672

Reliability analysis of reinforced embankments

on soft ground
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by ET- Adama Science & Technology University Library (PERI) on 08/05/15

B.K. Low and Wilson H. Tang

Abstract: A limit equilibrium stability model of reinforced embankments on soft ground is formulated and a practical
reliability evaluation procedure is proposed. The stability model allows for a tension crack in the embankment, tensile
reinforcement at the base of embankment, and a nonlinear undrained shear strength profile in the soft ground. The proposed
reliability evaluation procedure derives from an intuitively obvious ellipsoidal perspective. It obtains the same reliability index
as the current first-order reliability method (FORM), but is more practical and transparent because the spreadsheet-automated
search is in the original space of the variables. The proposed method deals with correlations without orthogonal
transformation of the covariance matrix. The versatility of the proposed method is demonstrated in an example reinforced
embankment that has 12 random variables, including six autocorrelated strength values, and a performance function that is
nonexplicit due to the need to search for the critical slip surface and to integrate numerically the depth-dependent shear
strength. The probability of failure compares well with Monte Carlo simulation. Reliability-based design is also discussed,
and comparisons with case histories are made. The ease of implementation, conceptual clarity, and versatility of the proposed
method should enhance the wider use of the more rational reliability-based analysis and design over the conventional
factor-of-safety approach.
Key words: embankment, reinforcement, stability, reliability, probability, spreadsheet.

Résumé : L’on a formulé un modèle de stabilité à l’équilibre limite de remblais sur sols mous, et proposé une procédure
For personal use only.

pratique d’évaluation de la fiabilité. Le modèle peut tenir compte d’une fissure de traction dans le remblai, d’armature en
tension à la base du remblai, et d’un profil non linéaire de résistance au ciaillement non drainé dans le sol mou. La procédure
d’évaluation de la fiabilité proposée découle d’une perspective ellipsoïdale intuitivement évidente. Elle génère le même indice
de fiabilité que la méthode courante de fiabilité de premier ordre (FORM), mais elle est plus pratique et plus transparente
parce que la recherche automatisée sur le chiffrier est dans l’espace originale des variables. La méthode proposée manipule
des corrélations sans transformation orthogonale de la matrice de covariance. La versatilité de la méthode proposée est
démontrée dans un exemple de remblai armé qui a 12 variables aléatoires, incluant 6 valeurs de résistance autocorrélées, et
une fonction de performance qui est non explicite à cause de la nécessité de rechercher la surface critique de glissement et
d’intégrer numériquement la résistance au cisaillement en fonction de la profondeur. La probabilité de rupture se compare
bien avec la simulation de Monte-Carlo. L’on discute également de la conception basée sur la fiabilité, et l’on fait des
comparaisons avec des histoires de cas. La facilité d’exécution, la clarté du concept et la versatilité de la méthode proposée
devraient favoriser un usage plus étendu de l’analyse et de la conception basées sur la fiabilité, plus rationnelles que
l’approche conventionnelle du coefficient de sécurité.
Mots clés: remblai, armature, stabilité, fiabilité, probabilité, chiffrier.
[Traduit par la rédaction]

Introduction Tang (1993), Christian et al. (1994), Chowdhury and Xu

The conventional factor of safety in geotechnical engineering
cannot reflect the uncertainty of its underlying parameters. A
better approach is to compute a reliability index that depends
not only on the mean values of the parameters but also on their
inherent scatter. Applications of reliability concepts in slopes
have been reported by Vanmarcke (1977), Whitman (1984), Li
and Lumb (1987), Luckman et al. (1987), Oka and Wu (1990),
Received November 15, 1996. Accepted May 6, 1997.
B.K. Low. School of Civil and Structural Engineering,
Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798.
W.H. Tang. Department of Civil and Structural
Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
(1995), and Kitch et al. (1995), among others.
The reliability index β as defined by Hasofer and Lind
(1974) can be interpreted in the original space of the random
variables, as shown in Fig. 1, where m1, σ1, m2, and σ2 are the
mean values and standard deviations of the parameters X1 and
X2, respectively. One may regard β as the minimum distance
from m to the boundary of the failure region, in units of direc-
tional standard deviation.
An established elegant procedure for computing the β index
is to transform the failure surface into the space of reduced
variates, whereby the shortest distance from the transformed
failure surface to the origin of the reduced variates is the reliabil-
ity index β. The procedure involves first rotating the frame of
reference to the new Y1 and Y2 axes in Fig. 1, which are each
parallel to a principal axis of the original dispersion ellipse (or
ellipsoid for higher dimensions). This is followed by translation

Can. Geotech. J. 34: 672–685 (1997). © 1997 NRC Canada

 Low and Tang
Fig. 1. Reliability index in original space and classical mathematical approach in transformed space.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by ET- Adama Science & Technology University Library (PERI) on 08/05/15
For personal use only.
and normalization so that the one-sigma (1σ) dispersion ellip-
soid in original space becomes a unit sphere centered at the
origin of the transformed space. The solution process involves
orthogonal transformation of the covariance matrix, by finding
eigenvalues and eigenvectors, and iterative partial differentia-
tion. It is well explained in Ditlevsen (1981), Ang and Tang
(1984), Madsen et al. (1986), Melchers (1987), Dai and Wang
(1992), Tichy (1993), and Haldar and Mahadevan (1995),
among others.
An alternative interpretation of the Hasofer-Lind β index
was described in Low and Tang (1997), where the perspective
of an expanding ellipsoid in the original space of the variables
led to a simple method of computing the Hasofer-Lind index
using an optimization tool available in most spreadsheet soft-
ware packages. The method achieves the same result as the
classical approach, but without involving the concepts of or-
thogonal transformation and transformed space.
In this paper the spreadsheet method of reliability analysis
is applied to reinforced embankments on soft ground. A sig-
nificant difference between this reliability analysis and those
found in Low and Tang (1997) is that the problem being ad-
dressed has no closed form performance functions, due to the
presence of a user-defined macro function to perform numeri-
cal integration of shear strength and the need to search differ-
ent slip circles. Nevertheless, the procedure as implemented
by the user is simple, transparent, and intuitive. The ellipsoid
approach via spreadsheet may contribute to reducing the lan-
guage barrier in geotechnical reliability noted by Whitman
(1984), the National Research Council (1995), and Hoek et al.
(1995), all of which contained lucid explanations of reli-
ability concepts. The example calculations below aim to
demonstrate the versatility—and to suggest possibilities yet
unexplored—of the spreadsheet approach, without excluding
the possibilities of refinement in the analytical model, in
the treatment of the uncertain statistical parameters, or the
673
need for a more comprehensive risk assessment approach
(e.g., Morgenstern 1995).
The stability model and the conventional deterministic factor-
of-safety analysis will be presented before the reliability analy-
sis, in order to show the link between the two methods of
analysis, the latter being an extension of the former and more
rational than the former.
Other methods of limit equilibrium analysis of slopes are
reviewed in Duncan (1996).
Stability model of reinforced embankment
on soft ground
The stability model presented below extends the work of Low
(1989) and Low et al. (1990) to cases involving tension cracks
and water pressure in cracks. Exact equations for arc lengths—in
contrast to the expedient but quasi-analytic expressions in the
earlier two papers—are used, made possible because the search
for the critical slip surface is now automatic using a spread-
sheet’s optimization tool.
The factor of safety against rotational failure can be defined
in terms of overall moment equilibrium. In Fig. 2, the origin of
the x–z coordinate system is at the toe of the embankment. The
coordinate values of x and z represent the center of an arbitrary
slip circle, of radius equal to (z + D), where D is an arbitrary
“tangent depth” in the soft ground. The overturning moment (Mo)
derives from block ABJKEA. When a tension crack intersects the
slip surface, the overturning moment due to the water pressure in
the tension crack has to be added, and that due to block JKQ
subtracted. By integration, the exact overturning moment (Mo) of
block ABJKEA and the net effect (∆Mo) of water pressure in
crack and block JKQ are as shown by eqs. d and e of Fig. 3,
respectively, in which the symbols are as defined in Fig. 2.
The available soil resisting moment MR along IGEK
(Fig. 2) consists of the two components given in eq. f: the first
© 1997 NRC Canada
 674
Fig. 2. Notations for reinforced embankment on soft ground.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by ET- Adama Science & Technology University Library (PERI) on 08/05/15
due to the equivalent undrained shear strength ca along arc IGE
(subtending an angle 2θ, where θ is given by eq. b); the second
due to embankment cohesion (cm) and friction (φm) along arc
EK (subtending an angle θh, eq. c). The equivalent undrained
shear strength ca is determined numerically by a user-defined
For personal use only.
spreadsheet function that averages the depth-dependent un-
drained shear strength cu over the arc length within the depth
D, as explained in eq. g. The λ, which also contributes to MR,
is calculated using eq. h, which is an approximation. The ra-
tionale is described in Low (1989). It affects the frictional
resistance along arc EK in the embankment. For embankments
on soft ground, the contribution of embankment friction angle
(φm) to the resisting moment MR is usually minor; the approxi-
mate nature of λ is therefore likely to be inconsequential in
most cases. (In cases where φm = 0 in the embankment and φu = 0
in the foundation soil—i.e., when only cm in embankment and
cu in foundation contributes to shear strength along the slip
surface IGEK in Fig. 2—the equation for MR is exact and the
calculated minimum factor of safety will be identical to that
from the ordinary method of slices and the Bishop’s simplified
method.)
Other than the available resisting moment MR that derives
from the shearing resistance of soil, the available resisting mo-
ment (MT) due to tensile reinforcement of strength T also en-
hances the factor of safety. This component is given by eq. i,
where the lever arm can be assumed equal to the average be-
tween two scenarios, namely that (1) T acts horizontally, and
(2) T acts tangential to the slip surface at limiting conditions.
Low et al. (1990) discussed the effects of the different assump-
tions of the lever arm of T on the factor of safety.
The equations in Fig. 3 are for an arbitrary slip circle of
center (x, z) and extending to depth D in the soft foundation.
The minimum factor of safety has to be determined by trying
different combinations of x, z, and D in eq. j (or eq. k). This,
together with the use of numerical integration to determine the
equivalent undrained shear strength ca (eq. g), makes the sta-
bility model nonexplicit. Nevertheless, a widely available
spreadsheet optimization tool greatly facilitates the search for
the minimum factor of safety and the associated critical slip
surface, as described in the next section.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997
A feature of the stability model described above is that the
overturning moment (Mo + ∆Mo) is obtained exactly by con-
sidering the blocks ABJKEA and JKQ. It may also be men-
tioned that for a soft foundation with horizontal top surface
and with shear strength characterized by cu only, the unit
weight of the soft foundation has no effect on the factor of
safety against the initiation of rotational failure. The γ that
appears in the equations of Fig. 3 and in the dimensionless
parameters (ca/γH and cm/γH) of Low’s (1989) stability charts
refers solely to the unit weight of the embankment material.
To erroneously take γ to be the weighted average of the em-
bankment unit weight and the soft foundation unit weight is
likely to overestimate the safety, since the unit weight of a soft
foundation clay is usually lighter than that of a compacted
embankment.
Deterministic analysis: nonlinear
optimization using spreadsheet
An optimization tool exists (under different names) in most
spreadsheet software packages, for example the Solver in Microsoft
Excel and Lotus 123, the Optimizer in Quattro Pro. The tool can
be used to identify among the infinite slip circles (defined by
x, z, and D) the one that produces the smallest factor of safety
for the stability model described above. An example spread-
sheet setup (using Microsoft Excel version 5 or 7) is shown
in Fig. 4. The input parameters are in the unframed cells. Values
within boxes are calculated by entering the formulas shown in
Fig. 3. The equivalent undrained shear strength ca(D, z, cu pro-
file) is evaluated numerically by a user-defined spreadsheet
function (also shown in Fig. 4) that integrates the undrained
shear strength profile over the arc length in the foundation soil.
(In this example the undrained shear strength profile is defined
by six cu values at different depths.) Initial values need to be
assigned to x, z, and D. For embankments on soft ground,
suitable initial values are x = l/2 (i.e., midpoint of slope),
z = 2H, D = the mid-depth of soft foundation. For the case in
Fig. 4, initially x = 4, z = 8, D = 6; other arbitrary but reason-
able initial values can be used. (Examples of unreasonable
initial values of (x, z, D) are: z smaller than H; D outside the
© 1997 NRC Canada
 Low and Tang
Fig. 3. Equations for stability analysis of reinforced embankments on soft ground. H, Ω, x, z, D, γ, γw, hw, hc, cm, φm, T, and lever as defined in
Fig. 2 and related text.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by ET- Adama Science & Technology University Library (PERI) on 08/05/15
For personal use only.
defined domain of the soft foundation; or initial (x, z, D)
such that the slip surface fails to intersect the embankment
at all.)
The Solver tool in Excel is then invoked to “Minimize” Fs,
“By Changing” x, z, and D, “Subject To” the constraint that D
be within the foundation thickness for which undrained shear
strength profile has been defined. The critical slip surface (x,
z, D) and the minimum Fs (1.289) obtained by Solver are as
shown in Fig. 4.
The ease of searching with the spreadsheet optimization
tool greatly facilitates experimenting with different initial values
should the need arise. For example, a different initial depth D
should be tried if the soft foundation shear strength profile
varies with depth cyclically (e.g., due to a sequence of alter-
nating hard and soft layers) in order to identify the over-
all minimum Fs from among the local minimums.
An attractive feature of using spreadsheet’s optimization
675
tool (e.g., Microsoft Excel’s Solver) is that the target and con-
straint cells could be calling complicated user-defined macro
functions or could contain nested IF statements. The optimi-
zation tool need not know the algorithms by which the cell
values are determined because the gradients required for it-
erative searching are calculated automatically by the optimi-
zation tool via numerical partial differentiation. The general
reduced gradient (GRG) method is used by Solver for non-
linear optimization problems. Additional information on
Solver options, algorithms, and completion messages can be
found in the Microsoft Excel Solver’s help file, and at the
website www.frontsys.com.
Since explicit equations are not required, and numerous
constraints and changing cells can be specified, the spread-
sheet optimization method is likely to be more versatile and
flexible than mathematical methods that work on closed
form equations.
© 1997 NRC Canada
 676
Fig. 4. Example deterministic analysis of reinforced embankment on soft ground (units: m, kN/m, kN⋅m/m, kN/m2, kN/m3).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by ET- Adama Science & Technology University Library (PERI) on 08/05/15
For personal use only.
The meaning of reliability index in original
space
The above example of deterministic analysis does not reflect
the uncertainty in the input parameters. Ambiguities could also
arise from different definitions (e.g., eq. j vs. eq. k in Fig. 3)
given to the factor of safety of reinforced embankments on soft
ground, as discussed in Low et al. (1990). A more rational
approach is to evaluate the second moment reliability index.
The matrix formulation (e.g., Veneziano 1974; Ditlevsen
1981; Madsen et al. 1986) of the Hasofer-Lind index β is
 T 1/2
[1] β = min (x − m) C−1 (x − m) 
xe F   tion; and to find the smallest ellipsoid that is tangent to the
where x is a vector representing the set of random variables, m
their mean values, C the covariance matrix, and F the failure
region. The above index is traditionally interpreted as the
shortest distance from the origin of the normalized variates to
the failure surface in transformed space (right sketch, Fig. 1).
The spreadsheet optimization scheme described in the next
section operates directly on eq. 1 in the original space of the
random variables. Instead of rotating the frame of reference and
scaling the rotated coordinate axis, correlated random variables
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997
are simply viewed as forming a tilted ellipsoid centered at the
mean in original space, as discussed by Low (1996) and Low
and Tang (1997).
The quadratic form (x − m)T C−1(x − m) in eq. 1 appears
also in the negative exponent of the multivariate normal dis-
tribution (e.g., Johnson and Wichern 1992, chapter 4). The
quadratic form is an ellipsoid. For example, the one standard
deviation (1σ) ellipse in Fig. 1 corresponds to β = 1. One may
regard the gradually expanding ellipsoidal surfaces as repre-
senting the contours of decreasing probability density. There-
fore, for normally distributed variables, to minimize β in eq. 1
(or β2 in the multivariate normal distribution) is to maximize
the value of the multivariate normal probability density func-
failure surface is equivalent to finding the most probable fail-
ure point. This perspective is consistent with Shinozuka (1983)
that “the design point x* is the point of maximum likelihood
if x is Gaussian, whether or not its components are uncorrelated.”
Another perspective is to regard the Hasofer-Lind reliabil-
ity index β as the axis ratio of the ellipsoid that just touches
the failure surface to the 1σ dispersion ellipsoid, as shown in
Fig. 2 of Low and Tang (1997). A little reflection will show
that this perspective and that in Fig. 1, namely β = minimum
[R(θ)/r(θ)], are equivalent.
© 1997 NRC Canada
 Low and Tang 677

Fig. 5. Example reliability analysis of reinforced embankment on soft ground.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by ET- Adama Science & Technology University Library (PERI) on 08/05/15
For personal use only.

Reliability analysis: ellipsoid approach via
spreadsheet
In the spreadsheet method one literally sets up a tilted ellipsoid
in the spreadsheet and minimizes the ellipsoid subject to the
constraint that it be tangent to the failure surface. For this
purpose eq. 1 is rewritten as
 T 1/2

  xi − mi   xi − mi  
[2] β= min    [R]−1   
xe F 
  σi   σi  
in which [R]–1 is the inverse of the correlation matrix. This
equation will be used to set up the multidimensional ellipsoid
in spreadsheet since the correlation matrix R displays the cor-
relation structure more explicitly than the covariance matrix C.
The mean values, the standard deviations σ, and the corre-
lation matrix [R] are assumed known and entered, as shown in
the spreadsheet in Fig. 5. The mean value of “lever” is entered
as an equation, as shown. The standard deviations σ are also
entered as formulas, equal to the respective mean values mul-
tiplied by their coefficients of variation; these coefficients are
0.05, 0.15, 0.1, 0.1, 0.15, and 0.3 for γ, cm, φm, T, lever, and hc
respectively. (Hence both the mean value and standard devia-
tion of “lever” will vary with z and D during the spreadsheet’s
optimization iterations.) The coefficient of variation is as-
sumed to be 0.15 for each of the six cu values.
The diagonal terms of the correlation matrix are 1. The
embankment cohesion (cm) and friction angle (φm) are as-
sumed to be positively correlated with the unit weight (γ) of
the embankment (ρ12 = ρ13 = 0.5) and negatively correlated
with each other (ρ23 = ρ32 = –0.3). The undrained shear
shrength profile in the soft foundation is in this case charac-
terized by six cu values at different depths, with correlation
coefficients (lower right quadrant of the correlation matrix)
obeying the following negative exponential model of spatial
continuity:
 |[depth (i) − depth (j)]| 
[3] ρij = exp − 
 3 
where the depths are in metres.
The autocorrelation distance of 3 (metre) in the exponent
implies that the correlation coefficient is 0.368 for two points
3 m apart, and 0.05 for 2 points 9 m apart, and so on.
The subsequent steps are as follows:
(1) Formulas are entered for the column vector [(xi – mi)/σi],
where xi, mi, and σi represent the “xvalue”, mean, and
standard deviation, respectively, of a random variable, as
listed in Fig. 5. The “xvalues” are set equal to the mean
values initially (by copying the “Mean” column and past-
ing over the “xvalues” column).

© 1997 NRC Canada

 678
Table 1. Using GoalSeek and Solver repeatedly to obtain the mean value of T required for a β index of 3.0.
1 2
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by ET- Adama Science & Technology University Library (PERI) on 08/05/15
GoalSeek for β = 3.0 3.000
Required mean of T 229.1
Minimum β using Solver 2.799
Fig. 6. Programmed iterative calling of Solver routine, as an
alternative to the procedure shown in Table 1.
For personal use only.
(2) Select the entire correlation matrix, and define a name for
it, say “crmatrix,” using the menu command insert/name/de-
fine. Likewise, define the column vector [(xi – mi)/σi] as
“nxvector”, say.
(3) The formula (eq. 2) of the reliability index, β =
sqrt{[(x – m)/σ]T[R]–1[(x – m)/σ]}, is typed in a cell: “ =
sqrt(mmult(transpose(nxvector), mmult(minverse(crmatrix),
nxvector))),” followed by pressing “Enter” while holding
down the “Ctrl”and “Shift” keys. (mmult, transpose,
and minverse are Microsoft Excel’s built-in spreadsheet
functions for matrix operations.)
(4) The formula of the performance function, g(x) = MR + MT –
(Mo + ∆Mo), is entered based on “xvalues.”
(5) Initial values are set for x, z, and D, e.g., x = l/2 = 4 m, z =
2H = 8 m, D = ½ clay thickness = 6 m. (The remarks in
the earlier section “Deterministic Analysis...” regarding
reasonable initial values of x, z, and D also apply here.)
(6) Solver is invoked, to “Minimize” β, “By Changing” the 12
“xvalues” and also (x, z, D), “Subject To” the constraints
PerFunc = 0, D > = 0, and D < = 12.
The solution obtained by Solver is as shown in Fig. 5. The
spreadsheet approach is simple and intuitive because it works
in the original space of the variables; it does not involve the
orthogonal transformation of covariance matrix or user-input
partial derivatives, both of which are required in the traditional
FORM procedure.
The 12 “xvalues” as obtained by Solver in Fig. 5 represent
the most probable point on the failure surface. It is the point
of tangency of the 12-dimensional dispersion ellipsoid with the
failure surface. At this most probable point the values of cu, T,
and “lever” are, as expected, smaller than their corresponding
mean values; but cm and φm at tangency point have slightly higher
values than their respective mean values. This peculiarity is
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997
Successive trials
3 4
3.000 3.000 3.000
243.9 247.8 248.3
2.957 2.995 3.000
attributable to their being positively correlated to the unit
weight of the embankment γ and also reflects their rela-
tively minor roles in affecting the reliability for the case in
hand. (If the positive correlation 0.5 in matrix entries ρ12, ρ13,
ρ21, and ρ31 are replaced by zero, the reliability index β is
reduced to 2.415, and γ, cm, and φm at tangency point have
values 19.90, 9.835, and 29.79, respectively, the last two being
smaller than their respective mean values.)
Although the correlation coefficient between two random
variables has a range –1 ≤ ρij ≤ 1, one is not totally free in
assigning any values within this range for the correlation ma-
trix. This was explained in Ditlevsen (1981, p. 85) where a 3 × 3
correlation matrix with ρ12 = ρ13 = ρ23 = –1 implies a contra-
diction and is hence inconsistent. The covariance matrix has
to be positive definite. For the present approach, an inconsis-
tent correlation matrix will manifest itself by causing Solver
to break down due to “error encountered” when Solver tries to
evaluate the square root of a negative quantity—the right-hand
side of eq. 2—during its iterative searching for the minimum
dispersion ellipsoid and the corresponding reliability index β.
For the case in hand the correlation matrix in Fig. 5 becomes
singular when ρ23 = ρ32 = –0.5. This means that given their
positive correlation (ρ21 = ρ31 = 0.5) with γ, the correlation
between cm and φm has to be greater than –0.5.
For the example analysis in Fig. 5, an additional random
variable M can be added to represent model uncertainty,
thereby giving a 13 × 13 correlation matrix and a somewhat
smaller reliability index. One source of model uncertainty is
the possible discrepancy between the present stability model
and a more rigorous one (e.g., one that satisfies force equilib-
rium in addition to moment equilibrium or one that accounts
for three-dimensional effect).
The critical slip surface (as indicated by the values of x, z,
and D) in Fig. 5 differs little from that in the deterministic
analysis. Further analyses show that the difference between the
critical slip surface of the deterministic analysis and that of the
reliability analysis is a function of the dispersion of the random
variables. For example, if the coefficient of variation (c.o.v.)
of the cu values is 0.25 instead of 0.15, Solver obtains a reli-
ability index β of 1.692 (instead of 2.467), and a critical slip
surface defined by (x, z, D) = (4, 10.12, 8.01). The decrease in
reliability is mainly due to the increased uncertainty of the cu
values (which a deterministic safety analysis will not be able
to reflect).
A noteworthy feature of the proposed spreadsheet reli-
ability evaluation procedure is that it automatically searches
for the critical slip surface based on reliability criteria. It
does not assume that the critical slip surface is the same
as the deterministic critical slip surface—an assumption
common in reliability analysis hitherto due to the difficulty
© 1997 NRC Canada
 Low and Tang
Fig. 7. Deterministic analysis of an unreinforced test embankment at Nong Ngoo Hao (units: m, kN/m, kN⋅m/m, kN/m2, kN/m3).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by ET- Adama Science & Technology University Library (PERI) on 08/05/15
For personal use only.
of performing reliability evaluation for each slip surface by
the traditional method.
Design considerations based on reliability
index
For design it would be of interest to know what changes need
be made to the mean value or standard deviation of a random
variable so as to increase the reliability index to a desired
value. For example, in Fig. 5, the mean value of the strength of
the reinforcement (T) is 200 kN/m, with a coefficient of vari-
ation equal to 0.1. One may ask what higher mean value of T
(by increasing the amount of geosynthetic reinforcement, for
example) would increase the reliability index from 2.467 to
3.0, given the same coefficient of variation for T. The answer
can be obtained by using both the GoalSeek tool and the Solver
tool of the spreadsheet repeatedly. With the values of β and
mean T (2.467 and 200, respectively) as shown in Fig. 5, the
GoalSeek tool was invoked to find the mean of T that would
set β equal to the design index value of 3.0. The answer given
by GoalSeek is 229.1 kN/m, as shown in Table 1. This was
followed by using the Solver tool to minimize β by changing
all the “xvalues” of the 12 random variables, and x, z, and D,
subject to the “xvalues” being on the failure surface (i.e., Per-
Func = 0 in Fig. 5). The minimized β is 2.799. Again GoalSeek
was invoked to set β to 3.0 by changing the mean value of T,
and the process continues. Convergence by this successive ap-
proach is fast, as shown in Table 1. For a coefficient of vari-
ation 0.1, the required mean value of T to achieve a beta index
679
of 3.0 is 248.3 kN/m. Had the coefficient of variation been
higher, the required mean of T would also be larger.
The above iterative procedure is needed because the “xval-
ues” and the critical slip surface (x, z, D) will be different when
the mean of T is changed to achieve a desired reliability index.
Further simplifications using macros and
notes on constraints of changing cells
The above problem of finding the required mean value of a
random variable that will yield a target reliability index can be
further automated (if desired) by writing a simple macro using
the VBA programming language that resides in Microsoft Ex-
cel. The short code is shown in Fig. 6. Each iteration loop
invokes the Solver routine twice: the first time to set the β cell
to the target value 3 by changing only the mean value of T;
the second time to minimize the β value by changing all the
12 “xvalues” and also (x, z, D). The answer obtained after six
iteration loops is the same as that obtained by the repeated
manual use of the GoalSeek and Solver tools described in the
previous section.
In using the spreadsheet’s optimization tool, it is sometimes
necessary to specify as constraints the legitimate bounds for
each of the “Changing Cells.” For reliability index computa-
tion, an intrinsic constraint exists in the sense that the final
“xvalues” (Fig. 5) tend to be at most a few standard deviations
from the mean values. Hence, as a guide, one may start with
only the essential constraints (e.g., that the Performance Func-
tion be equal to zero in Fig. 5). If Solver found a solution in
© 1997 NRC Canada
 680
Fig. 8. Examples of reinforcement scenarios for embankment at Nong Ngoo Hao (units: m, kN/m, kN⋅m/m, kN/m2, kN/m3).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by ET- Adama Science & Technology University Library (PERI) on 08/05/15
For personal use only.
which all the final values of the “Changing Cells” are within
their permissible bounds (e.g., all positive), additional constraints
are not necessary. (Solver can handle up to 500 constraints—one
upper limit and one lower limit for each changing cell, plus
100 additional constraints—according to Microsoft Excel 7’s
on-line help. Each changing cell can be constrained by a number,
another cell or range reference, or formula).
Probability of failure and comparison with
Monte Carlo simulations
For linear performance function and normally distributed random
variables, the mathematical probability of failure (Pf) is related to
reliability index β by the equation Pf = 1 – Φ(β), where Φ(.) is the
cumulative distribution function of the standard normal variate.
The value of Pf can be obtained using the spreadsheet function
normsdist in the formula “ = 1 – normsdist(beta).” For β = 1, 2,
3, and 4, the values of Pf are 0.16, 0.023, 0.001, respectively,
and 3E–05, respectively. The reliability index of 2.467 in
Fig. 5 implies a Pf value of 0.0068.
Monte Carlo simulation of the problem in Fig. 5 with 10 000
realizations using the popular spreadsheet add-in program @Risk
produces a Pf value of 0.0072. Further runs with 100 000 reali-
zations result in a Pf value of 0.0065. The 95% confidence
interval based on 100 000 realizations is estimated to be
0.0060 < Pf < 0.0070, which agrees well with the 0.0068 based
on reliability index β. It may be inferred that the limit state
surface of the problem in Fig. 5 is not highly nonlinear.
The time required for Monte Carlo simulation is at least an
order of magnitude higher than the evaluation of reliability index
using spreadsheet. If sensitivity information or a parametric study
is desired, or a reliability-based design is to be performed, it can
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997
be done more efficiently via the proposed spreadsheet reliabil-
ity evaluation procedure than Monte Carlo simulation.
Dependency of deterministic solution on
the definition of Fs
In the design of a reinforced embankment on soft ground, it is
often necessary to estimate the magnitude of the reinforcement
force (T) that is required to achieve a desired factor of safety,
or, given a value of reinforcement force, to determine the fac-
tor of safety (Fs). The solution obtained (whether T or Fs)
depends on the definition of Fs. This ambiguity was noted in
Hoek and Bray (1981) for reinforced rock slopes. The same
ambiguity exists for deterministic limit equilibrium analysis of
reinforced embankments on soft ground, as both eqs. j and k in
Fig. 3 have been used in practice, as discussed in Low et al.
(1990). It was shown that seemingly different T or Fs solutions
to the same reinforced embankment can be reconciled if the
different definitions of Fs used are accounted for.
It seems logical that eq. j be used if the T force is the maximum
mobilizable force (Tp), and eq. k be used if the T force is either
the allowable force or the actual mobilized force (Ta). In the for-
mer case the computed Fs applies to both the reinforcement
strength and the soil shear strength; it is a global Fs of the rein-
forced soil system. In the latter case the computed Fs is that with
respect to the shear strength of soil only, the factor of safety with
respect to reinforcement being given by the ratio Tp/Ta.
The ambiguity arising from the different formulations of Fs
does not exist if the reliability index as defined by Hasofer and
Lind (1974) is used, because at the limit state surface (Fs = 1),
eqs. j and k of Fig. 3 are identical.
The assumed lever arm also affects the solution of Fs or T.
In this paper, the following has been assumed: (1) if Fs is
© 1997 NRC Canada
 Low and Tang
Fig. 9. Deterministic analysis of reinforced embankment on Bangkok clay (units: m, kN/m, kN⋅m/m, kN/m2, kN/m3).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by ET- Adama Science & Technology University Library (PERI) on 08/05/15
For personal use only.
defined by eq. j of Fig. 3, then “lever arm” = z + D/2, that is,
the line of action is between horizontal and tangential; (2) if
Fs is defined by eq. k, then “lever arm” = z, that is, the line of
action is horizontal. The former scenario was the case in Fig. 4.
For reliability analysis the mean lever arm is assumed to be
equal to (z + D/2). As shown in Fig. 5, the xvalue of “lever”
on the limit state surface is smaller than its mean (i.e., 10.65 <
12.63) when T and “lever” are uncorrelated.
Comparisons with published case histories
In this section the stability formulas of this paper are applied
to three published full-scale trial embankmets on soft ground.
In the first two cases, the embankment height was increased
until failure occurred. In the third case, the reinforced embank-
ment was stable at final height.
Case 1: Unreinforced test embankment at Nong Ngoo Hao
The Nong Ngoo Hao test embankments on Bangkok clay were
described in Zou et al. (1995). One of the test embankments
was 100 m long by 30 m wide, with side slopes 1V:2H. The
embankment was built rapidly to failure using sand fill. Failure
occurred when the unreinforced embankment reached a height
of 3.4 m.
Zou et al. (1995) conducted a finite element analysis to de-
termine the mobilized shear stress within the slope and used a
dynamic programming method to search for the critical slip
681
surface corresponding to a minimum factor of safety. The fac-
tor of safety was expressed in terms of the stresses from finite
element analysis. The undrained shear strength (cu) profile of
the soft clay beneath the embankment was obtained by apply-
ing a reduction factor of 0.7 to a vane shear strength (suv)
profile. The dense sand fill of the embankment was assumed
to have a unit weight of 18 kN/m3 and an average friction angle
of 37.5°. Deformation properties were also needed for the fi-
nite element analysis. A factor of safety equal to 1.00 was
reported at the 3.4 m failure height of the embankment. It was
concluded that the finite element method has the advantage
over limit equilibrium methods in that the strain- and time-
dependent behaviour of soil and the stage construction of
slopes can be modelled.
To compare the present formulations (eqs. in Fig. 3) with Zou
et al.’s (1995) finite element method (FEM)-based search for
critical slip surface, the same assumptions regarding cu profile and
embankment soil properties are used, as shown in the spreadsheet
in Fig. 7. It is further assumed that the ground-water table (GWT)
is at the ground surface of the embankment. The Fs obtained by
the spreadsheet’s optimization tool is 0.987, or practically 1.00.
The critical slip surface extends to a depth D = 5.26 m in the soft
foundation, as shown in the figure.
To check the accuracy of the formulations proposed in this
paper, the critical slip surface obtained in Fig. 7 can be ana-
lyzed using the Chen and Morgenstern’s (1983) extended
Morgenstern-Price generalized method of slices. The value of
© 1997 NRC Canada
 682
Fig. 10. Deterministic analysis of Muar reinforced embankment in Malaysia. Embankment is stable. (Units: m, kN/m, kN⋅m/m, kN/m2, kN/m3.)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by ET- Adama Science & Technology University Library (PERI) on 08/05/15
For personal use only.
Fs obtained is 0.986 (compared with 0.987 in Fig. 7) if GWT is
at the ground surface of the embankment and 1.065 if GWT is at
the base of the embankment. For the latter scenario the present
approach obtains a value of Fs = 1.060. Hence, at least for the
unreinforced embankment in hand, the formulations in this paper
yield practically the same Fs as the Chen-Morgenstern method.
It should be mentioned that, because of the approximate nature
of eq. h (Fig. 3) for the coefficient λ, some inaccuracy in the
computed Fs is incurred by the present approach if the ratio
D/H is smaller than 0.5. The error in computed Fs is generally
insignificant for D/H ≥ 0.5.
The analytical model used in deterministic Fs analysis is
also used to define the limit state surface (Fs – 1 = 0) in reli-
ability analysis. Hence the need exists for checking the accu-
racy of the proposed stability model, as is done in the above
and subsequent paragraphs.
Figure 8 shows the Fs values and critical slip surfaces, de-
termined by the spreadsheet’s optimization tool for three hy-
pothetical reinforcement scenarios of the Nong Ngoo Hao
embankment. The tangent depth (D) of the critical slip surface
increases with the magnitude of the T force.
Case 2: Geotextile-reinforced embankment on Bangkok
clay
Bergado et al. (1994) described an embankment reinforced
with one layer of nonwoven geotextile of tensile strength
200 kN/m. Another unreinforced embankment was constructed
nearby as a control embankment. A trench 2 m deep and
7.5 m wide at the bottom was excavated along the side of both
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997
embankments. The reinforced embankment failed at a height
of 6 m; the unreinforced control embankment failed at 4 m.
Based on back-analysis of the unreinforced embankment, Bergado
et al. (1994) suggested a correction factor 0.8 for the field vane
shear strength of the soft Bangkok clay.
This reinfoced embankment is analyzed here as follows.
The total height at failure is H = 8 m, which includes the 2 m
deep trench excavation (Fig. 9). The 2 m thick in situ weath-
ered clay forms part of the embankment. The average cor-
rected undrained shear strength for this 2 m weathered clay is
cu = (20 + 48)/2 = 34 kPa. The 6 m fill has a cohesion of 10 kPa
and a φ angle of 30°, as reported by Bergado et al. (1994) based
on large direct shear tests. In the present analysis, a weighted
average of cm = 16 kN/m2 is computed for the two-layer em-
bankment material, as described in Fig. 9. Since the friction
angle of 30° applies only in the 6 m fill of the 8 m total height,
by the nature of eq. f in Fig. 3 one should multiply H by 6/8
and θhR by 6/8, which is the same as multiplying λγ by 0.563.
The value of Fs computed using the present approach is 0.99,
which is consistent with failure condition. The actual slip surface,
as inferred by Bergado et al. (1994), is narrower and shallower
than the one in Fig. 9.
The analysis in Fig. 9 assumes a unit weight of 19.2 kN/m3
for the entire 8 m high slope based on a reported dry density
of 17 kN/m3 and water content of 13% at the time of failure.
Had the lower 2 m in situ weathered clay been assumed to have
a unit weight of 15 kN/m3, thereby giving an average γ of
18.2 kN/m3 for the 8 m high slope, a factor of safety Fs = 1.038
would have been computed.
© 1997 NRC Canada
 Low and Tang
Fig. 11. Reliability analysis of Muar reinforced embankment in Malaysia.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by ET- Adama Science & Technology University Library (PERI) on 08/05/15
For personal use only.
Case 3: Reinforced embankment on Muar clay deposit
Chai and Bergado (1993) conducted finite element analysis
and stability analysis on two geogrid reinforced embankments
on Muar clay deposit in Malaysia. The soft foundation had
been installed with vertical drains. Finite element results re-
garding geometry change, strength increase of soft soil, and
mobilized reinforcement force were used in stability analysis.
One embankment of thickness 6.07 m (net height about 5.25 m
due to settlement) was found to have a factor of safety 1.22
when a mobilized T force of 11 kN/m was used. The increase
over the unreinforced Fs was 0.012. If the peak strength
(80 kN/m) of the geogrid was fully mobilized, the increase
(over the unreinforced Fs) was 0.077 if the T force acts in a
horizontal direction and 0.113 if the T force acts tangential to
the slip surface.
The Muar reinforced embankment is analyzed using the
present approach in Fig. 10. A multilinear cu profile is used
instead of the published multilayer cu profile. The Fs values
are 1.215, 1.226, and 1.294 for T equal to 0, 11, and 80 kN/m,
respectively. The increase over the unreinforced Fs values are
0.011 and 0.079 respectively. If hc = hw = 2 m, an Fs value of
1.217 is obtained for T = 80 kN/m.
An example reliability analysis for the Muar embankment
is shown in Fig. 11. A tension crack of mean value 2 m and
c.o.v. of 0.30 has been used. The following may be noted:
(1) The same reliability index is obtained regardless of which
683
definition of Fs is used to describe the limit state surface
Fs = 1 because eqs. j and k in Fig. 3 are identical when Fs = 1.
(2) The mean value of T is the expected maximum mobilizable
force of the reinforcement. It is an average strength value,
not a mobilized value. This is consistent with the mean
values of cu, cm, and φm used in the reliability analysis,
which are also strength values. The uncertainties in these
average strength values are reflected in their respective
standard deviations and correlations.
(3) The uncertainty regarding whether the reinforcement force
T acts in a horizontal direction (with lever arm z) or acts
tangential to the slip surface (with lever arm (z + D)) is
reflected in the reliability analysis by taking the mean lever
arm to be an average between z and (z + D), and using a
cofficient of variation (c.o.v.), which in this case is equal
to 0.15. The c.o.v. of 0.15 means that the standard devia-
tion of lever arm is 0.15 × (mean value of lever arm). At
the most probable failure point on the limit state surface of
the random variables, the xvalues of both T and “lever”
will always be smaller than their respective mean values,
if they are uncorrelated or positively correlated.
Thus, some of the ambiguities and confusions in the deter-
ministic Fs analysis of reinforced embankments on soft ground
are either mitigated or overcome in the reliability analysis,
apart from the latter’s ability to reflect the uncertainty of the
input parameters. The latter advantage is further illustrated in
© 1997 NRC Canada
 684
Fig. 12. Same factor of safety, same covariance, yet different
reliability index.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by ET- Adama Science & Technology University Library (PERI) on 08/05/15
Fig. 12, which shows two hypothetical cases with the same Fs (1.6)
at their respective mean values of x1 and x2. Both cases also have
the same standard deviations of x1 and x2. If judged by the determi-
nistic factor of safety, they are equally safe. However, a reliability
For personal use only.
analysis will reveal that case B is less reliable than case A.
The three case histories mentioned above represent only a
few of the published cases of reinforced embankments on soft
ground. Additional references can be found in Rowe et al.
(1996), which compares results of finite element analysis with
field measurements of a geotextile-reinforced test embankment.
Summary and conclusions
A limit equilibrium stability model of reinforced embankments
on soft ground has been presented. The model allows for a tension
crack in an embankment, tensile reinforcement at the base of
embankment, and a nonlinear undrained shear strength profile in
the soft foundation. An example analysis is given that demon-
strates the use of a widely available spreadsheet optimization tool
to facilitate both the deterministic factor of safety evaluation and
the Hasofer-Lind reliability index evaluation.
The proposed reliability evaluation procedure via spreadsheet
derives from an alternative interpretation of the Hasofer-Lind in-
dex in the original space of the random variables. Correlated
random variables are viewed as forming a tilted ellipsoid centered
at the mean. The computed reliability index is the same as that
based on the first order reliability method (FORM) except that
the spreadsheet automated search is in the original space of the
random variables. Correlated variables are dealt with easily with-
out the need for orthogonal transformation of the covariance ma-
trix. The meaning of the reliability index is transparent. The
performance function need not be explicit. Reliability-based de-
sign can also be performed with ease.
Example and actual reinforced embankments on soft ground
have been analyzed using the ellipsoid approach via spreadsheet.
The 12 random variables include six autocorrelated cu values that
define the nonlinear undrained shear strength profile of the foun-
dation soil. The performance function is nonexplicit due to the
need to search for the critical slip surface and to integrate
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997
numerically the depth-dependent undrained shear strength
values. In one example, the probability of failure based on
reliability index was compared with Monte Carlo simulation;
good agreement was obtained. The reliability index β de-
creases from 2.467 to 1.692 when the coefficient of variation
(c.o.v.) of the undrained shear strength in the soft ground in-
creases from 0.15 to 0.25. The factor of safety based on mean
values does not change. The reliability index is considered to
be a more rational indicator of safety than the conventional
factor of safety because it reflects the degree of uncertainty of
the underlying parameters.
The ease of implementation, the conceptual simplicity, and
the versatility of the ellipsoid approach via spreadsheet may
contribute to reducing the language barrier in geotechnical re-
liability noted by several pioneer researchers. The spreadsheet
method of reliability evaluation can be extended to nonnormal
variates, with or without correlation (Low and Tang 1997).
Acknowledgements
This work was performed while the first author was on sabbatical
leave at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
from September to December 1996. The second author would
like to acknowledge the support of a research grant No.
HKUST 722/96E sponsored by the Research Grant Council of
Hong Kong. Graduate student Raymond Cheung of HKUST
performed the Monte Carlo simulation mentioned in the paper.
References
Ang, H.S., and Tang, W.H. 1984. Probability concepts in engineering
planning and design, volume ii—decision, risk, and reliability.
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Bergado, D.T., Long, P.V., Lee, C.H., Loke, K.H., and Werner, G.
1994. Performance of reinforced embankment on soft Bangkok
clay with high-strength geotextile reinforcement. International
Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 13: 403–420.
Chai, J., and Bergado, D.T. 1993. Performance of reinforced embank-
ment on Muar clay deposit. Soils and Foundations, 33(4): 1–17.
Chen, Z., and Morgenstern, N.R. 1983. Extensions to the generalized
method of slices for stability analysis. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 20(1): 104–119.
Chowdhury, R.N., and Xu, D.W. 1995. Geotechnical system reliabil-
ity of slopes. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 47:
141–151.
Christian, J.T., Ladd, C.C., and Baecher, G.B. 1994. Reliability ap-
plied to slope stability analysis. Journal of Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, ASCE, 120(12): 2180–2207.
Dai, S.H., and Wang, M.O. 1992. Reliability analysis in engineering
applications. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Ditlevsen, O. 1981. Uncertainty modeling: with applications to multi-
dimensional civil engineering systems. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Duncan, J.M. 1996. State of the art: limit equilibrium and finite-
element analysis of slopes. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 122(7): 577–596.
Haldar, A., and Mahadevan, S. 1995. First-order and second-order
reliability methods. In Probabilistic structural mechanics handbook.
Edited by C. (Raj) Sundararajan. Chapman & Hall, New York,
pp. 27–52.
Hasofer, A.M., and Lind, N.C. 1974. Exact and invariant second-
moment code format. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE,
100(1): 111–121.
Hoek, E., and Bray, J. 1981. Rock slope engineering. 3rd ed. Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
© 1997 NRC Canada
 Low and Tang
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., and Bawden, W.F. 1995. Support of underground
excavations in hard rock. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Johnson, R.A., and Wichern, D.W. 1992. Applied multivariate statis-
tical analysis. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Kitch, W.A., Wright, S.G., and Gilbert, R.B. 1995. Probabilistic analysis
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by ET- Adama Science & Technology University Library (PERI) on 08/05/15
of reinforced soil slopes. Proceedings, 10th Conference on Engineer-
ing Mechanics, ASCE, New York, Vol. 1, pp. 325–328.
Li, K.S., and Lumb, P. 1987. Probabilistic design of slopes. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 24: 520–535.
Low, B.K. 1989. Stability analysis of embankments on soft ground.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(2): 211–227.
Low, B.K. 1996. Practical probabilistic approach using spreadsheet.
Proceedings, Uncertainty in Geologic Environment: From Theory
to Practice. American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 58, Vol. 2, pp. 1284–1302.
Low, B.K., and Tang, W.H. 1997. Efficient reliability evaluation us-
ing spreadsheet. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE,
123(7).
Low, B.K., Wong, K.S., Lim, C., and Broms, B.B. 1990. Slip circle
analysis of reinforced embankments on soft ground. International
Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 9: 165–181
Luckman, P.G., Der-Kiureghian, A., and Sitar, N. 1987. Use of sto-
chastic stability analysis for Bayesian back calculation of pore
pressures acting in a cut slope at failure. Proceedings, ICASP5, the
5th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and
Probability in Soil and Structural Engineering, Vancouver, B.C.,
Vol. 2, pp. 922–929.
Madsen, H.O., Krenk, S., and Lind, N.C. 1986. Methods of structural
safety. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
For personal use only.
Melchers, R.E. 1987. Structural reliability: analysis and prediction.
Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex, England.
685
Morgenstern, N.R. 1995. Managing risk in geotechnical engineering.
Proceedings, Pan American Conference, International Society
for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Guadalajara,
Mexico.
National Research Council. 1995. Probabilistic methods in geotech-
nical engineering. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Oka, Y., and Wu, T.H. 1990. System reliability of slope stability.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 116(8): 1185–1189.
Rowe, R.K., Gnanendran, C.T., Landva, A.O., and Valsangkar A.J.
1996. Calculated and observed behaviour of a reinforced embank-
ment over soft compressible soil. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
33: 324–338.
Shinozuka, M. 1983. Basic analysis of structural safety. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 109(3): 721–740.
Tang, W.H. 1993. Recent developments in geotechnical reliability.
Probabilistic methods in geotechnical engineering. Edited by Li
and Lo. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 3–27.
Tichy, M. 1993. Applied methods of structural reliability. Kluwer
Academic, Dordrecht, Boston.
Vanmarcke, E.H. 1977. Reliability of earth slopes. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 103(11): 1247–1266.
Veneziano, D. 1974. Contributions to second moment reliability. De-
partment of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, Cambridge, Research Report No. R74–33.
Whitman, R.V. 1984. Evaluating calculated risk in geotechnical engi-
neering. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 110(2):
143–188.
Zou, J., Williams, D.J., and Xiong, W. 1995. Search for critical slip
surfaces based on finite element method. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 32: 233–246.
© 1997 NRC Canada