longer than a, the
failure zone involves two segments, and the probability of failure can be obtained in terms of the
mean and the standard deviation of two segments.
The probability of failure versus the width of failure zone is shown for four different cases in
Figure 4. In all cases, the probability plot has a discontinuity at failure-zone width b = 2a,
because the second segment starts becoming involved in the failure zone, and one of end-section
factors changes to that characterizing the second segment. At b = 2a, this model assumes that the
failure-zone in segment 2 is still zero (b2=0), but an end-section at the border has the second-
segment properties. If the safety factor of the second segment is lower than that of the first
segment, as in CASES 1, 2, 3 in Figure 4, the calculated failure probability jumps up because of
the involvement of the weaker section. On the other hand, if the safety factor of the second
segment is higher than that of the first segment, the probability drops because of the influence of
newly involved stronger segment, as in CASE 4. In the latter case, the probability keeps dropping
as b gets longer. Two factors are considered as reasons: one is that an increase in the width of the
safer segment in the failing zone causes the mean safety factor to rise, and the other is that the
standard deviation of safety factor decreases as b grows. In the cases that the safety factor of the
second segment is lower than that of the first segment, the probability of failure may rise or drop
depending on properties like the mean factor of safety, the distance a, and the scale of fluctuation
į. This is caused by two effects attributable to the change in the contribution to the width of
failure zone from the second segment. Since as b gets longer, the weaker second segment is more
involved and the factor of safety of the whole failure zone decreases, but at the same time the
standard deviation of the safety factor also decreases. Whether the probability curve has a second
peak depends on the properties listed above and on whether the effect of a decreasing mean is
stronger than that of a decreasing standard deviation, causing the failure probability to rise again.
This interplay between the mean and the standard deviation of the safety factor is similar to what
is observed in the single-segment case, accounting for the appearance of a critical width of the
failing zone. The second peak, in addition, can have a higher probability than the first peak if the
decrease in mean of safety factor is prominent. In such a case, the critical width is the b-value

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY 525

where the second peak appears.

Probability of failure
Centered at x0

㽢
㽢
10-4 㽢

10-5 CASE 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 06/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CASE 2
10-6 CASE 3
CASE 4

2a Failure-zone width

Figure 4. Failure probabilities vs. failure-zone width.

Assuming the failure occurs with width equal to the critical width for each location, the
probability of failure centered at x0 along the axis can be drawn as in Figure 5. The dashed lines
are the probabilities of failure obtained by the single-segment method applied to each segment
separately. In the middle part of each segment, both methods yield the same probability, and the
critical widths also have the same value since failure occurs within only one segment. Near the
boundary of segments, the probability varies gradually with location and two methods yield
different values; the critical width involves both segments and only the multi-segment method
yields good estimates. Near the ends of the slope, the probability calculated by the proposed
method decreases and becomes zero at both ends; near the ends, the maximum failure-zone width
become shorter and the maximum probability is correspondingly reduced.

Probability of failure
Segment 1 Segment 2

10-4
10-5
10-6

Center location
of failure x0

Figure 5. Probability of failure centered at x0.

RISK OF FAILURE OF LONG SLOPES

Single-Segment Case
A most important ““system reliability”” aspect of the slope stability problem is the dependence
of risk of failure on the total length B of an earth slope, embankment or levee. Long ““linear”” earth
slopes associated with dams, dikes and highways should not fail anywhere along the axis, as any
local failure may have severe ““system-wide”” consequences. We now envision slope-failure events
occurring at random, more or less frequently, along the axis of a long slope, and the focus is on

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 526 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY

trying to evaluate the mean rate of occurrence (per unit length along the slope axis) of such events
–– each event is a 3-D slope failure characterized by a failure-zone width bcr. For long slopes, the
chance of one or more failures somewhere along the slope axis, and hence the probability of
““system failure””, steadily increases with the overall length B of the slope.
An effective and elegant way to deal with this problem is by ““threshold-crossing analysis””, in
which the factor of safety Fb(x) is viewed as a function of x, the position of the center of the
failure zone along the embankment axis. We assume that the failure-zone width b is fixed, in
particular, at the value b = bcr obtained in the preceding section. A slope failure will occur if the
safety factor Fb(x) crosses into the unsafe domain Fb < 1 at any location x between b/2 and B ––
b/2. The condition Fb(x) < 1 is equivalent to:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 06/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ഥౘ
୊ౘ ሺ୶ሻି୊ ଵି୊ഥౘ
ୠ ሺšሻ ൌ ෩ౘ ൏ ෩ౘ ൌ െȕୠ Ǥ (21)
୊ ୊

The random function Ub(x) will tend to be Gaussian (since the resisting moments MR,b are
approximately Gaussian, in accordance with the Central Limit Theorem), and the slope reliability
–– or its ““survival”” probability –– will have the following approximate form (Vanmarcke 1975):

