Reliability Analysis of Slope Stability Using Monte Carlo Simulation

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49909741
Reliability analysis on the stability of slope
Article · March 2005

Source: OAI
CITATIONS READS
4 185
1 author:
Kok Shien Ng
Universiti Teknologi Mara (Pulau Pinang)
22 PUBLICATIONS 45 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Effect of SCBA/SCSA on Mechanical Properties of Cement-treated Soil View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kok Shien Ng on 21 November 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Reliability Analysis On The Stability Of Slope
NG KOK SHIEN
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of
the degree of Master of Engineering (Civil Engineering – Geotechnics)
Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
MARCH 2005
“I declare that I have read through this project report and to my opinion
this project is adequate in term of scope and quality for the purpose of
awarding the degree of Master of Engineering (Civil-Geotechnics).”
Signature : …………………………….
Name of Supervisor : DR. NURLY GOFAR
Date : March 2005
ii
“I declare that this project report is my own work except for the
quotations and summarizes which I have explained the source.”
Signature : ....................................................
Name : NG KOK SHIEN
Date : March 2005
iii
ADKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Nurly

Gofar for her valuable advice and great encouragement as well as for her excellent
guidance and assistance for this research. I am also indebted for the amount of time
and effort she has spent reading and correcting my thesis.
A special thanks to my friends, who have given tremendous support

throughout my engineering degrees. Lastly, I am very thankful to my family
members for their support and encouragement.
iv
ABSTRACT
Slope stability is one of the geotechnical subject most dominated by uncertainty. The
current practice in slope stability analysis is based on the limit equilibrium and not
directly addresses uncertainty. The objective of this study is to integrate probabilistic
approach as a rational means to incorporate uncertainty in the slope stability analysis.
The study was made through a hypothetical problem which includes a sensitivity
analysis, and two real cases. The methodology is based on Monte Carlo simulation
integrated in commercially available computer program SLOPE/W. The output of
the analysis is presented as the probability of failure as a measure of the likelihood of
the slope failure. Results of this study have verified that the probability of failure is a
better measure of slope stability as compared to the factor of safety because it
provides a range of value rather than a single value.
v
ABSTRAK
Kestabilan cerun merupakan salah satu subjek geoteknik yang dibelenggui oleh
ketidakpastian. Penggunaan umum masa kini dalam taksiran kestabilan cerun adalah
berdasarkan had keseimbangan dan ia tidak dapat menangani unsur-unsur
ketidakpastian. Objektif kajian ini adalah untuk mengintegrasikan kaedah
kebarangkalian dalam analysis cerun supaya unsur ketidakpastian dapat dinilai.
Kajian ini dijalankan melalui satu masalah andaian dan dua kajian kes. Metodologi
kajian ini melibatkan penggunaan Simulasi Monte Carlo yang sediada dalam perisian
SLOPE/W. Hasil analisis disampaikan dalam bentuk kebarangkalian gagal yang
boleh dijadikan sebagai ukuran kemungkinan gagal sesuatu cerun. Hasil kajian ini
membuktikan kebarangkalian gagal merupakan kaedah yang lebih bagus berbanding
dengan faktor keselamatan kerana ia membekalkan satu julat nilai dan bukannya
satu nilai sahaja.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
ABSTRAC iv
ABSTRAK v
CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLE ix
LIST OF FIGURE x
LIST OF SYMBOL xiii
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.0 Overview 1
1.1 Problem Statement 2
1.2 Objective 3
1.3 Scope 3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 Conventional Slope Stability Analysis 5
2.2.1 Fellenius (Swedish) Method 8
2.2.2 The Bishop (Routine) Method 8
2.2.3 General Limit Equilibrium (GLE) Method 9
vii
2.2.4 Other Methods of Slices 11

2.2.5 Limitation of Conventional Method 13
2.3 Sources of Uncertainty in Slope Stability Analysis 13
2.3.1 Parameter Uncertainty 13
2.3.2 Model Uncertainty 14
2.3.3 Human Uncertainty 15
2.3.4 Selection of Parameter and Its Variability 15
2.4 Statistical Analysis of Soil Data 17
2.4.1 Probability Density Function 17
2.4.2 Measure of Random Variables 19
2.4.3 Cross Correlation among Parameters 20
2.5 Method of Probabilistic Analysis 21
2.5.1 Analytical Methods 21
2.5.2 Approximate methods 22
2.5.2.1 First Order Second Moment 22
Reliability Method
2.5.2.2 Point Estimate Method 23
2.5.3 Monte Carlo Simulation 24
2.5.4 Limitations of Existing Probabilistic 26
Methods
2.6 Reliability Analysis 27
2.6.1 Basic Concept 28
2.6.2 Confidence Level 28
2.6.3 Capacity Demand Model 29
2.6.4 Reliability Assessment 32
3 METHODOLOGY 35
3.1 Introduction 35
3.2 Simulation Process 35
3.2.1 Determination of Critical Slip Surface 37
3.2.2 Monte Carlo Simulation 39
3.2.2.1 Optimum Number of Trial 39
viii
3.2.2.2 Interpretation of Output 39

3.3 Variable Study 40
3.4 Case Study 41
4 RESULT AND ANALYSIS 42

4.1 Hypothetical Problem 42
4.1.1 Without c- φ correlation coefficient 47
4.1.2 With c- φ correlation coefficient 54
4.1.3 Sensitivity Study 62
4.1.4 Discussion 68
4.2 Case Study 69
4.2.1 Cut Slope in UTM, Skudai 69
4.2.2 Muar Trial Embankment 71
5 CONCLUSION 75
5.1 Summary 75
5.2 Conclusion 76
5.3 Recommendations 77
REFERENCES 78
ix
LIST OF TABLE
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 Element of statical equilirium satisfied by various Limit 12

Equilibrium Methods (Source: Fredlund, 1984)
2.2 Coefficients of Variation for Geotechnical Parameters 16

(Source: U.S Army Corps of Engineer, 1999)
2.3 Probability of Failure Criteria for slope 31
2.4 Target Reliability Indices (US Army, 1999) 34
4.1 Soil properties used for hypothetical case 43
4.2 Result of probabilistic analysis for case 1 to 3 and c-φ 47

uncorrelated
4.3 Result of probabilistic analysis for case 1 to 3 – with c- φ 54

correlation coefficient of –0.5.
4.4 Sensitivity result for cases of c- φ uncorrelated 62
4.5 Sensitivity result for cases with c- φ correlation coefficient 65

of –0.5
4.6 Soil data of peak strength and residual strength parameter 70

obtained from direct shear test
4.7 Result using data from direct shear box test. 70
4.8 Statistical Parameters for Input Variable of undrained shear 73

strength
4.9 Probabilistic Result for Muar Trial Embankemnt 73

x
LIST OF FIGURE
FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 Methods of slices 6
2.2 Uncertainty in Soil Properties (Source: Christian, Ladd, 14

Beacher, 1994)
2.3 Probability density function (PDF) 18
2.4 Cumulative distribution function (CDF) 18
2.5 Combination of uncorrelated parameter input distribution 20
2.6 Combination of correlated parameter input distribution 21
2.7 Confidence interval of 90% 29
2.8 Concept of Reliability Analysis 30
2.9 Probability of failure as a function of the reliability index 32

for a normal distributed factor of safety (Source: Christian,
Ladd and Baecher, 1994)
3.1 Monte Carlo simulation procedure for Slope Stability 35

Problem
3.2 Hypothetical Problem 40
4.1 Slope geometry and soil properties of the hypothetical 42

problem for the hypothetical study.
4.2 Critical slip surface for slope without water table 43
4.3 Critical slip surface for slope with water table 44

xi
4.4 Optimum number of N=15000 in case 1-withwater table 45

and c- φ uncorrelated
4.5 Optimum number of N=15000 in case 1-withwater table 46

and c- φ uncorrelated
4.6 PDF and CDF of the factor of safety for case 1 of no water 48
table and c-φ uncorrelated.
4.7 PDF and CDF of the factor of safety for case 1 with water 49
table and c-φ correlated.
4.18 Comparison between cases with c- φ correlated and 61

uncorrelated
4.19 Sensitivity of FOS to variability in soil parameterfor 63

c-φ uncorrelated
xii
4.20 Sensitivity of probability of failure to variability in soil 64

parameter for c-φ uncorrelated
4.21 Sensitivity result for soil parameter to factor of safety for 66

cases with c- φ correlation coefficient of –0.5
4.22 Sensitivity result for soil parameter to probability of 67

failure- without c-phi correlation coefficient of –0.5
4.23 Slip surface specified in the model. 69
4.24 PDF of the factor of safety for specified slip surface slope: 71
a) Peak strength and b) Residual strength
4.25 Critical slip surface for Muar Trial Embankment 72
4.26 PDF and CDF of the factor of safety, Muar Trial 74

Embankment
xiii
LIST OF SYMBOL
CDF - Cumulative distribution function

COV - Coefficient of variation
c - Cohesion
c’ - Effective cohesion
D - Line load
E, T, X - Shear force
FOS - Factor of safety
Fm - Moment equilibrium factor of safety
Ff - Force equilibrium factor of safety
k - Coefficient of permeability
N’ - Normal force
PDF - Probability density function
Pf - Probability of failure
ru - Pore pressure coefficient
s or SD - Standard deviation
Su - Undrained shear strength
U - Water force
u - Pore water pressure
W - Weight
- Mean value or expected value
2m - Shear strength
φ - Angle of friction
φ’ - Effective angle of friction
. - Angle
β - Reliability index
- Unit weight
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Overview
The stability of slopes is of great importance to geotechnical engineers

worldwide. In Malaysia, the collapse of Block 1 of Highland Towers in 1993, slope
failure at Taman Hillview in November 2002 and the recent tragic landslide at Bukit
Lanjan in 2003 had prompted our government and public to concern about the
stability of slope and the risk involve in such occasion. Hence, it is importance that
the current practice of slope stability analysis to be revised in order to minimize the
tragedies.
Nowadays, most of the slope analysis and design are based on deterministic
approaches. The shear strength, slope geometry, external load and pore water
pressures are assigned as specific unvarying values and as a result, single factor of
safety is then determined. However, the single deterministic safety factor of a slope
is often not enough to analyze the slope stability due to uncertainty in input
parameters.
Probabilistic methods were introduced in the late sixties,, most notably by

Wu and Kraft (1970), to quantify the sources of geotechinical uncertainties and to
study the effect of those uncertainties on the reliability of a slope. In slope problem,
uncertainty arises as a result of the variability of soil parameters, systematic error,
2
changing environmental conditions, unexpected failure mechanism, simplifications

and approximations adopted in geotechnical model and human error. The impact of
uncertainty on the performance predictions in geotechnical practice is substantial
(Morgenstern, 2000). Therefore, the implementation of statistic method is essential
in the evaluation slope performance.
Reliability analysis or probabilistic methods are gradually being accepted in

civil engineering because of economic and theoretical pressures (Mostyn and Li,
1993). The concept of probabilistic slope stability analysis (PSSA) had developed
since 70’s and wealth in literature. However, the adoption of the method in
geotechnical design is slow. There are some reasons toward it. First, lack of formal
training in statistics and probability theory among geotechnical engineers. Second,
there is a common misconception that probabilistic analyses require significant
amounts of data, time and effort and are, thus, not practical. Finally, poor definition
on the limits of the acceptable probability of failure and the there is no link between
a probabilistic assessment and a conventional deterministic assessment. These make
the understanding of probabilistic analysis difficult.
1.2 Problem Statement
Most slope analysis and design is based on deterministic approach i.e a set of
single valued design parameter are adopted and a set of single valued factor of safety
(FOS) is determined. Usually the FOS is selected in view of the understanding and
knowledge of the material parameters, the problem geometry, the method of analysis
and the consequences of failure. This results in different FOS obtained by different
designers. This inherent variability characteristic dictates that slope stability problem
is a probabilistic problem rather than deterministic problem. Furthermore, the FOS
approach cannot quantify the probability of failure or level of risk associated with a
particular design situation.
Given the appeal of probabilistic slope stability analysis (PSSA) and the
advanced state-of-practice of reliability techniques, there is a need to facilitate the
adoption of PSSA concept in slope design practice among geotechnical engineer.
3
1.3 Objective
The objective of this research is to integrate reliability concept into slope

stability analysis by developing a probabilistic model using Monte Carlo Simulation
integrated in readily commercial software, SLOPE/W. The output of this study is the
probability distribution of factor of safety and reliability index of a slope.
1.4 Scope
The study is focused on the use of Monte Carlo simulation integrated in

SLOPE/W software package to analyze the probability of failure of a slope. The
analysis is made using Bishop Method where circular failure surface is assumed. The
critical slip surface is determined based on the mean value of the input parameter.
Sensitivity analysis is conducted on the variability of the soil parameters and the
position of groundwater table.
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Stability analyses are routinely performed in order to assess the safe and
functional design of an excavated slope (e.g. open pit mining, road cuts, etc.), fill
slope (e.g. embankment, earth dam), and/or the equilibrium conditions of a natural
slope. The analysis technique chosen depends on both site conditions and the
potential mode of failure, with careful consideration being given to the varying
strengths, weaknesses and limitations inherent in the methodology being used in the
analysis.
The assessment of the stability of slopes, particularly natural slope, is one

class of problems that is dominated by uncertainties. Geological anomalies, material
properties, environment conditions and analytical models are all factors contributing
to uncertainty. Conventional slope design practices do not account for these
uncertainties, thus compromising the adequacy of predictions. On the other hand,
reliability slope stability analysis offers an efficient framework for logical systematic
incorporation of uncertainty, thus providing a more rational basis for design. The
following section will highlight the shortcomings of conventional methods used in
practice for stability analysis and introduce the available probabilistic analysis and its
application on the slope stability.
It is understood that there is uncertainty in any type of analysis. Conventional

slope stability analysis has relied on a factor of safety approach to account for
5
uncertainty. This approach does not necessarily yield sound economic designs. Nor
does it explicitly give a finite indication of the safety of the design. Probabilistic
slope analysis, on the other hand, explicitly accounts for uncertainty. The output of
the probabilistic analysis, in terms of failure probability or reliability index, is a
measure of the reliability of the design. Probabilistic analysis provide greater insight
into design reliability, thus, enhancing the engineering judgment and improving the
decision making process. So, the clarity, simplicity and cost/time effectiveness are
essential elements in order to effectively convey and communicate a probabilistic
methodology to practicing engineers.
2.2 Conventional Slope Stability Analysis
Slope stability analysis is usually done using limit equilibrium methods. Most
limit equilibrium method assumes the validity of Coulomb’s failure criterion along
an assumed failure surface. A free body of the slope is considered to act upon by
known and unknown forces. Shear stress induced on the assumed failure surface by
the body and external forces is compared with the available shear strength of the
material.
The method of slices depicted in Figure 2.1, which is a rotational failure

analysis, is most commonly used in limit equilibrium solutions. The soil mass
(ABCD) above a trial failure surface (AC) is divided into slices by vertical planes.
Each slice is taken as having a straight-line base. For any slice, the inclination of the
EDVH WR WKH KRUL]RQWDO OLQH LV .i and the height (measured at the centerline) is hi.
6
b
Xi
Xi-1
W
Ei-1 Ei
Ti
α Ni-U
Forces acting on a slice
Figure 2.1 Methods of slices
As shown in the Figure 2.1, the forces acting on slice i are:

1. The totaO ZHLJKW RI WKH VOLFH : EKi
2. 7KH WRWDO QRUPDO IRUFH RQ WKH EDVH WKH HIIHFWLYH QRUPDO IRUFH 1¶ ¶li and
the boundary water force U = uli. Where u is the pore water pressure at the
center of the base and l is the the length of the base.
3. The shear force RQ WKH EDVH 7 mli
4. The total normal forces on the sides, Ei and Ei-1

5. The shear forces on the sides, Xi and Xi-1
6. Any external forces working on the slope must be included in the analysis.
The Factor of Safety of each slice is assumed to be the same, implying

mutual support between the slices. In this case the forces acting between the slices
are denoted by E and X.
It can be seen that there is many unknown forces involve the equation of
equilibrium for a slice. However if pore water pressure and the inter-slice forces E
and X are assumed to be equal to zero, then the factor of safety can be evaluated
based only on the weight of the slice which can be resolved into two components T
and N.
7
In circular failure plane, the overall factor of safety can be evaluated by

examining the sliding and resistance moment about point O. A usual, the factor of

2m)
(2.1)
The component T which is parallel to the base of the slice tends to cause
sliding. Taking moment about O, the sum of the moments of the shear forces T on
the failure arc AC must equal to the moment due to the weight of the soil mass
ABCD.
(2.2)
.
Resistance to these sliding forces is provided by the cohesion and internal

friction of the soil. The cohesion force is equal to the product of the cohesion of the
soil and the length of the slices curved (La). The friction force is the normal
components of the weight (N) multiplied by the friction coefficient which is equal to
tan φ. For analysis in terms of effective stress the general factor of safety is given as:
(2.3)
or if the c constant, then
(2.4)
8
2.2.1 Fellenius (Swedish) Method
In this method, the horizontal and vertical forces are assumed to be equal and
opposite and cancel each other out, i.e. Ei = Ei-1 and Xi = Xi-1. It is now only
necessary to resolve the forces acting on the base of the slice, so that:
1¶ :FRV. - ul
KEFRV. - XE VHF. (2.5)
Hence,
(2.6)
The number of slices taken should not be less than five, and larger number
would yield better estimate FOF. However, this method tends to give a value for
FOS which may be as much as 50 percent on the low side (Whitlow, R 2001).
2.2.2 The Bishop (Routine) Method
Bishop assumed that the resultant of inter-slice forces (Xi – Xi-1) is equal to
zero, but the sum of the horizontal inter-slice force (Ei- Ei-1) is not zero.
For equilibrium along the base of the slice:
(2.7)
(2.8)
9
For equilibrium in vertical direction:
(2.9)
After substituting for l = b secα and N’ arranging
(2.10)
FOS occurs on both sides of simplified Bishop equation. An assumed F value

is used on the right hand side of the equation to calculate the FOS value on the left
hand side. This calculated FOS is then substituted in the right hand site and the
process repeated until it converges on the solution. This method underestimates
factor of safety. The error is usually less than 2% and rarely exceeds 7%
2.2.3 General Limit Equilibrium (GLE) Method
A general limit equilibrium (GLE) formulation was developed by Fredlund at

the University of Saskatchewan in the 1970s (Fredlund and Krahn 1977; Fredlund et
al. 1981). The GLE formulation is based on two factors of safety equations and
allows for a range of inter-slice shear-normal force conditions. One equation gives
the factor of safety with respect to moment equilibrium (Fm), while the other
equation gives the factor of safety with respect to horizontal force equilibrium (Ff).
The idea of using two factor of safety equations was actually first published by
Spencer (1967). In summary, the following equations of static are used:
10
1. The summation of forces in a vertical direction for each slice. The

equation is solved for the normal force at the base of the slice, N.
(2.11)
2. The summation of forces in a horizontal direction (Xi and Xi-1)for each

slice is used to compute the interslice normal force, E. This equation is
applied in an integration manner across the sliding mass (i.e., from left to
right).
3. The summation of moments about a common point for all slices. The
equation can be rearranged and solved for the moment equilibrium factor
of safety, Fm.
(2.12)
4. The summation of forces in a horizontal direction for all slices, giving

rise to a force equilibrium factor of safety, Ff.
(2.13)
where
β, R, x, f, d, W are geometric parameters

D is the line load.
11
Even with the above equations of static, the analysis is still indeterminate,
and a further assumption is made regarding the direction of the resultant interslice
forces. The direction is assumed to be described by a interslice force function. The
factors of safety can now be computed based on moment equilibrium (Fm) and force
equilibrium (Ff). These factors of safety may vary depending on the percentage

d in the computation.
X = Eλf(x) (2.14)
where f (x) is a function, . is the percentage (in decimal form) of the function used, E
is the interslice normal force, and X is the interslice shear force.
A very important point here is that the slice base normal is dependant on the
interslice shear forces XR and XL on either side of a slice. The slice base normal is
consequently different for the various methods depending on how each method deals
with the interslice shear forces.
2.2.4 Other Methods of Slices
Besides the Fellenius, Bishop and GLE method described above, there are
many other methods of slices have been developed by other researchers. The
differences between various approaches stems from (a) the equilibrium conditions
that are satisfied and (b) the assumptions that makes the problem determinate as
shown in Table 2.1.
12
Table 2.1 Element of statical equilirium satisfied by various Limit Equilibrium

Methods (Source: Fredlund, 1984)
Force Equilibrium
Moment
Method 1st Direction * 2nd Direction * Equilibrium Assumption
(e.g., Vertical) (e.g., Horizontal)
Ordinary or Fellenius Yes No Yes Interslice forces are neglected.
Bishop’s Simplified Yes No Yes Resultant interslice forces are

horizontal (i.e., there are no interslice
shear force).
Janbu’s Simplified Yes Yes No Resultant interslice forces are
horizontal; an empirical correction
factor is used to account for interslice
shear forces.
Janbu’s Generalized Yes Yes ** Location of the interslice normal force
is defined b an assumed line of thrust.
Spencer Yes Yes Yes Resultant interslice forces are of

constant slope throughout the sliding
mass
Morgenstern-Price Yes Yes Yes Direction of the resultant interslice id
defined using an arbitrary function.
The percentage of the function
required to satisfy moment and force
equilibrium is computed.
GLE Yes Yes Yes Direction of the resultant interslice

forces is defined using an arbitrary
function. . The percentage of the
function required to satisfy moment
and force equilibrium is computed.
Corps of Engineers Yes Yes No Direction of the resultant interslice

force is i) parallel to the ground
surface or ii) equal to the average
slope from the beginning to the end of
the slip surface.
Lowe and Karafiath Yes Yes No Direction of the resultant interslice
force is equal to the average of the
ground surface and the slope of the
base of teach slice
Sarma Yes Yes Yes The shear strength is assumed to be
mobilized on the sides of all the slices.
The inclination of slice interfaces is
varied to produce a critical condition.
* Any of two orthogonal directions can be selected for the

summation of forces
** Moment equilirium is used to calculate interslice shear forces.

13
2.2.5 Limitation of Conventional Method
The methodology adopted in these methods is of a deterministic nature. If the

single value factor of safety is greater than one, the slope is considered safe. If not, it
impending failure and modification of design is required. The calculated factor of
safety relies on the judgment of engineer when considering input parameters, failure
surface mode, assumption and the methods used for analysis. Uncertainties in any of
the input parameters are not taken into consideration in deterministic approach. As
the result, their computation will not provide single unique value for problem.
Hence, the traditional methods are highly subjective and lead to an unknown degree
of conservatism. It would be preferable to have knowledge of the statistical variation
of the input data so as to take into consideration in the analysis.
2.3 Sources of Uncertainty in Slope Stability Analysis
Uncertainties in soil properties, environmental conditions, and theoretical

models are the most important source for a lack of confidence in deterministic
analysis (Alonso, 1976). Morgenstern (1995) divided geotechnical uncertainty into
three distinctive categories: parameter uncertainty, model uncertainty and human
uncertainty. Parameter uncertainty is the uncertainty in the inputs of analysis; model
uncertainty is due to the limitation of the theories and models used in performance
prediction while human uncertainty is due to human errors and mistakes.
2.3.1 Parameter Uncertainty
The sources of variability in soil parameters are illustrated in Figure 2.2. The
parameter uncertainty is divided into data scatter and systematic error. Data scatter is
the dispersion of measurement around the mean. It is emanated from the spatial
variation of soil properties and random testing error. Spatial variability is the true
variation of soil properties from one point to another. It is inherent to the soil and
cannot be reduced. It must be considered in any analysis of uncertainty. Random
testing errors arise from factors related to the measuring process such as operator
14
error or a faulty device. Random errors should be removed from measurement prior
to analysis.
Systematic error results in the mean of the measured property varying from
the mean of the desired property. Statistical error is the uncertainty in the estimated
mean due to limited sample size. While measurement bias occurs when measured
property is consistently overestimated or underestimated at all locations.
8QFHUWDLQW\ LQ
6RLO 3URSHUWLHV
'DWD 6FDWWHU 6\VWHPDWLF (UURU
5HDO 6SDWLDO 5DQGRP 6WDWLVWLFDO (UURU LQ %LDV LQ 0HDVXUHPHQW

9DULDWLRQ 7HVWLQJ (UURUV WKH 0HDQ 3URFHGXUHV
Figure 2.2 Uncertainty in Soil Properties (Source: Christian, Ladd, Beacher, 1994)
2.3.2 Model Uncertainty
The gap between the theory adopted in prediction models and reality is called
model uncertainty. Analytical models, particular in engineering are usually
characterized by simplifying assumptions and approximations. Model uncertainty is
probably the major source of uncertainty in geotechnical engineering (Wu et al.,
1987; Morgenstern, 1995; Whitman, 1996). Comparing model predictions with
observed performance or predictions of more rigorous and comprehensive model is
probably the most direct and reliable approach to quantify model uncertainty.
However the data needed for direct comparison with observed performance are
seldom available in practice.
15
2.3.3 Human Uncertainty
Human error caused uncertainty. This results when incorrect mechanism is

modeled or failure occurs due to mistake in correctly determining the chosen model
or it may due to carelessness and ignorance, misleading information, poor
construction, inappropriate contractual relationships and lack of communication
between parties involved in the project. Peck (1973) and Sowers (1991) provided
examples of the role of human uncertainty into geotechnical failure. The wide
variability and uniqueness of the human contribution from structure to another create
difficulties in identifying potential human errors, not to mention assessing their
probabilities. (EI-Ramly, 2001)
2.3.4 Selection of Parameter and Its Variability
The first important step in modeling input variables is identifying which

parameter to treat as random variables. The decision relies on the observed
variability in the measured values of each parameter and the sensitivity of the output
(e.g. factor of safety) to variations in the magnitude of that parameter. Typically,
strength parameter (e.g cohesion, c, and angle of friction, φ.) and pore pressure are
prime concern. Other parameter (e.g. unit weight, geometry of unit boundaries and
peizometric line) could be treat as variables if found necessary. Table 2.2 provides a
summary of typical reported values for the coefficients of variation of commonly
encountered geotechnical parameters.
16
Table 2.2 Coefficients of Variation for Geotechnical Parameters

Parameter Coefficient of Reference
Variation, %
Unit weight 3 Hammitt (1966),
cited by Harr (1987)
4 to 8 Wolff (1994)
Drained strength of sand φ’ 3.7 to 9.3 Wolff (1994)
12 Schultze (1972), cited by Harr (1987)
Drained strength of clay φ’ 7.5 to 10.1 CD tests on compacted clay at Cannon
Dam, Wolff (1985)
Undrained strength of clay, 40 Fredlund and Dahlman (1972) cited by
Su Harr (1987)
30 to 40 Wolff (1994)
11 to 45 UU tests on compacted clay at Cannon
Dam, Wolff (1985)
Strength-to-effective stress 31 Wolff (1994)
ratio, Su/σ’v
Coefficient of permeability, 90 For saturated soils, Nielson, Biggar, and
k Erh (1973) cited by Harr (1987)
Permeability of top blanket 20 to 30 Wolff (1994)
clay, kb
Permeability of foundation 20 to 30 Wolff (1994)
sands, kf
Permeability ratio k f/ kb 40 Derived using 30% for kf and kb
Permeability of 30 Wolff (1994)
embankment sand
(Source: U.S Army Corps of Engineer, 1999)
17
2.4 Statistical Analysis of Soil Data
Engineering data on soil or rock mass properties are usually scattered.

Graphical and simple probabilistic methods are useful in summarizing this scatter so
that a better understanding of the data and of the corresponding uncertainties
associated with engineering performance can be developed.
2.4.1 Probability Density Function
A probability density function (PDF) shown in Figure 2.3 describes the

relative likelihood that the variable will have a certain value within the range of
potential values. In this case the random variable is continuously distributed. A PDF
can be fitted over the frequency diagram, which is a modified histogram whose
ordinate has been scaled, so that the area under the histogram is unity. The mean
value of the PDF represents the engineer's best estimate of the random variable
without the addition of conservative assumptions, and the standard deviation, or
coefficient of variation, of the PDF represents the engineer's assessment of the
uncertainty.
A convenient probability-distribution type (e.g., normal or lognormal) may

be selected, and calibrated with those mean values and standard deviations that are
consistent with the engineer's judgment. If an engineer is only confident with the
maximum and minimum values of a variable, a uniform distribution over the range
may be used as a conservative PDF, whereas a triangular distribution can model
approximately the engineer's perception of the relative likelihood over the given
range of values.
An alternative way of presenting the same information is in the form of a

cumulative distribution function (CDF) shown in Figure 2.4, which gives the
probability that the variable will have a value less than or equal to the selected value.
The CDF is the integral of the corresponding probability density function, i.e., the
ordinate at x1 on the cumulative distribution is the area under the probability density
function to the left of x1.
18
In addition to the commonly used normal distribution, there are a number of

alternative distributions which are used in probability analyses. Some of the most
useful are beta distribution, lognormal distribution, exponential distribution and
Weibull distributions.
Figure 2.3 Probability density function (PDF)
Figure 2.4 Cumulative distribution function (CDF)

19
2.4.2 Measure of Random Variables
To model random variables in the Taylor’s series or point estimate methods,

one must provide values of their expected values and standard deviations, which are
two of several probabilistic moments of a random variable. These can be calculated
from data or estimated from experience. For random variables which are not
independent of each other, but tend to vary together, correlation coefficients must
also be assigned.
a) Mean value and expected value, . Indicates the center of gravity of a probability
distribution. A typical application would be the analysis of a set of results x1, x2,
……xn laboratory test. Assuming that there is n individual test values xi, the mean x
is given by:
(2.15)
b) Variance, s2. The variance of a random variable x is the expected value of the
squared difference between the random variable and its mean value. Where actual
data are available, subtracting each value from the mean, squaring the result, and
determining the average of these values can calculate the variance of the data:
(2.16)
To obtain an unbiased estimate of the population working from a finite sample, the n
is replaced by n – 1 instead of using n.
c) Standard deviation, s or SD. To express the scatter or dispersion of a random

variable about its expected value in the same units as the random variable itself, the
standard deviation, s is taken as the square root of the variance. A small standard
deviation will indicate a tightly clustered data set while a large standard deviation
will be found for a data set in which there is a large scatter about the mean.
20
d) Coefficient of variation, COV. Is the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean,
i.e. COV = SD/ . COV can provide a convenient dimensionless expression of the
uncertainty inherent in a random variable.
2.4.3 Cross Correlation among Parameters
In addition to the probability distributions of input variables, the application

of probabilistic methods requires estimating (or assuming) correlation coefficients
between variables (see Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6). The parameters that might be
cross-correlated are friction angle, unit weight and cohesion. In the case of
uncorrelated parameters, sampling of the distributions for each parameter would
produce a resulting cumulative distribution with an excessively large variance.
Laboratory tests on a wide variety of soils (Lumb, 1970; Grivas, 1981; and Wolff,
1985) show that the shear strength parameter c and φ are often negatively correlated
with correlation ranges from –0.72 to 0.35. However, previous researches showed
that failure probability in slope stability analysis is insensitive to the correlation
coefficient between unit weight and strength parameter (Alonso, 1976; Nguyen and
Chowdhury, 1984). This is due to small variability in soil unit weight and highly
accurate measurement in laboratory procedures.
Figure 2.5 Combination of uncorrelated parameter input distribution

21
Figure 2.6 Combination of correlated parameter input distribution
2.5 Method of Probabilistic Analysis
Since three decades ago, many probabilistic methods have been devise for
slopes analysis. However they can be grouped to three categories: analytical
methods, approximate methods or Monte Carlo simulation
2.5.1 Analytical Methods
In analytical methods, the probability density functions of input variables are

expressed mathematically. They are then integrated analytically into the adopted
slope model to derive a mathematical expression of the density function of the factor
of safety. Failure probability is obtained by multiple integrals of that expression over
the entire failure domain. The methods do not favor by most user due to its
22
mathematical complexities. Few attempts have been made to apply analytical

methods (McMahon,1975; Tobutt & Richards, 1979; Marek & Savely. 1978).
Moreover, in all of these studies the problem analyzed were too ideal and involved
major simplifying assumptions.
2.5.2 Approximate methods
Since most of approximate methods are modified version from First Order
Second Moment Reliability Method and Point Estimate Method, only they will be
covered here. Both approaches require knowledge of the mean and variance of all
input variables as well as the performance function g(x1, x2,…xn) that define safety
factor (e.g. Bishop equation), where x1, x2,…xn are input variables (e.g. soil
properties)
2.5.2.1 First Order Second Moment Reliability Method
In this approach, uncertainty in performance is taken to be a function of

uncertainty in model parameters or in the model itself. The method is based on
Taylor’s series expansion of a g(x1, x2,…xn) around its mean value. For simplicity,
only the linear terms of the series are usually obtained. The expected values and
standard deviations of the random variables (and sometimes model accuracy) are
used to estimate the expected value and standard deviation of a performance
function, such as the factor of safety against slope instability. The usual output of
FOSM methods is the reliability index, β.
Given some performance function and limit state, the reliability index is the number
of standard deviations of the performance function by which the expected value of
the performance function exceeds the limit state. Baecher and Christian (2003) have
summarized the FOSM method in the following steps:
1) Identify the significant variables contributing to the uncertainty.

23
2) Find the mean values, variances, correlation coefficients, and autocorrelation

distances for the variables.
3) Determine how the variances are distributed between spatial and systematic
uncertainty and remove measurement error, if possible.
4) Find the expected value of the performance function.
5) Find the partial derivatives of the performance function with respect to the
variables, usually employing some form of numerical differencing.
6) Find the contributions of each variable to the systematic and spatial variance
of the performance function. Modify the spatial contribution to account for
averaging effects.
7) Compute the variance in performance function.
8) Compute β and the probability of failure.
9) Examine the results to determine the relative contributions of various
parameters and to extrapolate the results into meaningful conclusions.
One of the great advantages of the FOSM method is that it reveals the relative
contribution of each variable to the overall uncertainty in a clear and easily tabulated
manner. Due to its simplicity, FOSM is commonly used in probabilistic slope
stability analysis (Cornell, 1972; Yucemen & Tang, 1975; Alonso, 1976; Tang et.al.
1976; Anderson, et.al., 1984; Li and White, 1987; Christian et.al., 1994).
2.5.2.2 Point Estimate Method
An alternative method to the FOSM method is the point estimate method,

developed by Rosenblueth (1975, 1981), and summarized by Harr (1987). Point
estimate methods are procedures where probability distributions for continuous
random variables are modeled by discrete “equivalent” distributions having two or
more values. The elements of these discrete distributions have specific values with
defined probabilities such that the first few moments of the discrete distribution
match that of the continuous random variable. Having only a few values over which
to integrate, the moments of the performance function are easily obtained.
24
In this method, the model is evaluated at a discrete set of points in the

uncertain parameter space, with the mean/variance of model predictions computed
using a weighted average of these functional evaluations. No calculations are made
at the mean value, but rather the moments of the performance function are
determined by evaluating it at a set of combinations of high and low parameter
values, with the results weighted by factors However, it may better capture the
behavior of nonlinear functions. The method is reasonably robust and is satisfactorily
accurate for a range of practical problem, though computational requirement increase
rapidly with the number of uncertainty quantities of interest (Baecher and Christian,
2003). Point estimate method remains a simple, direct, and effective method of
computing the low-order moments of function of random variable. The method was
modified implemented by many researchers for slope stability analysis (McGuffey
et. Al., 1982; Nguyen & Chowdhury, 1984; Wolff, 1985; Wolff& Harr, 1987; Li,
1992a, Thornton, 1994).
2.5.3 Monte Carlo Simulation
Many attempts have been done to analyze slope stability problem using
Monte Carlo simulation (Kim, et al., 1978; Major et.al., 1978; Tobutt, 1982; Priest &
Brown, 1983; Nguyen & Chowdhury, 1984). Monte Carlo Simulation uses randomly
generated points to cover the range of the values that enter into a calculation. The
computation of probabilities by Monte Carlo simulation is a procedure commonly
adopted to solve problems that are not readily solved by analytical. The procedure is
as follow:
1) Define the probability distribution functions of input variables

2) Monte Carlo simulation uses a pseudo random number generation to select
random value for each input variable based on the corresponding probability
distribution.
3) The selected values are then used to solve the performance function and
calculate a safety factor.
4) The process is repeated a large number of times to build up a statistical
distribution of the performance variable (i.e., safety factor)
25
The number of repetitions for each simulation model to produce adequate

results varies. Based on the research conducted by Hutchinson & Bandalos (1997), it
was found that as many as 10,000 to 100,000 iterations are required to adequately
represent a deterministic solution. Due to the extensive computational effort involved
in the iteration process, the implementation of conventional Monte Carlo techniques
in geotechnical engineering was limited. (Anderson et.al., 1984; Chowdhury, 1984;
Mostyn & Li, 1993; Chritian el.al., 1994). However, the recent advancement in
random sampling techniques (e.g., stratified sampling, Latin Hypercube) and the
rapid development in software engineering have changed the situation.
Advantages of the Monte Carlo method include the following:
1. It permits one to estimate the shape of the distribution on the performance

function, permitting more accurate estimation of probability values (however,
see disadvantages below).
2. For explicit performance functions, it is easily programmed with simulation
software such as the Excel add-in @RISK .
Disadvantages include the following:

1. The shapes of the distributions on the random variables must be known are
assumed; hence the distribution obtained for the performance function is only
accurate to the extent that these are accurate.
2. Accuracy of the estimated values is proportional to the square root of the
number of iterations; hence doubling the accuracy requires increasing the
number iterations fourfold.
3. Implicit functions for special programs (such as slope stability analysis)
require additional special programming for Monte Carlo analysis.
Despite these disadvantages, Monte Carlo analysis has becoming increasingly

common in lieu of FOSM methods as computing capabilities continue to improve.
(U.S. Army, 1992)
26
2.5.4 Limitations of Existing Probabilistic methods
Despite the significant advancement in reliability slope design techniques

since three decades ago, there are still many shortcomings that limit their integration
into routine practice. Analytical methods are mathematically demanding to the extent
that there are seldom applied at research level. Approximate methods are much less
complex and are widely adopted by many researchers and practitioners. However,
they involve various simplification assumption that often limit their application to
specific classes of problem. For example, some researchers used very simple slope
model such as Janbu’s stability charts (Claes, 1996), ordinary method of slices
(Yucemen and Tang, 1975; Tang et al., 1976; Harr, 1977; Vanmarcke, 1980; Honjo
and Kuruda, 1991; Bergado et al.,1994) and force equlibrium methods (Priest &
brown, 1983; Wolff & Harr, 1987; Wolff, 1991). Others dealt with frictionless soils
only (Cornell, 1972; Matsuo & Kuroda, 1974; Vanmarcke, 1977b; McGuffey et
al.,1982; Bergado et al., 1994).
A restriction to circular (or cylindrical) slip surface is common in many

studies ( Alonso, 1976; Vanmarcke, 1977b; Anderson et al., 1984; Yucemen & Al-
Hamound, 1990; Bergado et al., 1994). The spatial variability of soil properties of
soil properties and pore water pressure is often ignored, assuming perfect
autocorrelation (Tobutt and Richard, 1979; Nguyen and Chowdhury, 1984; Wolff
and Harr, 1987; Tejchmam et al., 1996; Ducan, 2000). Correlation between input
variables such as that between cohesion and friction angle are commonly ignored
(Tang et al., 1976; Alonso, 1976; Tobutt and Richard, 1979; Vanmarcke, 1980;
Anderson et al., 1984; Li & Lumb, 1987; Christian et al. 1994).
While approximate methods do not require prior knowledge of the shape of

probability distribution of input variables, most of them (e.g., method based on
FOSM) assume zero coefficients of skewness which implies symmetric probability
density functions. Various studies (Lumb, 1970; Chowhudury, 1984; Wolff, 1985;
Lacasse and Nadim, 1996) showed that soil properties cn have skewed distributions.
Studying the stability of Clarence Cannon dam, Wolff and Harr (1987) reported that
ignoring the skewness of the density function of cohesion resulted in a 50%
underestimation of failure probability. Furthermore, a symmetric distribution with a
27
low mean and a high standard deviation (e.g., effective cohesion) could imply
negative values associated with the low probability tail of the distribution which is
not admissible for most parameters.
When viewed from the ease of application, approximate methods can be

reasonably handled for a limited number of input variables. The computations will
become cumbersome when we more than three variables are involved. Besides that,
approximate methods do not provide any information about the shape of the
probability density function of the factor of safety. They provide only estimates of
mean and variance. An estimate of the failure of probability can only be obtained by
assuming a parametric shape for the density function of the factor of safety.
Estimates of low probabilities, the typical case of safe structures, become very
sensitive to the assumed shape (Chowhury, 1984; Chowhudly and Tang, 1987;
Mostyn and Li, 1993; Wolff, 1996).
2.6 Reliability Analysis
The limitation suffered by deterministic analysis such as variability of the

input parameter is being considered in reliability analysis. Probabilistic techniques
assist the engineer in understanding the major sources of risk, enhance engineering
judgment and allow for a rational comparison of the reliability of alternative designs.
An evaluation of the usefulness and role of reliability in geotechnical

engineering cannot be made without a clear understanding of the probability and risk
assessment principles and methods that are used. Accordingly, a brief overview of
some basic concepts is presented.
28
2.6.1 Basic Concept
Engineering reliability analysis is concerned with finding the reliability R or

the probability of failure, Pf of a feature, structure, or system. As a system is
considered reliable unless it fails, the reliability and probability of failure sum to
unity:
R + Pf= 1
R = 1 - Pf
Pf = 1 - R
The term probability of unsatisfactory performance, Pu is sometimes used

instead of probability of failure, Pf. (U.S. Army, 1999). It is defined as the
probability of the value of performance function (i.e., factor of safety) exceeding the
limit state. Safety can also be expressed in terms of reliability index, β. The
reliability index is defined in terms of the expected value and standard deviation of
the performance function, and permits comparison of reliability among different
structures or modes of performance without having to calculate absolute probability
values. A more detailed treatment of this subject can be found in Harr (1987).
2.6.2 Confidence Level
Confidence level (1-. LV WKH OLNHOLKRRG DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D JLYHQ FRQILGHQFH

interval; it is the level of confidence that the value of x fall within the stated
confidence interval. Confidence interval is the range between confidence limit (lower
limit and upper limit). As such, the probability (1- . SURYLGHV D PHDVXUH RI EHOLHI
that the confidence limits will contain x. The choice of the confidence level is a
matter of the risk that one is willing to take in accepting an erroneous value of the
variate under consideration.
29
Figure 2.7 shows 90% confidence interval (confidence level = 90%). It is the
range that encloses middle 90% of the likelihood, and thus excluded the lowest 5%
and the highest 5% of the possible value of x.
Figure 2.7 Confidence interval of 90%
2.6.3 Capacity Demand Model
United States Corps of Engineer (U.S. Army, 1992) proposed that reliability
analysis should includes the following steps:
a. Important variables considered to have sufficient inherent uncertainty are taken

as random variables and characterized by their expected values, standard
deviations, and correlation coefficients. In concept, every variable in an analysis
can be modeled as a random variable as most properties and parameters have
some inherent variability and uncertainty. However, a few specific random
variables will usually dominate the analysis. Including additional random
variables may unnecessarily increase computational effort without significantly
improving results.
b. A performance function and limit state is identified.

30
c. The expected value and standard deviation of the performance function are
calculated. In concept, this involves integrating the performance function over
the probability density functions of the random variables. In practice,
approximate values are obtained using the expected value, standard deviation,
and correlation coefficients of the random variables in the Taylor's series method
or the point estimate method.
d. The reliability index is calculated from the expected and standard deviation of the
performance function. The reliability index is a measure of the distance between
the expected value of ln(C/D) or ln(FS) and the limit state.
e. If a probability of failure value is desired, a distribution is assumed and Pf is

calculated.
Lacasse and Nadim (1996) demonstrated the above concept in slope stability
problem as shown in Figure 2.8.
31
Figure 2.8 Concept of Reliability Analysis

32
2.6.4 Reliability Assessment
In the probabilistic analysis, the output of a slope stability analysis can be

defined as a distribution of either the factor of safety or critical height. A criteria for
using this output distributions for accessing the consequences of slope failure was
developed by Santamarina, Altschaeffl, and Chameau(1992) shown in Table 2.3.
These criteria associate acceptable levels of probability of failure with various design
conditions.
The reliability index provides a more meaningful measure of stability than

the factor of safety. It is a relative measure of the current condition and provide a
qualitative estimate of the expected performance. Slope with relatively high
reliability index will be expected to perform their function well. Slope with low
reliability index will be expected to perform poorly and present major rehabilitation
problems. If the reliability index are very low, the slope may be classified as a
hazard.
Table 2.3 Probability of Failure Criteria for slope

Conditions Criteria for Probability of
failure
Temporary structures with low repair cost 0.1
Existing large cut on interstate highway 0.01
Acceptable in most cases EXCEPT if lives may be 0.001
lost
Acceptable for all slopes 0.0001
Unnecessarily low 0.00001
The reliability index (β) is defined in term of the mean (E) and the standard
deviation (SD) of the trial factor of safety as (Christian, Ladd and Baecher, 1994):
(2.17)
33
The reliability index describes the stability of slope by the number of standard
deviations separating the mean factor of safety from its defined failure value of 1.0.
It can be also defined as a way of normalizing the factor of safety with respect to its
uncertainty.
When the shape of the probability distribution is known, the reliability index
can be related to the probability of failure. Figure 2.9 illustrates the relationship of
the reliability index to the probability of failure for a normal distributed factor of
safety. The target reliability values shown in Table 2.4 proposed by US Army (1999)
can also be used for comparison.
Figure 2.9 Probability of failure as a function of the reliability index for a normal
distributed factor of safety (Source: Christian, Ladd and Baecher,
1994)
34
Table 2.4 Target Reliability Indices (US Army, 1999)

Expected Performance Level Beta Probability of Unsatisfactory Performace
High 5 0.0000003
Good 4 0.00003
Above average 3 0.001
Below average 2.5 0.006
Poor 2 0.023
Unsatisfactory 1.5 0.07
Hazardous 1 0.16
Note: Probability of unsatisfactory performance is the probability that the value of

performance function will approach the limit state, or that an unsatisfactory event will
occur. For example, if the performance function is defined in terms of slope instability,
and the probability of unsatisfactory performed function is defined in terms of slope
stability, and the probability of unsatisfactory performance is 0.023, then 23 of every 1000
instabilities will result in damage which causes a safety hazard.
35
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
One of the research objectives is to develop a practical probabilistic slope

stability analysis (PSSA) methodology that allows practicing engineers to
supplement their conventional design, experience, and judgment in making decision
for slope problem.
Probabilistic slope design comprises of two main stages. First stage is the
statistical characterization of uncertainty while second stage is probabilistic slope
stability analysis for estimating the reliability criterion. Probabilistic slope stability
analysis allows for the consideration of variability in the input parameter, and it
quantifies the probability of failure of a slope. Commercial software SLOPE/W can
perform probabilistic slope stability analysis using the Monte Carlo method. The
following sections detail the concepts and procedures of the proposed approach using
SLOPE/W as analytical tool.
3.2 Simulation Process
The Simulation procedure is shown schematically in Figure 3.1. Firstly, the

analysis method is selected. In this study, slope with circular failure surface is
analyzed. Then, the slope problem (geometry, stratigraphy, soil properties and slip
surface) is modeled. In SLOPE/W the critical slip surface is first determined based
36
on the mean value of the input parameter using Bishop methods. Probabilistic
analysis is then performed on the critical slip surface, taking into consideration the
variability of the input parameters. The variability of the input parameters is assumed
to be normally distributed with user-specified mean values and standard deviations.
Definition
of the problem
Slope geometry
Soil properties
Distribution parameters
(mean & st dev.)
Deterministic analysis
(mean value of soil
parameters)
Critical slip surface

Random
Sampling
Monte Carlo Simulation
Trial
Simulation number (N)
Output for PDF
Analysis of
output Case study
Conclusions
Figure 3.1 Simulation Process of slope stability analysis

37
SLOPE/W allows variability in the following:
- Soil properties including material unit weight, cohesion, and frictional angles
- Line loads
- Piezometric lines
- ru, coefficients and B-bar parameter
- The horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients
In addition to the probability distributions of input variables, the application

of probabilistic methods requires estimating (or assuming) correlation coefficients
between variables. The parameters that might be cross-correlated are friction angle
and cohesion. In this research, soil parameters ( c, φ ZLOO EH DVVLJQHG DV PHDQ DQG
standard deviation. Standard deviations of 1-3 is used for variable of unit weight of
the soil while a standard deviation of 5, 10, and 15 are used for c and φ parameter.
These values are within the range given in the Table 2.2.
As described in part 2.4.3, the shear strength parameter c and φ are negatively
correlated while the unit weight is not correlated to other parameter. Thus this study
will consider uncorrelated values and correlated c and φ values with correlation
coefficient of –0.5
3.2.1 Determination of Critical Slip Surface
The selection of the location and radius of critical slip surface is the most
difficult part of the slope stability analysis. It is not only depend on the geometry of
the slope being analyzed but also on the strength parameters. In deterministic
analysis of slope, mean values of input parameter are always used and this will yield
on a particular failure surface. Many researchers (Tobutt and Richards, 1979;
Chowdhury and Tang, 1987; Hassan and Wolff, 1999) indicated that he deterministic
critical surface is not always the most critical surface in a probabilistic analysis. In
probabilistic analysis, the search for critical slip circle should be done for each set of
randomly generated inputs. However this involves a great computational effort and
significant computer time.
38
In SLOPE/W (2001), the use of a probabilistic analysis will not affect the
deterministic solution. SLOPE/W computes the factor of safety of all slip surfaces
first and determines the critical slip surface as if no probabilistic analysis is chosen.
The probabilistic analysis is then performed on the deterministic critical slip surface.
The factor of safety presented on the SOLVE main window during the probabilistic
analysis is the deterministic minimum factor of safety of all computed slip surface;
however when the analysis is completed, the factor of safety presented on the
SOLVE main window is the mean factor of safety of all Monte Carlo trials.
Fundamental to the Monte Carlo method are the randomly generated input
parameters that are fed to a deterministic model. In SLOPE/W, this is done using a
random number generation function. To ensure that a new set of random numbers is
generated every time SLOPE/W is executed, the random number function is seeded
with the current time of the computer clock.
The random numbers generated from the function are uniformly distributed
with value between 0 and 1.0. In order to use the uniformly generated random
number in the calculations of the normally distributed input parameter, it is necessary
to transform the uniform random number to a normally distributed random number.
The ‘normalization’ process is done using the following transformation equation as
suggested by Box and Muller(1958):
(3.1)
Where:
N = normalized random number
R1 = uniform random number 1
R2 = uniform random number 2
39
3.2.2 Monte Carlo Simulation
3.2.2.1 Optimum Number of Trial
Probabilistic slope stability analysis using Monte Carlo simulation method

involves many trial runs (iteration). The output of a simulation process is sensitive to
the number of trial, N. Theoretically, the more trial runs, the more accurate the
solution will be in the analysis. The optimum number of iterations depends on the
variability in the input parameter (i.e, coefficient of variation) and the output
parameter being estimated (e.g., mean safety factor, probability of failure). Harr
(1987) suggested that the number of required Monte Carlo trials is dependent on the
desired level of confidence in the solution as well as the number of variables being
considered. Other research by Hutchinson & Bandalos (1997) concluded that a range
of 10,000 to 100,000 trials is necessary during Monte Carlo analysis. In this research,
optimum number of trial is obtained when the difference in probability of failure, Pf
obtained by two subsequent trials is less than 5 percent.
3.2.2.2 Interpretation of Output
In the Monte Carlo simulation analysis, the main output is the probability
density function (PDF) of the factor of safety. Mean and standard deviation can be
inferred from the PDF. In reliability analysis, we are concerned about how well the
slope performs. This can be done through interpretation of the PDF where
probability of failure is the probability of the safety factor less than one and compare
it with reliability criterion (Table 2.3 and Table 2.4).
There is no direct relationship between factor of safety and probability of

failure. In other words, a slope with a higher factor of safety may not be more stable
than a slope with a lower factor of safety (Harr, 1987). For example, a slope with a
mean factor of safety of 1.5 and a standard deviation of 0.5 will have a much higher
probability of failure than a slope with mean factor of safety of 1.2 and a standard
deviation of 0.1.
40
A sensitivity analysis can be used to demonstrate the relative significance of

the input variables to the determination of the output variable. The results of the
sensitivity analysis are very useful in geotechnical investigation as the results shows
the most sensitive variable in the analysis that need greater emphasize from engineer.
Sensivity study is conducted on hypothetical study.
3.3 Variable Study
A simple slope with gradient 1v: 1h and height 6m is modeled with two cases:
i.e. water table at a specified location (Figure 3.2) and no water table. The
importance of having cohesion and friction angle correlated and uncorrelated is
studied as well. Besides, the sensitivity study is also conducted to find out the
importance of input variables toward the analysis result.
19
18
17
16
Description: Hypothetical Slope
15
File Name: Hypothetical slope-with wt.slz
14
Analysis Method: Bishop (with Ordinary & Janbu)
13
121
Elevation (m)
11
10
9
8
7 Description: Soil c-phi
6 Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb
5
Unit Weight: 18
4
Cohesion: 15
3
Phi: 25
2
1
02
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Distance (m)
Figure 3.2 Hypothetical problem

41
3.4 Case Studies
Two cases of slope failure are studied to support for the result of study using
hypothetical model. First case study is the slope failure occurred next to proposed
Institute of Fundamental Sciences Ibnu Sina in UTM, Skudai in 2001. The gradient
of the original slope is about 1h: 1.4v to 1h: 1.5v. The second case study is Muar
Trial Embankment (1986) constructed to failure at the height of 5.4m in 100 days.
42
CHAPTER 4
RESULT AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Hypothetical Problem & Sensitivity Analysis
A basic slope stability example is selected for the deterministic and

probabilistic analysis using the Bishop simplified method. The slope has a gradient
of 1v: 1h and 6m in height as shown in Figure 4.1. The soil properties are shown in
Table 4.1. Each case is tested through problem of having water table and without
water table. Sensitivity analysis is conducted through case 4 to case 6. The analysis
is done for case where c-φ parameter are correlated and uncorrelated. The value of c-
φ correlation coefficient is maintained at –0.5. Standard deviation of water table is
2m for cases with water table.
19
18
17
16 Description: Hypothetical Slope
15
14
13
121
Elevation (m)
11
10
9
8
5
Unit Weight: 18
4
Cohesion: 15
3
Phi: 25
2
1
02
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Distance (m)
Figure 4.1 Slope geometry and soil properties of the hypothetical problem
43
Table 4.1 Soil properties used for hypothetical case

Standard deviation (COV)
Parameter Mean Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6
Cohesion, c 15 5 10 15 1-5 - -
3
(kN/m ) (33%) (67%) (100%) (7-33%)
Angle of 25 5 10 15 - 1-5 -
Friction, φ ( ) o
(20%) (40%) (60%) (4-20%)
Unit Weight, 18 1 2 3 - - 1-3
γ (kN/m ) 3
(6%) (11%) (17%) (6-17%)
The minimum factor of safety for the critical slip surface is 1.69 for cases of
no water table and 1.59 for cases with water table. The critical slip surface is as
illustrated in Figure 4.2 for problem without water table and in Figure 4.3 for
problem with water table.
19
18
17
15
File Name: Hypothetical slope-base case.slz
14
Analysis Method: Bishop
13
121
Elevation (m)
11
10
9
6 Unit Weight: 18
5
Cohesion: 15
4
Phi: 25
3
2
1
02
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Distance (m)
Figure 4.2 Critical slip surface for slope without water table
44
19
18
17
15
14
13
12
Elevation (m)
11
10
9
8
5 Unit Weight: 18
4
Cohesion: 15
3
Phi: 25
2
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Distance (m)
Figure 4.3 Critical slip surface for slope with water table
Searching of optimum number of iteration/trial for 3 input variables i.e.

friction angle, cohesion and unit weight for all cases of no water table is represented
by case 1- no water table and c-φ uncorrelated. The result shown in Figure 4.4
indicates that the optimum number is 15000 and this number give a precise result of
less than 5 percent change on the probability of failure compare to higher trial run
result.
For all cases with water table, the optimum number of trial required for 4
input variables i.e. friction angle, cohesion unit weight and peizometric line is 20000
as depicted in Figure 4.5. This is obtained through case 1-with water table and c- φ
uncorrelated.
45
Optimum Number of Trial
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.06
2
1.8
1.6
Probability of Failure (%)

1.4
1.2
1
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Number of Trial (N)
Figure 4.4 Optimum number of N=15000 in case 1-no water table and c-φ uncorrelated.
46
Optimum Nuimber of Trial
14
12
10
8.38
8
Probability ofFailure (%)

4
2
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
Number of Trial (N)
Figure 4.5 Optimum number of N=20000 in case 1-withwater table and c- φ uncorrelated.
47
4.1.1 c- φ Uncorrelated
The result obtained from analysis of case 1-3 where no correlation is assigned
between cohesion and angle of friction is shown in Table 4.2. In general, the mean
factor of safety increase as compared to the minimum factor of safety obtained from
deterministic analysis. For each case, mean factor of safety for problem with water
table is less than the problem without water table. The probability of failure increase
or the reliability index decrease when the standard deviation of soil parameters
increases. Probability density function (PDF) and cumulative distribution function
(CDF) of the factor of safety for these three cases is provided in Figure 4.6 to Figure
4.11
Table 4.2 Result of probabilistic analysis for case 1 to 3 and c-φ uncorrelated.
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
No w.t With w.t No w.t With w.t No w.t Now.t
Mean FOS 1.70 1.53 1.72 1.56 1.78 1.62
Reliability Index 2.04 1.38 1.05 0.83 0.76 0.64
P (Failure) (%) 2.06 8.38 14.56 20.25 22.30 25.95
Standard Dev. 0.35 0.39 0.69 0.67 1.03 0.96
The above result shows that even though the mean factor safety is high (i.e
FOS>1.5) it does not mean that the slope is safe because of high probability of
failure or low reliability index. Besides, there is no direct relationship between factor
of safety and probability of failure. In other words, a slope with a higher factor of
safety may not be more stable than a slope with a lower factor of safety as we can
compare in case 1 and 3 for problem of no water table, where case 3 with factor of
safety of 1.78 and standard deviation of 1.02 have a much higher probability of
failure than case 1 with factor of safety of 1.70 and a standard deviation of 0.345.
48
Probability Density Function Probability Distribution Function

15 100
80
10
60
Frequency (%)
Probability (%)
40
5
20
0 0
0.425 0.695 0.965 1.235 1.505 1.775 2.045 2.315 2.585 2.855 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Figure 4.6 PDF and CDF of the factor of safety for case 1 of no water table and c-φ uncorrelated.
49

25 100
20 80
15 60
Frequency (%)
Probability (%)
10 40
5 20
0 0
-1.3 -0.7 -0.1 0.5 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.5 4.1 0.000 0.438 0.875 1.313 1.750 2.188 2.625 3.063 3.500
Figure 4.7 PDF and CDF of the factor of safety for case 1 with water table and c-φ uncorrelated
50

15
100
80
10
60
Frequency (%)
Probability (%)
40
5
20
0 0
-1.0 -0.4 0.2 0.8 1.4 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.8 4.4 0.000 0.833 1.667 2.500 3.333 4.167 5.000
Figure 4.8 PDF and CDF of the factor of safety for case 2 of no water table and c-φ uncorrelated
51

20 100
80
15
60
10
Frequency (%)
Probability (%)
40
5
20
0 0
-2.85 -1.95 -1.05 -0.15 0.75 1.65 2.55 3.45 4.35 5.25 0.000 0.714 1.429 2.143 2.857 3.571 4.286 5.000
52

25 100
20 80
15 60
Frequency (%)
Probability (%)
10 40
5 20
0 0
-6.9 -5.1 -3.3 -1.5 0.3 2.1 3.9 5.7 7.5 9.3 0.0 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0 7.2 8.4 9.6 10.8 12.0
Figure 4.10 PDF and CDF of the factor of safety for case 3 of no water table and c-φ uncorrelated
53

15 100
80
10
60
Frequency (%)
Probability (%)
40
5
20
0 0
-2.55 -1.65 -0.75 0.15 1.05 1.95 2.85 3.75 4.65 5.55 0.000 0.667 1.333 2.000 2.667 3.333 4.000 4.667 5.333 6.000
54
4.1.2 c- φ Correlated
Tables 4.3 show the result of analysis where c and φ are negatively correlated
(case 1-3). The effect of correlation between c-φ parameters on the probability
density function of factor of safety is demonstrated in Figure 4.12 to Figure 4.17.
Figure 4.18 also shows the comparisons in probability of failure for all cases. The
mean factor of safety obtained for these cases are higher than the minimum factor of
safety obtained from deterministic analysis.
Table 4.3 Result of probabilistic analysis for case 1 to 3 – with c- φ correlation

coefficient of –0.5.
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
No w.t With w.t No w.t With w.t No w.t With w.t
Mean FOS 1.70 1.54 1.70 1.55 1.74 1.55
Reliability Index 2.78 1.64 1.38 1.05 0.93 0.75
P (Failure) (%) 0.28 5.04 8.41 14.63 17.66 22.51
Standard Dev. 0.25 0.33 0.51 0.52 0.80 0.73
It can concluded that from Figure 4.12 that: (i) the

probability of failure decrease if the correlation between soil strength
parameter c is considered, (ii) the higher the standard the standard
deviation of soil parameters, the higher the probability of failure and
(iii) the presence of water table in the soil will increase the probability
of failure.
55

15 100
80
10
60
Probability (%)
Frequency (%)
40
5
20
0 0
0.59 0.83 1.07 1.31 1.55 1.79 2.03 2.27 2.51 2.75 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Figure 4.12 PDF and CDF of the factor of safety for case 1 of no water table and c-φ correlated.
56

25 100
20 80
15 60
Probability (%)
Frequency (%)
10 40
5 20
0 0
-1.3 -0.7 -0.1 0.5 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.5 4.1 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Figure 4.13 PDF and CDF of the factor of safety for case 1 with water table and c-φ correlated.
57

20 100
80
15
60
10
Probability (%)
Frequency (%)
40
5
20
0 0
-1.1 -0.5 0.1 0.7 1.3 1.9 2.5 3.1 3.7 4.3 0.000 0.409 0.818 1.227 1.636 2.045 2.455 2.864 3.273 3.682 4.091 4.500
58

20 100
80
15
60
10
Probability (%)
Frequency (%)
40
5
20
0 0
-1.2 -0.6 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.2 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0
59

25 100
20 80
15 60
Probability (%)
Frequency (%)
10 40
5 20
0 0
-3.8 -2.6 -1.4 -0.2 1.0 2.2 3.4 4.6 5.8 7.0 0.000 0.636 1.273 1.909 2.545 3.182 3.818 4.455 5.091 5.727 6.364 7.000
60

20 100
80
15
60
10
Probability (%)
Frequency (%)
40
5
20
0 0
-2.75 -1.85 -0.95 -0.05 0.85 1.75 2.65 3.55 4.45 5.35 0.000 0.714 1.429 2.143 2.857 3.571 4.286 5.000
61
c-phi uncorrelated c-phi correlated (coefficient of correlation = -0.5)
With w.t
Case 3
No w.t
With w.t
Case
Case 2
No w.t
With w.t
Case 1
No w.t
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4.18 Comparison between cases with c- φ correlated and uncorrelated.

62
4.1.3 Sensitivity Study
Sensitivity analysis is conducted through cases 4 to 6. The parameters of

most relevance in this study are the standard deviations of the cohesion, friction
angle and unit weight. Case 4 is varying the standard deviation of the cohesion; Case
5 is for friction angle while Case 6 is varying the standard deviation of unit weight.
The result for cases where c and φ parameter are not correlated can be seen in Table
4.4, Figure 4.19 and Figure 4.20. Figure 4.19 shows that mean factor of safety does
not changed much when standard deviations are varied. However, the probability of
failure increase gradually when standard deviation of soil parameter increase (Figure
4.20). The figure also shows that the standard deviation of soil parameter cohesion
has the greatest effect on the probability of failure.
Table 4.4 Sensitivity result for cases of c- φ uncorrelated

Without water table With water table
Parameter
Mean FOS Pf Mean FOS Pf
Cohesion (mean = 15)
SD=1 1.6945 0 1.535 0.968
SD=2 1.6965 0 1.532 1.661
Case 4
SD=3 1.6972 0.00732 1.535 2.854

SD=4 1.6908 0.25803 1.534 4.618
SD=5 1.6872 1.29942 1.536 6.923
Friction Angle (mean =25)
SD=1 1.6942 0 1.535 0.829
SD=2 1.6938 0 1.535 0.976
Case 5
SD=3 1.6941 0 1.532 1.233

SD=4 1.6934 0 1.530 1.569
SD=5 1.6951 0.00004 1.537 1.996
Unit Weight (mean = 18)
SD=1 1.6977 0 1.536 0.893
Case 6
SD=2 1.7057 0 1.541 1.104

SD=3 1.7207 0.00174 1.547 1.703
63
No water table With water table
SD=3
SD=2
Unit
Weight
SD=1
SD=5
SD=4
SD=3
SD=2
Friction Angle
SD=1
Parameter
SD=5
SD=4
SD=3
SD=2
Cohesion
SD=1
1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75

Mean Factor of Safety (FOS)
Figure 4.19 Sensitivity of FOS to variability in soil parameter for c-φ uncorrelated.
64
SD=3
SD=2
Unit
Weight
SD=1
SD=5
SD=4
SD=3
SD=2
Friction Angle
SD=1
Parameter
SD=5
SD=4
SD=3
SD=2
Cohesion
SD=1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 4.20 Sensitivity of probability of failure to variability in soil parameter for c-φ uncorrelated.
65
Table 4.5 shows the result of analysis where cohesion and friction angle are
negatively correlated. Figure 4.21 shows the mean factor of safety does not change
as standard deviations for soil parameters are varied. By contrast, the probability of
failure increases steadily when the standard deviation of soil parameter (Figure 4.22).
In can also be concluded that the angle of friction and unit weight has a relatively
small influence on the probability distribution of a particular factor of safety
compare to cohesion variable.
Table 4.5 Sensitivity result for cases with c- φ correlation coefficient of –0.5
Parameter Without water table With water table
Mean FOS Pf Mean FOS Pf
Cohesion (mean = 15)
SD=1 1.6951 0 1.5325 1.03462
SD=2 1.6963 0 1.535 1.55112
Case 4
SD=3 1.6939 0.00757 1.5341 2.85379

SD=4 1.6966 0.22112 1.5344 4.70592
SD=5 1.6916 1.2409 1.5352 6.90852
Friction Angle (mean =25)
SD=1 1.6943 0 1.5341 0.82312
SD=2 1.6944 0 1.5348 0.8771
Case 5
SD=3 1.6941 0 1.5314 1.07787

SD=4 1.6942 0 1.5318 1.19882
SD=5 1.6948 0 1.5346 1.37138
Unit Weight (mean = 18)
SD=1 1.6968 0 1.535 0.89358
Case 6
SD=2 1.7063 0 1.539 1.15544

SD=3 1.7229 0.00215 1.5488 1.63273
66
SD=3
SD=2
Unit
Weight
SD=1
SD=5
SD=4
SD=3
SD=2
Friction Angle
SD=1
Parameter
SD=5
SD=4
SD=3
SD=2
Cohesion
SD=1
1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75

Mean Factor of safety
Figure 4.21 Sensitivity result for soil parameter to factor of safety for cases with c- φ correlation coefficient of –0.5
67
SD=3
SD=2
Unit
Weight
SD=1
SD=5
SD=4
SD=3
SD=2
Friction Angle
SD=1
Parameter
SD=5
SD=4
SD=3
SD=2
Cohesion
SD=1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 4.22 Sensitivity result for soil parameter to probability of failure for cases with c- φ correlation coefficient of –0.5
68
4.1.4 Discussion
The optimum trial number for 3 input variables: cohesion, angle of friction,
and unit weight is 15000 and for 4 input variables: cohesion, angle of friction, unit
weight and peizometric line is 20000. This means that the more variables considered
for analysis the higher the number of iteration required for analysis.
The slope with high mean factor of safety does not mean it is safe because it
may have high probability of failure as well. So, there is no direct correlation
between the Probability of failure and the factor of safety.
Through case 1 to 3 by increasing standard deviation for soil parameters, it

can be noticed that the higher the standard deviation, the higher the probability of
failure. Besides that, when c-φ parameters are negatively correlated, the probability
of failure is lower compared to uncorrelated c-φ.
Sensitivity study on case 4 to 6 has shown clearly that among the soil
variables considered in the analysis, the variable of cohesion has the most influence
on the resulting probability of failure. However, there is not much difference in mean
factor of safety throughout the cases.
This hypothetical case clearly illustrates the large impact probabilistic

analysis could have on conventional slope design practice. Adopting high factor of
safety is not necessary safe if the slope has large uncertainty and show low
reliability. The use of probabilistic is so essential and should not be neglected in
slope design.
The case studies discussed in item 4.2 and 4.3 showed the importance of
probabilistic analysis in failed slope because it takes into account the variability in
soil parameters.
69
4.2 Case Study
4.2.1 Cut Slope in UTM, Skudai
A slope failure was occurred near the proposed Institute of Fundamental

Sciences Ibnu Sina, UTM on August 2001. The slope condition and estimated failure
planes are shown in Figure 4.23. Slope stability analysis is conducted for soil
strength parameter obtained from shear box test on soil taken along the identified
failure surface and the data are tabulated statistically in Table 4.6. The main
objective of the reversal shear box test is to obtain the residual strength of the
subsoil. It is particularly relevant in designing remedial work for a failed slope with
identified shear surface and to explore its relationship with the active creep
movement of the failed soil mass. Unit weight for the layer is 18.5 kN/m3.
70
Description: Slope Failure in UTM, Skudai

60
Comments: Cut Slope failure
50
Elevation (m)
40
30
20 Failure plane
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Distance (m)
Figure 4.23 Slip surface specified in the model.

70
Table 4.6 Soil data of peak strength and residual strength parameter obtained
from direct shear test.
Parameter Peak Residual
C (Kpa)= 15.7 5.9
SD 10 6
Phi (Degree) = 24 20
SD = 3 1
Firstly, The slip surface is specified (see Figure 4.23). Then, the search for
optimum number of trial is carried out. The optimum number of trial used for Monte
Carlo simulation for this case is 25,000. The probabilistic analysis results are
presented in Table 4.7, while the PDF for the cases are shown in Figure 4.24. It can
be seen that the slope is safe when peak strength is mobilized along the failure surface
(mean FOS = 1.56 and Pf = 0.59%). On the other hand, if the soil is disturbed and
reached its residual strength, then the mean factor of safety decreases to 1.08, and the
probability of failure has increased to 25%. Thus, one of the cause of slope failure is
the reduction in shear strength.
Table 4.7 Result using data from direct shear box test.
Peak Residual
Mean F of S 1.556 1.081
Reliability Index 2.514 0.677
P (Failure) (%) 0.594 24.892
Standard Dev. 0.221 0.120
71
Probability Density Function Probability Density Function

15
15
10 10
Frequency (%)
Frequency (%)
5 5
0 0
0.545 0.755 0.965 1.175 1.385 1.595 1.805 2.015 2.225 2.435 0.52 0.64 0.76 0.88 1.00 1.12 1.24 1.36 1.48 1.60
(a) (b)
Figure 4.24 PDF of the factor of safety for specified slip surface slope: a) Peak
strength and b) Residual strength
4.3 Muar Trial Embankment
4.3.1 Introduction
In 1986 the Malaysia Highway Authority, in connection with their highway

development program, embarked on a major study on the construction of
embankments on Malaysia marine clays (Malaysia Highway Authority, 1989).
Several full-scale test embankments were built on the valley of the Muar River. The
embankment raised on this soft Muar clay formation failed by the development of a
"quasi slip circle" type of rotational failure at a critical height of approximately 5.4 m
with a pronounced tension crack propagating vertically through the crust and the fill
as shown in Figure 4.30. At the time of failure, the average settlement of the
embankment was about 0.7m; hence the height of the embankment above ground
was 4.7m.
72
Figure 4.25 shows the critical slip surface obtained from stability analysis,
which is well matched with the actual geometry of failure. The minimum factor of
safety obtained for this failure surface is 1.05.
34
32
Description: Muar Trial Embankment 4.7m Fill
30
File Name: Muar Trial emabankment-4.7.slz
28
26
24
22
20
Embankment Fill
Elevation (m)
18
16
Weathered Clay Crust
14
12
Very Soft Silty Clay
10
4
Soft Silty Clay
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (m)
Figure 4.25 Critical slip surface for Muar Trial Embankment
Five soil parameter are considered as variables; the strength of the

embankment, bulk unit weight of embankment, the strength of the weathered crust,
the strength of the upper layer very soft silty clay and the strength of the underlying
soft silty clays. The failure only took 100 days so design parameter adopted is based
on undrained shear strength due to short construction period. Table 4.8 summarizes
the statistical parameter of the soil strength Su with Bjerrum’s vane correction factor.
73
Table 4.8 Statistical Parameters for Input Variable of undrained shear strength
Bulk unit
Bjerrum Corrected Su Mean, E
weight SD
factor (kPa) (kPa)
(kN/m3)
20.6
Embankment fill - - 60 12
SD =3
Weathered clay crust
(Su =10-40 kPa)
15.5 0.75 7.5-30.0 18.75 6.538
Very soft silty clay
14 0.8 8.0-12.8 10.4 1.429
(Su = 10-16kPa)
Soft silty clay
(Su = 16-36 kPa)
16 9.5 15.2-34.2 24.7 5.528
The probability analysis was conducted by Monte Carlo trial simulations with
90,000 iterations. This shows that the low mean factor of safety of 1.05 with standard
deviation of 0.21 was obtained when the height of embankment reached 4.7 m. The
reliability index for this case is 0.234 and the probability of failure is as high as
40.71%. Figure 4.26 shows the PDF and CDF for this case.
Table 4.9 Probabilistic Result for Muar Trial Embankement
Result
Mean F of S 1.0481
Reliability Index 0.234
P (Failure) (%) 40.7090
Standard Dev. 0.205
74

40 100
80
30
60
20
Probability (%)
Frequency (%)
40
10
20
0 0
-1.8 -1.2 -0.6 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 0.000 0.375 0.750 1.125 1.500 1.875 2.250 2.625 3.000
Figure 4.26 PDF and CDF of the factor of safety, Muar Trial Embankment
75
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary
Despite decades of accumulated experience, the ability of the geotechnical

profession to make reliable forecasts of slope failures remains poor. This is largely
due to the numerous sources of uncertainty that dominate performance projections in
geotechnical engineering. Inherent natural variability of soil properties, lack of
representative data, and limitations of models and correlations used in the analyses
are some of the uncertainties that geotechnical engineers are faced with daily.
Probabilistic techniques are better tools to quantify and incorporate uncertainty into
slope analysis and design than the conventional approach based on the deterministic
factor of safety.
The study carried out herein indicates that reliability theory can be used as
alternative and much more consistent approach to the deterministic analysis.
Combining both approach rather than replacing deterministic analysis with
probabilistic analysis provide greater insight to design reliability and enhance
decision-making process.
In this study, probabilistic slope analysis methodology based on Monte Carlo

simulation incorporated in the commercial software SLOPE/W is applied to evaluate
the stability of the slope. SLOPE/ W provides deterministic analysis and
probabilistic analysis in the same time. The critical slip surface is obtained by
deterministic analysis and probabilistic analysis will be conducted on the particular
76
critical slip surface. Bishop analysis method is adopted in the study. To demonstrate
the capabilities of this methodology, a hypothetical problem and two case studies are
evaluated with the Monte Carlo simulation method.
5.2 Conclusion
The following conclusions can be drawn from the result of the analytical
study on reliability analysis of slope stability i.e:
1. The analysis on hypothetical problem showed that:

a. The more variable considered for analysis the higher number of
iteration required for analysis
b. There is no direct correlation between the Probability of failure and
the factor of safety
c. The higher the standard deviation of soil parameters, the higher the
probability of failure
d. Among the soil properties considered in the analysis, variable of
cohesion has the most influence on the resulting probability of failure
e. Correlation between c-φ parameter influences the probability of
failure. Lower probability of failure is obtained when c-φ parameters
are negatively correlated.
2. The use of a Monte Carlo simulation to determine the probability of slope

failure appears to be an acceptable analysis method because it can
determine the distribution of factor of safety and this give more reliable
information to a designer.
3. Reliability theory can be used as alternative and much more consistent

approach to the deterministic analysis. Combining both approaches rather
than replacing deterministic analysis with probabilistic analysis provides
a greater insight to design reliability and enhance decision-making
process.
77
5.3 Recommendations
This research demonstrated the feasibility of probabilistic slope analysis.

However, before this research is implemented into practice several issues need
further development and refinement.
1. The main draw back in the use of reliability analysis is the scarcity of suitable
data, quantitative information about how closely these data represent field
conditions and determination of the correlation coefficient between the
random variables representing soil parameter.
2. In SLOPE/W, the critical slip surface is first determined based on the mean
value of the input parameters in deterministic analysis. Probabilistic analysis
is then performed on the critical slip surface. However in reality, the critical
slip surface from deterministic analysis may not be the critical slip surface for
probabilistic analysis.
3. The variability of the input parameters in SLOPE/W is assumed to be

normally distributed with user-specified mean values and standard deviations.
This will give result that are not correctly simulated the soil conditions.
78
REFERENCES
Alonso, E.E.(1976). Risk Analysis of Slopes and Its Application to Slopes in

Canadian Sensitive Clays. Geotechnique. Vol.26 (3): 453-472.
Anderson, L.R., Sharp, K.D., Bowles, D.S. and Canfield, R.V.(1984). Application of
Method of Probabilistic Characterization of Soil Properties. Proceeding of ASCE
Symposium on Probabilistic Characterization of Soil Properties- Bridge between
Theory and Practice. Atlanta, USA, May 17. pp 90-105.
Ang, A.H-S, and Tang,W.H. (1975). Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning

and Design, Volume I Basic Principles. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
B.Indraratna, A.S. Balasubramaniam, and S. Balachandran (1992). Performance of

Test Embankment Constructed to Failure on Soft Marine Clay. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE. Vol. 118 (1).
Baecher, B.T. and Chritian J.T. (2003). Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical
Engineering. England, John Wiley & Sons.
Bergado, D.T., Patron, B.C, Youyongwatana,. W., Chai, J.C. and Yudhbir (1994).
Reliability-based Analysis of Embankment on Soft Bangkok Clay. Journal of
Structural Safety. Vol.(13): 247-266.
Box, G.E.P. and Muller, M.E. 1(958). A note on the generation of random normal
deviates. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, American Statistical Association,
USA., Vol. 29: 610-613.
79
Bjerrum,L. (1973). Problems of soil mechanics and construction on soft clays.

Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and foundation
Engineering. Moscow. Vol. 3:111-159
Brand, E.W., and Premchitt, J. (1989). Comparison of the predicted

and observed performance of the Muar test embankement.
Proceedings of the Symposium on Trial Embankemnts on Malaysian
Marine Clays. Kuala Lumpur, Malayisa, November. Vol. 3.
Bromhead, E.N. (1994). The Stability of Slopes. 2nd Edition. Blackie Academic &
professional, Glasgow.
Claes, A. (1996). Application of Probabilistic Approach in Slope Stability Analyses.

Proceeding of 7th International Symposium on Landslide, Trondheim, Norway. June
17-21. pp 1137-1142.
Cornell, C.A. (1972). First Order Uncertainty Analysis of Soil Deformation and
Stability. Proceeding of 1st International Conference on Application of Statistic and
Probability to Soil and Structural Engineering, Hong Kong. September 13-16, 1971,
pp 129-144.
Chowdhury, R.N (1984). Recent Developments in Landslide Studies: Probabilistic

Methods State-of-the-Art-Report – Session VII (a). 4th International Symposium on
Landslides. pp 209-228.
Chowdhury, R.N and Tang, W.H. (1987). Comparison of Risk Model for Slopes.
Reliability and Risk Analysis in Civil Engineering 2: Proceeding of 5th International
Conference on Application of Statistic and Probability in Soil and Structural
Engineering. Vancouver, Canada, May 25-29. Vol. 2: 863-869.
&KULVWLDQ, J.T, Ladd, C., & Baecher, G.B. (1994). Reliability Applied to Slope
Stability Analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Engineering Division, ASCE. Vol.
120: 2180-2207.
80
Duncan, J. M. (2000). Factor of Safety and Reliability in Geotechnical Engineering.

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. Vol. 126 (4):
307-316.
Fredlund, D.G., and Krahn, J. (1977). Comparison of slope stability methods of

analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol.14: 429–439.
Fredlund, D.G., Krahn, J., and Pufahl, D.E. (1981). The Relationship Between Limit
Equilibrium Slope stability Methods. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMFE),
Stockholm, Sweden. Vol. 3: 409–416.
Fredlund, D.G. (1984). Analytical Methods for Slope Stability Analysis. 4th
International Symposium on Landslides. Vol.1: 229-250.
Grivas, D.A. (1981). How Reliable are The Present Slope Prediction Method?
Proceeding of The Tenth international Conference of The Soil Mechanic and
Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden. Vol. 3 : 427-430.
Gue, C.S (2003). Slope stability : A Case Study of Slope Failure at Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai. Universit Teknologi Malaysia: Projek Sarjana Muda.
Harr, M.E. (1977). Mechanic of Particulate Media – A Probabilistic Approach.

Mcgraw-Hill.
Harr, M.E. (1987). Reliability Based Design in Civil Engineering. McGraw-Hill Inc,
USA.
Hassan, A. and Wolff, T. (1999). Search Algorithm for Minimun Relaibility Index of
Earth Slope. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE.
125 (4): 301-308.
Honjo, Y. and Kuroda, K. (1991). A New Look on Fluctuating Geotechnical Data for
Reliability Design. Soil and Foundation. Vol. 31(1): 110-120
81
Hutchinson, S. & Bandalos, D. (1997). A Guide to Monte Carlo Simulation Research

for Applied Researchers. Journal of Vocational Education Research. Vol. 22: 233-
245.
Jeniffer, L. P. (1999). Probability Analysis of Slope Stability. Morgantown, West

Virgina, USA. Thesis of Master of Science.
Kim, H.S , Major, G. and Ross-Brown, D.M. (1978). Application of Monte Carlo
technique to Slope Stability Analyses. Proceeding of 19th U.S Symposium on Rock
Mechanic, Nevada, USA. pp 28-39.
Lacasse, S. and Nadim, F. (1996). Uncertainties in Characterizing Soil Properties, in

Uncertainty in the Geologic Environment: From Theory to Practice. Proceedings of
Uncertainty ’96, ASCE Geotechnical Special publication No. 58, C.D. Shackelford,
P.P Nelson, and M.J.S. Roth. pp. 49-75.
Law, A.M., and MaComas, M.G. (1986). Pitfalls in The Simulation of

Manufacturing System. Proceeding of The Winter Simulation Conference,
Washington D.C. pp539-542.
Liew, S. S. (2004). Slope Failures in Tropical Residual Soils. Tropical Residual Soils
Engineering (TRSE). 6 – 7 July 2004.
Li, K.S. (1992a). A Point Estimate Method for Calculating The Reliability Index of
Slope. Proceeding of the 6th Australian-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics,
Christchurch. pp 448-451.
Li, K.S. and Lumb, P. (1987) Probabilistic Design of Slope. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal. 24: 520-535.
82
Li, K.S. and White, W. (1987). Reliability Index of Slope. Reliability and Risk
Analysis in Civil Engineering: Proceeding of 5th International Conference on
Application of Statistic and Probability to Soil and Structural Engineering,
Vancouver, Canada. May 25-29. Vol. 2: 755-762.
Lumb, P. (1970). Probability of Failure in Earth Works. Proceeding of 2nd Southeast

Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Singapore. pp139-147.
Major, G., Ross-Brown, D.M, and Kim, H.S. (1978). A General Probabilistic
Analysis for Three Dimensional Wedge Failure. Proceeding of 19th U.S Symposium
on Rock Mechanic, Nevada, USA. pp 45-56.
Malaysia Highway Authority (1989). Proceeding of The International Symposium on

Trial Embankment on Malaysian Marine Clays. Vol. 1. Nov. 1989.
Matsuo, M., and Kuroda, K. (1974). Probabilistic Approach to The Design of

Embankment. Soil and Foundation. Vol. 14 (2):1-17.
Marek, J.N. and Savely, J.P. (1978). Probabilistic Analysis on The Plane Shear
Failure Mode. Proceeding of The 9th US Symposium on The Rock Mechanic, Nevada,
USA. pp 40-44
McGuffey, V. Grica, D., Lori, J., and Kyfor, Z. (1982). Conventional and
Probabilistic Embankment Design. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE. Vol. 108 (10): 1246-1254
McMahon, B.K. (1975). Probability of Failure and Expected Volume of Failure in

High Rock Slope. Proceeding of the 2nd Australian-New Zealand Conference on
Geomechanics, Brisbane. pp 308-313.
Morgenstern, N.R. (2000). Performance in Geotechnical Predictions. The First lumb

lecture, Hong Kong, May 10.
83
Morgenstern, N.R. (1995). Managing Risk in Geotechncial Engineering. Proceeding

of the 10th Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanic and Foundation
Engineering. Vol. 4.
Mostyn G. R. and Li, K.S. (1993). Probabilistic Slope Analysis-State of Play. In

Probabilistic Methods in geotechnical Engineering., Li and Lo,(eds).pp 89-109.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (1986). Soil Mechanics: Design Manual

7.01. pp 309-310.
Nguyen, V.U. and Chowdhury R.N. (1984). Probabilistic of A Spoil Pile Stability in
Strip Coal Mines-Two Technique Compare. International Journal of Rock
Mechanic, Mining Science and Geomechanic. Vol. 21 (6): 303-312.
Peck, R.B. (1973). Influence of Non-technical Factors on The Quality of

Embankment Dams. In Embankment Dam Engineering, Casagrande. John Wiley &
Sons, New York. pp 201-208.
Polous, H.H., Lee, Y.C., and Small, J.C. (1990). Predicted and observed behaviour
of a test embankment on Malaysian soft clays. Research Report No. R620, University
of Sydney
Priest. D.S, and Brown, E.T (1983). Probabilistic Stability Analyses of Variable
Rock Slope. Transaction of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (Section A:
Mining Industry), 92: A1-A12
Ramalho-Ortigao, J.A ., Mauro, L.g., and Wiley, A.L (1984). Embankment Failure
on Clay near Rio De Janeiro. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE. Vol.109
(11): 1460-1479.
Hassan E.R. (2001). Probabilistic Analyses of Land Slide Hazards and Risk:
Bridging Theory and Risk. Edmontum Alberta: Thesis of Doctor of Philosophy
84
Rosenblueth, E. (1975). Point Estimates for Probability Moments. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Science, USA.
Rosenblueth, E. (1981). Two-Point Estimates in Probabilities. Applied Mathematical

Modeling. Vol. 5.
Santamarina, J., Altschaeffl, A., & Chameau, J. (1992). Reliability of Slopes:

Incorporating Qualitative Information. Transportation Research Record 1343,
1-5.
SLOPE/W. 2001. A software package for slope stability analysis. Ver. 5.14. GEO-
SLOPE International, Calgary, Alta.
Spencer, E. 1967. A Method of Analysis of Embankments Assuming Parallel Inter-

slice Forces. Géotechnique. 17(1): 11–26. Zienkiewicz, O.C. 1971. The finite
element method in engineering.
Sowers, G.S. (1991). The Human Factor in Failure. Civil Engineering, ASCE. March.
pp72-73.
Tang, W. , Yucemen, M., & Ang, A. (1976). Probability-Based Short Term Design
of Soil Slopes. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 13: 201-215.
Tejchman, A., Gwizdala, K., Brzozowski, T. (1996). Quasi-probabilistic Method of

Slope Stability Anlysis. Proceeding of 7th International Symposium on Landslide,
Trondheim, Norway. June 17-21. pp 1181-1385.
Thornton, S., (1994). Probability Calculation for Slope Stability. Computer Methods
and Advances in Geomechanics. 2505-2509.
Tobutt, D. (1982). Monte Carlo Simulation Methods for Slope Stability. Computers
& Geosciences. Vol. 8: 199-208.
85
Tobutt, D.C & Richards E.A (1979). The Reliability of Earth Slopes. International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanic. Vol. 3: 323-354.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1992). Reliability Assessment of Navigation

Structures. ETL 1110-2-532, 1 May 1992.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1995b). Introduction to Probability and Reliability

Methods for Use in Geotechnical Engineering. ETL 1110-2-547, 30 September
1995.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1999). Risk-Based Analysis in Geotechnical

Engineering. For Support of Planning Studies. ETL 1110-2-556, 28 May 1999.
Vanmarcke, E.H. (1977b). Reliability of Earth Slope. Journal of Geotechncial

Engineering, ASCE. Vol. 103 (11):1247-1265
Vanmarcke, E.H. (1980). Probabilistic Stability Analysis of Earth Slopes.

Engienering Geology. Vol.16: 29-50
Whitlow, R. (2001). Basic Soil Mechanics. Pearson Education Ltd. England. Fourth
edition. Pearson Education Ltd, England.
Whitman, V.W. (1996). Organizing and Evaluating Uncertainty in geotechnical

Engineering. In Uncertainty in geologic Environment: From Theory to Practice,
Proceedings of Uncertainty ’96. Geotechnical Special Publication No 58, ASCE.
Vol. 1: 1-38
Wolff, T. F. (1985).Analysis and Design of Embankment Dam Slopes: A

Probabilistic Approach. PhD Thesis of Purdue University, USA.
Wolff, T. F. (1991). Aplication Brief- Embankment Relaibility Versus Factor of

Safety: Before and After Slide Repair. International journal for Numerical And
Analytical Method in Geomechanic. Vol. 15: 41-50.
86
Wolff, T. F and Harr, M.E. (1987). Slope Design for Dam. Reliability and Risk
Analysis in Civil Engineering 2: Proceeding of 5th International Conference on
Application of Statistic and Probability to Soil and Structural Engineering,
Vancouver, Canada. May 25-29. Vol. 2: 725-732.
Wolff, T. F (1996). Probabilistic Slope Stability in Theory and Practice. In

Uncertainty in The Geologic Environment: From Theory to Practice, Proceeding of
Uncertainty ’96.
Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 58, ASCE. NY, USA. August 31- July 3. Vol.
2: 419-422.
Wu, T.H., Lee, I.M., Potter, J.C. and Kjekstad, O. (1987). Uncertainties in
Evaluation of Strength of Marine Sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE.
113 (7): 719-738.
Wu, T.H., and Tang, W.H. (1970).Safety Analysis of Slope. Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE. 96,SM2, 1970, pp. 609-
630.
Yucemen, M.S. and Tang, W.H. (1975). Long Term Stability of Slopes, A
Reliability Approach. Proceeding of 2nd International Conference on Application of
Statistics and Probability in Soil and Structural Engineering, Aachen, Germany.
September 15-18, pp 215-230.
Yucemen, M.S., and Al-Homoud, A.S. (1990). Probabilistic Three-Dimension

Stability Analysis of Slope. Journal of Structural Safety. Vol. 9: 1-20
View publication stats

Reliability Analysis of Slope Stability Using Monte Carlo Simulation

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Reliability Analysis of Slope Stability Using Monte Carlo Simulation

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

See

Reliability analysis on the stability of slope

Article · March 2005

Effect of SCBA/SCSA on Mechanical Properties of Cement-treated Soil View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Faculty of Civil Engineering

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Nurly

A special thanks to my friends, who have given tremendous support

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

2.2.4 Other Methods of Slices 11

3.2.2.2 Interpretation of Output 39

4 RESULT AND ANALYSIS 42

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Element of statical equilirium satisfied by various Limit 12

2.2 Coefficients of Variation for Geotechnical Parameters 16

2.3 Probability of Failure Criteria for slope 31

2.4 Target Reliability Indices (US Army, 1999) 34

4.1 Soil properties used for hypothetical case 43

4.2 Result of probabilistic analysis for case 1 to 3 and c-φ 47

4.3 Result of probabilistic analysis for case 1 to 3 – with c- φ 54

4.4 Sensitivity result for cases of c- φ uncorrelated 62

4.5 Sensitivity result for cases with c- φ correlation coefficient 65

4.6 Soil data of peak strength and residual strength parameter 70

4.7 Result using data from direct shear box test. 70

4.8 Statistical Parameters for Input Variable of undrained shear 73

4.9 Probabilistic Result for Muar Trial Embankemnt 73

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Methods of slices 6

2.2 Uncertainty in Soil Properties (Source: Christian, Ladd, 14

2.3 Probability density function (PDF) 18

2.4 Cumulative distribution function (CDF) 18

2.5 Combination of uncorrelated parameter input distribution 20

2.6 Combination of correlated parameter input distribution 21

2.7 Confidence interval of 90% 29

2.8 Concept of Reliability Analysis 30

2.9 Probability of failure as a function of the reliability index 32

3.1 Monte Carlo simulation procedure for Slope Stability 35

3.2 Hypothetical Problem 40

4.1 Slope geometry and soil properties of the hypothetical 42

4.2 Critical slip surface for slope without water table 43

4.3 Critical slip surface for slope with water table 44

4.4 Optimum number of N=15000 in case 1-withwater table 45

4.5 Optimum number of N=15000 in case 1-withwater table 46

4.18 Comparison between cases with c- φ correlated and 61

4.19 Sensitivity of FOS to variability in soil parameterfor 63

4.20 Sensitivity of probability of failure to variability in soil 64

4.21 Sensitivity result for soil parameter to factor of safety for 66

4.22 Sensitivity result for soil parameter to probability of 67

4.23 Slip surface specified in the model. 69

4.25 Critical slip surface for Muar Trial Embankment 72

4.26 PDF and CDF of the factor of safety, Muar Trial 74

CDF - Cumulative distribution function

The stability of slopes is of great importance to geotechnical engineers

Probabilistic methods were introduced in the late sixties,, most notably by

changing environmental conditions, unexpected failure mechanism, simplifications

Reliability analysis or probabilistic methods are gradually being accepted in

1.2 Problem Statement

The objective of this research is to integrate reliability concept into slope

The study is focused on the use of Monte Carlo simulation integrated in

The assessment of the stability of slopes, particularly natural slope, is one

It is understood that there is uncertainty in any type of analysis. Conventional

2.2 Conventional Slope Stability Analysis

The method of slices depicted in Figure 2.1, which is a rotational failure