୊ ሺሻ ൌ ͳ െ ‡š’൛െሺ െ „ሻȞሺȕୠ ሻൟǤ (22)

Eq. 21 can be simply expressed by assuming  ‫ „ ب‬and replacing the exponential form e-u
by (1 –– u),

୊ ሺሻ ؆ Ȟሺȕୠ ሻ (23)

in which, the rate of decay of the system reliability Ȟ(ȕb) can be expressed as follows (Vanmarcke
1983 & 2010):

Ȟ൫ȕୠ ൯ ൌ ሾʌξʹ„īሺ„ሻሿିଵ ‡š’ሼെȕୠ ଶ ȀʹሽǤ (24)

Multi-Segment Case
To calculate the failure risk of long slopes consisting of multiple segments, the same method
as in the single-segment case can be applied, but the rate of decay of system reliability Ȟ(ȕb) must
now be calculated at each location and integrated along slope length. In the multi-segment case
the critical width and the minimum reliability index ȕ vary with location, and in particular with
distance from the borders separating segments. Modifying Eq. 21 for the multi-segment case, the
slope reliability of multi-segment can be expressed as follows:

୆
୊ ሺሻ ൌ ͳ െ ‡š’ ቂെ ‫׬‬଴ Ȟ൫ȕሺ„ǡ š଴ ሻ൯†š଴ ቃǡ (25)

where ȕ(b,x0) = reliability index associated with failure width b at location x0. Assuming that the
integral is much smaller than one, and replacing the exponential form e-u by (1 –– u), Eq. 24 can be
approximated as follows:

୆
୊ ሺሻ ؆ ‫׬‬଴ Ȟ൫ȕሺ„ǡ š଴ ሻ൯†š଴ Ǥ (26)

This equation reduces to Eq. 22, the single segment case, ifɋ൫Ⱦሺ„ǡ š଴ ሻ൯ is constant.

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY 527

CASE STUDY

In a case study, we evaluate the reliability of the slope studied by Vanmarcke (1977a) and
compare the reliability calculated by the single-segment and multi-segment models. It involves
the slope of a railroad embankment at New Liskeard, Ontario, Canada that suddenly failed in
1963. A detailed description of the slope and its properties are provided by Lacasse and Ladd
(1973). The slope consists of two segments having respective safety factors F1 = 1.15 and F2 =
1.34 and lengths B1 = 610 m and B2 = 183 m, respectively. Other properties of the slope used in
reliability evaluations are: the scale of fluctuation į =46 m; the ratio of cross section and failure-
arc length, d = 2A/L = 15 m; and the coefficient of variation of cross-sectional safety factor VF =
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 06/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.21, values that are assumed to be the same for both segments.
The probability of failure corresponding to the critical width bcr at each location, calculated by
multi-segment method, is shown in Figure 6. In the graph, notice two flat parts, one in segment 1
and other in segment 2. At these locations, the critical width is also constant and both values are
equivalent to the result obtained using the single-segment model. Near the border of the
segments, the probability gradually changes and the two flat lines are smoothly connected. At
these locations, the plot of probability vs. failure width parallels CASE 1 in Figure 4; that is, a
failure involving two segments has higher probability of occurrence.

䣈䢳䢿䢳䢰䢵䢶䢢䣈䢴䢿䢳䢰䢳䢷䢢䣦䣧䣮䣶䣣䢿䢶䢸
䢲䢰䢲䢴䢷

bcr(2)у115m
䢲䢰䢲䢴
䣲䣴䣱䣤䣣䣤䣫䣮䣫䣶䣻䢢䣱䣨䢢䣨䣣䣫䣮䣷䣴䣧

䢲䢰䢲䢳䢷

䢲䢰䢲䢳

bcr(1)у59m
䢲䢰䢲䢲䢷

䢲
䢲 䢳䢲䢲 䢴䢲䢲 䢵䢲䢲 䢶䢲䢲 䢷䢲䢲 䢸䢲䢲 䢹䢲䢲 䢺䢲䢲
䣥䣧䣰䣶䣧䣴䢢䣮䣱䣥䣣䣶䣫䣱䣰䢢䣱䣨䢢䣨䣣䣫䣮䣷䣴䣧䢢䣺䢲䢢䢪䣯䢫

Figure 6. The probability of failure along whole slope.

Adopting these critical widths and calculating the system reliability at each location
Ȟ൫ȕሺ„ǡ š଴ ሻ൯ along the axis, we obtain the overall probability of failure PF(B) = 23.5%. When
single-segment method is used, the probability of failure in section 1 and section 2 are 12.4% and
16.3%, respectively. By simply adding these two segment-specific probabilities, the probability
of failure anywhere along the whole slope is 28.7%. The single-segment method yields, in this
case, an overall failure probability about 1.2 times than that obtained from multi-segment method.
Because in this case study bcr is not so long compared to B, multiplying Ȟ by (B - bcr) instead of
by B, yields the probability of failure PF(B) = 17.2%, which is about 75% of the probability
obtained by the multi-segment method. The different ways in which the two methods deal with
the boundary region causes these differences in the results. In this example, the whole slope has
only two segments, but it is easily imagined that if the number of segments grows and the
boundary-region fraction increases, only the multi-segment method will yield proper estimates of
the variation of the probability of failure along the slope axis.

CONCLUSIONS

The three-dimensional slope reliability model has been extended to multi-segment cases,

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 528 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY

with segments having different lengths and mean safety factors. Applying the method to the two-
segment case, the probability of failure centered at each point along the slope axis is calculated.
At both ends, the probability decreases because the failure-zone width cannot be as long as the
critical width. In middle section of each segment, the probability is about the same as that
obtained by the single-segment model. Near the boundary of segments, failures involving (parts
of the) two segments are most likely, and the probability gradually varies to connect the two
values of probabilities in the middle section. The effects near end sections and segment
boundaries are properly evaluated only by the multi-segment model.
An estimate is obtained for the probability PF(B) that a failure will occur anywhere along the
axis of a long slope of given total length B, by assuming the slope fails with critical width and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 06/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

evaluating the rate of decay of reliability along the slope axis. In the two-segment case study
presented, the probability obtained by the proposed method is found to be 20% smaller than that
of the single-segment method. Differences are likely to become more pronounced as the number
of segments and/or the variability of segment-specific properties increase.
We assumed that the main source of uncertainty accounted for in the stochastic slope stability
analysis is the spatial variation of cross-sectional resistances against sliding. If the results of the
risk analysis are interpreted as conditional probabilities, however, the methodology provides the
basis for more complete slope reliability assessment in which other (partially predictable and
partially uncertain) information, mainly about loading and environmental conditions, can be
incorporated. Considering external loads such as earthquakes and floods (or prolonged
precipitation) will render the failure risk of slopes or levees dependent on both time and space. In
the case of seismic loading, one needs to consider the likelihood of strong ground motion ––
dependent on the frequency of potentially damaging earthquakes in the region –– as well as the
characteristics of the ground motion, including its spatial variation, during an earthquake.

REFERENCES

Alonso, E.E. (1976). ““Risk analysis of slopes and its application to slopes in Canadian sensitive
clays””. Géotechnique 26 (3), 453-472.
Christian, J.T., Ladd, C.C. & Baecher, G.B. (1994). ““Reliability applied to slope stability
analysis””. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 120 (12), 2180-2207.
Griffiths, D.V. & Fenton, G.A. (2004). ““Probabilistic slope stability analysis by finite elements””.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 130 (5), 507-518.
Hachich, W. & Vanmarcke, E. (1983). ““Probabilistic updating of pore pressure fields””. J. Geot.
Eng. Div. ASCE 109, 373-385.
Lacasse, S.M. & Ladd, C.C. (1973). ““Behavior of embankments on New Liskeard Varved Clay””.
M.I.T. Department of civil engineering research report R72-16.
Li, K.S. & Lumb, P. (1987). ““Probabilistic design of slopes””. Can. Geotech. J. 24 (4), 520-535.
Low, B.K., Gilbert, R.B. & Wright, S.G. (1998). ““Slope reliability analysis using generalized
method of slices””. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 124 (4), 350-362.
Low, B.K., Lacasse, S. & Nadim, F. (2007). ““Slope reliability analysis accounting for spatial
variation””. Georisk 1 (4), 177-189.
Matsuo, M. (1976). ““Reliability in embankment design””. M.I.T. Department of civil engineering
research report: R76-33, 99-107.
Vanmarcke, E. (1975). ““On the distribution of the first-passage time for normal stationary random
processes””. J. Appl. Mech. 42, 215-220.
Vanmarcke, E. (1977a). ““Probabilistic modeling of soil profiles””. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE
103 (GT11), 1227-1246.
Vanmarcke, E. (1977b). ““Reliability of earth slopes””. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE 103 (GT11),
1247-1265.
Vanmarcke, E. (1980). ““Probabilistic stability analysis of earth slopes””. Eng. Geol. 16, 29-50.

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty

 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY 529

Vanmarcke, E. (2010). Random Fields: Analysis and Synthesis, 2nd Edition., World Scientific
Publishing Company. 1st Edition., M.I.T. Press, 1983.
Wu, T.H. & Kraft, L.M. (1970). ““Safety analysis of slopes””. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 96, 609-
630.
Yucemen, W.S., Tang, W.H. & Ang, A.H.S. (1973). ““A Probabilistic Study of Safety and Design
of Earth Slopes””. University of Illinois Research Report.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 06/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty