Simultaneous Determination of Critical Slip Surface

and Reliability Index for Slopes

Jian-Feng Xue1 and Ken Gavin2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper presents a new method for applying reliability-based design approaches to slope stability analysis. In this method
the soil properties are considered to be random variables. The factor of safety of the slope is found using Bishop’s simplified method for
noncircular slip surfaces. By considering the variability of the soil properties, the probability of failure is determined from the reliability
index 共␤兲. The minimization problem 共determination of the lowest ␤ value for the range of variables and possible slip surfaces considered兲
is solved using a genetic algorithm approach, which simultaneously locates the critical slip surface and determines the reliability index.
The performance of the new method is compared to some existing reliability approaches when applied to case histories of slope failures
from the geotechnical literature. The new approach is seen to provide reasonable and consistent estimates of the reliability index and
critical slip surface.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2007兲133:7共878兲
CE Database subject headings: Slope stability; Probabilistic methods; Reliability; Algorithms; Safety factors.

Introduction variability can be included by comparing the probable capacity

Limit equilibrium methods are widely used to assess the stability
of slopes. These approaches result in a factor of safety 共FS兲
FS = ⌺ Resisting Forces/⌺ Disturbing Forces 共1兲
where the disturbing forces are usually well defined and are gen-
erally due to the soil weight, water pressure, and external loading.
The resisting force depends on the shear strength characteristics
of the soil. Typically, design shear strength values are chosen as
lower-bound or mean values, but this is often a subjective choice
of the designer. Comparing situations where slope geometry,
loading conditions, and mean soil 共strength兲 properties are simi-
lar, well-characterized soils will have an equal FS as a slope
where the soil strength characteristics are highly variable. The
significant uncertainty in the stability of the latter slope is there-
fore not reflected in the traditional deterministic design approach.
The effect of rainfall on the stability of slopes is an area of sig-
nificant current research interest, and the pore-water pressure re-
sponse to climatic conditions and its effect on soil strength is one
key area in which probabilistically based analysis could be ap-
plied to assess the effect of rainfall infiltration on stability.
For these reasons, probabilistic approaches in which natural
1
Ph.D. Student, School of Architecture, Landscape and Civil
Engineering, Earlsfort Terrace, Univ. College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland
共corresponding author兲. E-mail: jianfeng.xue@ucd.ie
2
Lecturer, School of Architecture, Landscape and Civil Engineering,
Earlsfort Terrace, Univ. College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland. E-mail:
kenneth.gavin@ucd.ie
Note. Discussion open until December 1, 2007. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on October 18, 2005; approved on January 18, 2007.
This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 7, July 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/
2007/7-878–886/$25.00.
and demand seem to be a particularly appropriate tool in slope
stability analysis. A number of workers 共Hassan and Wolff 1999;
Chowdhury and Grivas 1982; Christian et al. 1994; Low 2003;
Low and Tang 1997兲 have proposed reliability-based approaches
to slope stability problems. However, as noted by Whitman
共1984兲 in a concise treatment of such approaches, practicing geo-
technical engineers appear reluctant to adopt these approaches.
This stems partly from a perceived deficit of understanding of
probability and statistics among designers. Although the associ-
ated theory is taught in all undergraduate programs, it is rarely
applied to practical geotechnical problems.
Despite this, the structural engineering community has been
more progressive in the application of probabilistic approaches in
design codes. An additional restriction on widespread application
in geotechnics is that the nonlinear form of performance functions
typically used in design results in mathematical complexity in
their implementation. This has led to reliability methods being
partially applied to design problems, for example, to locate the
critical slip surface of a slope with fixed shear strength parameters
and then to determine the reliability of a slope simply by exam-
ining the effect of varying the soil shear strength on the slip
surface located with a traditional deterministic approach. Such
decoupling of the search for the critical slip surface and reliability
of a given slope is unlikely to determine the true slope reliability.
In this paper, a method of simultaneously locating the critical
slip surface and determining the reliability of a slope is presented.
By transforming the variables, such as soil strength parameters
into polar coordinates, the complexities associated with defining
the limit state function can be overcome. The determination of the
reliability index and associated slip surface is formulated as a
nonlinear programming problem and solved in a powerful and
efficient genetic algorithm environment.
Reliability-Based Design
The key benefit of reliability analysis is that uncertainty regarding
the components of both the capacity 共C兲, and the demand 共D兲 can

878 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(7): 878-886

 Fig. 1. Relationship between reliability index and probability of
failure
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

be included in the assessment of the response of the structure. The

limit-state function 共or performance function兲 of a structure is
given by
Fig. 2. Limit state and reliability index in orthogonal and polar
g共X兲 = C − D 共2兲 coordinates
Both C and D are usually functions of a number of random
variables for which the limit-state function can be written as index, the limit-state function may be approximated by a Taylor
g共X兲 = g共x1,x2,x3, . . . ,xn兲 共3兲 series expansion. Using only first-order 共linear兲 terms, the
reliability index for uncorrelated variables can be expressed as
where 共x1 , x2 , . . . , xn兲⫽vector of the basic random variables rep- 共Harr 1987兲
resenting the uncertain parameters of the slope, such as external
loading, unit weight of soil, shear strength characteristics, etc. E关FS兴 − 1 FS关E共xi兲兴 − 1

冑兺 冋 册
␤= = 共7兲
␴关FS兴 n
⳵ FS 2

Reliability Analysis ␴ 关xi兴

2

Two indices are usually adopted in evaluating the reliability of a
system: Probability of failure and reliability index.
The probability of failure 共P f 兲 of the slope is defined as the
probability that the demand will equal or exceed capacity
P f = P关g共x兲 艋 0兴 共4兲
The probability of failure can be expressed as 共Kottegoda and
Rosso 1997兲
冕
Pf = f共X兲dX 共5兲
g共X兲艋0
where 关X兴⫽vector of random variables; and f共X兲⫽probability
density function 共likely range of values兲 of the random variables.
The probability integral in Eq. 共5兲 cannot usually be solved ana-
lytically, and therefore numerical methods are often used to find
the solution.
The reliability index 共␤兲 was developed to evaluate the com-
parative reliability of a system when the exact probability distri-
bution function is not known. If the capacity and demand are
assumed to be normally distributed, the limit-state function is also
normally distributed, and the reliability index can be simply de-
fined as the distance by which the mean or expected value of the
performance function 共E关g共X兲兴兲 exceeds zero in units of standard
deviation 共␴关X兴兲 共Fig. 1兲. Assuming that capacity and demand are
independent variables, the reliability index can be expressed as
E关g共X兲兴 E共C − D兲
␤= = 共6兲
␴关g共X兲兴 冑␴ 共C兲 + ␴2共D兲
2 xi =
i=1 ⳵ xi
where E关FS兴 and ␴关FS兴⫽mean and standard deviation of the FS,
respectively, and E共xi兲 and ␴共xi兲 are the mean value and standard
deviation of the variable 共xi兲. This approach is known as the first-
order second-moment 共FOSM兲 method. Bhattacharya et al. 共2003兲
note that the partial derivatives in Eq. 共7兲 are usually calculated
numerically with the equation
⳵ FS FS+ − FS−
共8兲
=
⳵ xi 2m␴关xi兴
where FS+ and FS−⫽values of FS obtained by using parameter
values greater and less than the mean value by an increment
m␴共xi兲, respectively. The constant m is typically assumed to be
unity 共Hassan and Wolff 1999兲.
Due to its relative simplicity, the FOSM approach is widely
used. However, USACE 共1999兲 and others have noted several
disadvantages associated with FOSM, the most significant being
the lack of invariance of the approach for nonlinear performance
functions 共Low 1996; Paikowsky et al. 2004兲.
Hasofer–Lind Method
An invariant approach to calculate ␤ was proposed by Hasofer
and Lind 共1974兲. In this method, the random variables are trans-
formed into nondimensional 共reduced兲 variables using the mean
value and standard deviation
xi − E关xi兴
␴关xi兴
; 共i = 1,2, . . . . . ,n兲 共9兲

The limit-state function can be rewritten as

FOSM Method
In slope stability analyses, where the shearing resistance of the
soil is compared to the applied stress along a failure surface, the
limit state is indicated when FS− 1 = 0. To find the reliability
g共X̄兲 = g共x̄1,x̄2,x̄3, . . . ,x̄n兲 共10兲
In the reduced variable space, the limit-state surface
共g共X̄兲 = 0兲 separates safe and unsafe states 共Fig. 2兲, and the

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007 / 879

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(7): 878-886

 Hasofer-Lind reliability index 共␤HL兲 can be defined as the dis-
tance from the origin to the most probable failure or design point.
This distance can be described as

␤HL = min兵共X̄兲TX̄其1/2 共11兲

¯X苸⌿

where 共X̄兲⫽vector representing the set of reduced random vari-

ables; and ⌿⫽failure region defined by g共X̄兲 = 0.
As noted in USACE 共1999兲 and Low 共1996兲, due to the com-
plex and implicit limit-state functions used to estimate geotechni-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cal capacity, many published analyses of geotechnical problems

Fig. 3. Model slope with k layers
have not used the Hasofer-Lind method. Notable exceptions are
Juang et al. 共2000兲, Low 共1997, 2003兲, and Low and Tang 共1997兲.
In these approaches, determination of the shortest distance from cos ␪1 cos ␪2 ¯ cos ␪N−2 sin ␪N−1 = ␻2
the origin to the design point is typically based on the cosine
directional search of the limit-state surface. Val et al. 共1996兲 high-
cos ␪1 cos ␪2 ¯ sin ␪N−2 = ␻3
lighted the computational inefficiencies of this method and noted
a tendency for identification of local minima resulting in failure to
¯
locate the true ␤ value.
Although the use of full population iterative procedures, such
as the Monte Carlo or genetic algorithm approach, overcomes this cos ␪1 sin ␪2 = ␻N−1
problem, the solution proposed by Val et al. 共1996兲 of transform-
ing the normalized variables from rectangular to polar coordinates sin ␪1 = ␻N 共14兲
is presented here as it facilitates the formulation of the objective Eq. 共12兲 can be rewritten as
function, which incorporates both soil properties and the slip-
surface profile, in the optimization problem presented in the x̄i = r␻i ; i = 1,2, . . . ,N 共15兲
following section. In addition, Lee et al. 共2007兲 noted that trans- Clearly, we have
forming the reliability index into polar coordinates resulted in
computational efficiencies. r = 共X̄TX̄兲1/2 共16兲
The problem of finding the minimum distance from the origin
Proposed Reliability Model of the reduced variable space to the design point is an optimiza-
tion problem with the limit-state function as the implicit equality
constraint 共Cui and Sheng 2005兲 and can be stated as
Reliability Index in Polar Coordinates
Minimize r, subject to: g共r,␪兲 = 0 共17兲
The polar coordinates of the design point 共x, y; see Fig. 2兲 can be
described using the radial distance 共r兲 and polar angle 共␪兲 as
x = r cos ␪, and y = r sin ␪. Proposed Numerical Model
Val et al. 共1996兲 show that this can be easily extended to
consider a large number of variables 共N兲 Nonlinear Programming Function
x̄1 = r cos ␪1 cos ␪2 ¯ cos ␪N−2 cos ␪N−1 A model to simultaneously find the reliability index and the criti-
cal probabilistic slip surface of a slope is developed in this
section. A stratified slope with k layers is considered in Fig. 3.
x̄2 = r cos ␪1 cos ␪2 ¯ cos ␪N−2 sin ␪N−1
Dividing the slope into n slices, using the simplified Bishop’s
method with a noncircular failure surface 共Pan 1980; Xue 2007;
x̄2 = r cos ␪1 cos ␪2 ¯ sin ␪N−2 Zou 1989兲, and considering the equilibrium of a slice, the FS of a
slope can be written as
¯ n

x̄N−1 = r cos ␪1 sin ␪2

兺
i=1
关ci⌬xi + 共Wi − Ui兲tan共␾i兲兴共sec2 ␣i/1 + tan共␾i兲tan ␣i/FS兲
FS = n

x̄N = r sin ␪1 共12兲 兺

i=1
共Wi tan ␣i兲
where 共x̄1 , x̄2 , . . . , x̄N兲 are rectangular coordinates, while
共18兲
共r , ␪1 , ␪2 , . . . , ␪N−1兲 are the polar coordinates where
where Wi⫽weight of ith slice, a function of unit weight of soil
共− 1/2兲␲ 艋 ␪i 艋 共1/2兲␲; 共i = 1,2, . . . N − 2兲; and width and height of slice; Ui⫽force due to water pressure
acting on bottom of ith slice; ci⫽cohesion of soil on bottom of ith
0 艋 ␪N−1 艋 2␲ 共13兲 slice; ␾i⫽friction angle of soil on bottom of ith slice;
Setting: ␣i⫽tangential inclination on base of ith slice; xi, y i⫽coordinates
at bottom of ith slice, shown in Fig. 3; and ⌬xi⫽slice width 共note
cos ␪1 cos ␪2 ¯ cos ␪N−2 cos ␪N−1 = ␻1 that all slice widths are assumed to be even兲.

880 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(7): 878-886

 At the limit state 共FS兲 is 1, and therefore the limit state of the tan共␾m兲 = E关tan共␾m兲兴 + r␻k+m␴关tan共␾m兲兴
slope can be expressed as
= E关tan共␾m兲兴 + r␴
¯ 关tan共␾m兲兴
g共c,␾,x,y兲 = FS − 1 m = 1,2, . . . ,k 共20兲
n where k⫽number of layers in the slope.
sec2 ␣
兺
i=1
关ci⌬xi + 共Wi − Ui兲tan共␾i兲兴
i
1 + tan共␾i兲tan ␣i
For E关f共x兲兴 = f共E关x兴兲 and ␴关f共x兲兴 = 关f共E关x兴兲兴⬘␴共x兲, we have
= n −1 E关tan共␾兲兴 = tan共E关␾兴兲
兺
i=1
共Wi tan ␣i兲
␴关tan共␾兲兴 = 关tan共E关␾兴兲兴⬘␴共␾兲 = 关sec2共E关␾兴兲兴␴共␾兲 共21兲
共19兲 and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Considering the shear strength parameters c and ␾ to be nor- tan共␾m兲 = tan共E关␾m兴兲 + r␻k+m关sec2共E关␾m兴兲兴␴共␾m兲
mally distributed and independent random variables and transfer- = tan共E关␾m兴兲 + r关sec2共E关␾m兴兲兴␴
¯ 共␾m兲
ring them into polar coordinates with Eq. 共12兲, we obtain the
design value of these variables m = 1,2, . . . ,k
Substituting Eq. 共21兲 into Eq. 共19兲, and rewriting Eq. 共19兲, we
cl = E共cl兲 + r␻l␴共cl兲 = E共cl兲 + r␴
¯ 共cl兲 l = 1,2, . . . ,k get

n n

兺
i=1
兵关E共ci兲兴⌬xi + 共Wi − Ui兲关E共tan ␾i兲兴其共sec 2
␣i/1 + tan ␾i tan ␣i兲 − 兺
i=1
共Wi tan ␣i兲
r= n 共22兲
兺
i=1
兵␴
¯ 共ci兲⌬xi + 共Wi − Ui兲关sec 共E关␾i兴兲兴␴
2
¯ 共␾i兲其共sec 2
␣i/1 + tan ␾i tan ␣i兲

The variables in this equation are composed of two parts; the
first describes the soil properties 共␪1 , ␪2 , . . . , ␪2k−1兲, and the sec-
ond defines the profile of the slip surface 共x0 , y 1 , y 2 , . . . , y n−1 , xn兲.
Combining these, the reliability index ␤ = min共r兲 can be expressed
as a function of 关X兴 = X共␪1 , ␪2 , . . . , ␪2k−1 , x0 , y 1 , y 2 , . . . , y n−1 , xn兲.
Therefore, for a given vector 关X兴, the reliability index ␤ and the
critical slip surface can be obtained simultaneously. This is a con-
strained nonlinear programming problem and can be expressed
numerically as
recommended by Whitman and Bailey 共1967兲: sec ␣i /
1 + tan ␾i tan ␣i 艌 0.2; 共i = 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . , n − 1兲.
Because of the assumption that the soil properties are normally
distributed, there is a possibility that soil properties will be as-
signed values less than zero. To prevent this, the following con-
straints should be satisfied: ci = E共ci兲 + r␻i␴共ci兲 艌 0; i = 1 , 2 , . . . , k;
tan共␾i兲 = E关tan共␾i兲兴 + r␻k+i␴关tan共␾i兲兴 艌 0; i = 1 , 2 , . . . , k.
The constraints of the problem can be summarized as follows:

冦
共− 1/2兲␲ 艋 ␪i 艋 共1/2兲␲ 共i = 1,2, . . . ,2k − 2兲
Minimize r共X兲where 0 艋 ␪2k−1 艋 2␲
关X兴 = X共␪1,␪2, . . . ,␪2k−1,x0,y 1,y 2, . . . ,y n−1,xn兲 xn − x0 艌 0
sec ␣i
subject to 关X兴 苸 ⍀ 艌 0.2 共i = 0,1,2, . . . ,n − 1兲
1 + tan ␾i tan ␣i
where ⍀⫽variable space. px共xi兲 − y i 艌 0 共i = 1,2, . . . ,n − 1兲
yi − H 艌 0 共i = 1,2, . . . ,n − 1兲
Constraints of Problem
For any slip surface, we have the following constraints: E共ci兲 + r␻i␴共ci兲 艌 0 共i = 1,2, . . . ,k兲
1. A slip surface must have positive length: xn 艌 x0; E关tan共␾i兲兴 + r␻k+i␴关tan共␾i兲兴 艌 0; 共i = 1,2, . . . ,k兲
2. The slip surface cannot lie above the ground surface: y i 共23兲
艋 px共xi兲 , 共i = 1 , 2 , . . . , n − 1兲, where px共x兲 is the function de-
scribing the geometry of the ground surface;
3. The slip surface must remain above the lower boundary of
the region we define for the analysis. For example, for a Genetic Algorithm
search region with a lower boundary of y 艌 H, as shown
in Fig. 3, we have these constraints: y i 艌 H, 共i = 0 , 1 , The problem outlined in the previous section is a multidimen-
2 , . . . , n兲; and sional nonlinear optimization problem. For example, for a two-
4. The term 共1 + tan ␾i tan ␣i兲 can become zero or negative layer slope, there will be four random variables 共c1, ␾1, c2, and
near the toe of a steeply inclined slip surface when ␣ has ␾2兲. In turn, there will be three variables to describe the properties
large negative values and tan ␾i is nonzero. Therefore, as of the soils 共␪1, ␪2, and ␪3兲 in Eq. 共12兲. In the simplified Bishop’s

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007 / 881

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(7): 878-886


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Flow chart of genetic algorithm method in this paper
method, if the slope is divided into six slices, there will be seven
variables 共x0 , y 1 , y 2 , . . . , y 5 , x6兲 to describe the slip surface. There-
fore, in total there will be ten variables.
The genetic algorithm has been proven to be an efficient
method of solving such complex problems in a range of engineer-
ing applications. The genetic algorithm is an approach based on
the concepts of natural biological evolution. The method has been
applied to slope stability problems to determine the critical failure
surface by Goh 共1999兲, Xue 共2002兲, and Zolfaghari et al. 共2005兲,
among others. It functions by generating a large set of possible
solutions to a given problem. These solutions are randomly se-
lected from the variable space 共which variables are analogous to
chromosomes兲.
A value for fitness is assigned to each solution 共chromosome兲.
If the solution does not meet some predetermined criteria, a new
generation 共of possible solutions兲 is produced. Those chromo-
somes with higher fitness 共i.e., that lie closer to the actual solution
of the problem兲 are more likely to reproduce offspring. Offspring
are created through processes called “crossover” and “mutation.”
Crossover is a simulation of the exchange of genes from two
random 共parent兲 solutions. Chromosomes from the parents are
split at a random point and merged to form a child. Mutation is
used to maintain diversity in the population and involves switch-
ing a single variable in a chromosome.
The analysis described in this paper is implemented using a
program, genetic algorithm for slope stability analysis 共GASSA兲,
written in Visual C++. A flow chart detailing the operation of the
program is shown in Fig. 4. The variables, which define the slip
surface and soil properties, are encoded into chromosomes with
real-coded methods. The fitness of each chromosome is deter-
mined using the objective function, and the fitness of all solutions
is compared. In the nonlinear programming problem considered
in this paper, higher fitness is reflected by a low calculated value
for reliability index 共␤兲. A solution is achieved when the genera-
tion converges to a solution, where the coefficient of variation
共COV兲 of ␤ is less than a designated value 共0.001 in this paper兲.
Application to Case Histories
In the following section, a number of slopes from the literature
are analyzed to investigate the performance of the new method.
The cases considered range from benchmark 共idealized兲 soil pro-
882 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(7): 878-886
Table 1. Comparison of Results for Reliability Index of Example 1
Malkawi
Monte This
Method of slices FOSM Carlo paper
Noncircular simplified Bishop 3.3
Circular simplified Bishop 4.3 4.3
Ordinary or Fellenius 3.5 3.5
Janbu’s simplified 3.6 3.0
Spencer’s method 3.5 5.5
files to real slope failures. Comparison is made with previously
published estimates of reliability for each slope. Although this is
not a rigorous test to determine the validity of the proposed code,
the determination of lower ␤ values than previous solution tech-
niques indicates improved performance.
Case Study 1: Comparison with Monte Carlo
Simulation
The Monte Carlo simulation method 共MCSM兲 is a powerful tool
in probabilistic analysis that uses random number generators to
produce random variables with which full population-based
searches may be undertaken. It has been applied by Greco 共1996兲
and Malkawi et al. 共2001兲 in slope stability analysis. Despite its
benefits, Baecher and Christian 共2003兲 and USACE 共1999兲 note
several disadvantages associated with the technique. These in-
clude difficulties associated with programming implicit functions,
where the accuracy of the method is proportional to the square
root of the number of iterations—resulting in greatly increased
cost when improvements in accuracy are required and concerns
regarding the reliability and universal applicability of random
number generators.
Malkawi et al. 共2000兲 performed a comparison of ␤ values
calculated using FOSM and MCSM for a simple homogeneous
5 m high embankment with 2:1 soil slopes. The mean soil param-
eters adopted were c = 10 kPa, ␾ = 10°, and ␥ = 17.63 kN/ m3, and
the COVs were 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01 for the cohesion, friction
angle, and unit weight, respectively. Four slope stability methods
were employed to establish the limit-state function, the ordinary
method of slices, Bishop, Janbu, and Spencer’s methods.
The ␤ values calculated by Malkawi et al. 共2000兲 are com-
pared to a prediction performed using GASSA in Table 1, while
graphical output of the critical slip surface predicted using
GASSA is shown in Fig. 5. Malkawi et al. 共2000兲 noted that all
stability analysis methods predict different ␤ values, with Janbu
Fig. 5. Slip surface of Example 1 predicted using GASSA
 Table 3. Comparison of Reliability Using Different Approaches for
Example 2
A.M. Hassan
Case ␤FS ␤f Bhattacharya This paper
A 4.442 2.869 2.861 2.008
B 2.532 1.333 0.991
C 2.869 2.869 1.920
D 1.333 1.333 0.980
Fig. 6. Profile of slope in Example 2 共adapted from Hassan and E 1.644 1.613 1.148
Wolff 1999兲 F 1.540 1.540 1.105
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

G 4.597 4.203 4.088

H 2.235 1.951 2.102
predicting the lowest and Spencer’s method predicting the high- I 1.335 1.328 1.285
est. In general, the FOSM and MCSM obtained similar 共if not J 0.554 0.554 0.319
equal兲 results, the exception being Spencer’s method. Malkawi
K 1.641 1.333 0.958
et al. 共2000兲 reported difficulty implementing this analysis due to
L 1.012 0.864 0.451
the difficulty of evaluating derivatives for the nonlinear formula-
M 2.600 1.333 0.849
tion of the safety factor. The prediction using Bishop’s simplified
method implemented in GASSA is seen to predict a ␤ value to- N 4.764 1.957 0.995
ward the lower end of the range of values obtained with FOSM
and MCSM, and significantly below the prediction using Bishop’s using a floating-surface approach. In this latter method, one of the
method implemented in MCSM in Table 1. Note that the stability soil strength parameters is set to a low value and a number of
model in GASSA is somewhat different as it allows noncircular possible slip surfaces are identified. A full probabilistic analysis
slip surfaces and does not allow the unit weight of the soil to be of each of these trial surfaces results in the determination of ␤.
treated as a random variable, and therefore the COV for this Reliability indices determined using GASSA are compared
parameter is zero. with those of Hassan and Wolff 共1999兲 and Bhattacharya et al.
共2003兲 in Table 3 and Fig. 7, where it is seen that, with the
Case Study 2: Benchmark Two-Layer Slope exception of one case 共Case H兲, predictions using GASSA are
lower than all other estimates for all combinations of soil strength
A two-layer embankment with a 2:1 slope described by Hassan 共Cases A–N兲. Graphical output for Case A, where undrained
and Wolff 共1999兲 was chosen as it is similar 共in geometry兲 to strength parameters are assigned for the embankment fill, while
many highway embankments constructed in the U.K. and Ireland the underlying parent soil is treated as a c-␾ soil is shown in
in recent years. The slope shown in Fig. 6 was also analyzed by Fig. 8, and for Case K, where undrained conditions with equal
Bhattacharya et al. 共2003兲. No pore-water pressures are consid- mean strength is assumed for both layers 共with higher COV for
ered in the analysis. A range of 14 combinations of drained and the embankment soil兲, is shown in Fig. 9. It appears that the shape
undrained soil strength parameters 共Cases A–N兲 considered by of the slip surface determined with GASSA is reasonable and
Hassan and Wolff 共1999兲 are shown in Table 2. similar in profile to that proposed by Hassan and Wolff 共1999兲.
Hassan and Wolff 共1999兲 compared the reliability index of the Differences in calculated ␤ values may arise for a number of
slip surface obtained with a deterministic approach using mean reasons: 共1兲 Hassan and Wolff 共1999兲 assume a circular slip sur-
soil parameters 共␤FS兲 to the reliability index 共␤ f 兲 determined face; 共2兲 the floating surface approach is unlikely to find the slip
surface with “minimum” ␤ value; and 共3兲 inaccuracy is associated
Table 2. Soil Properties for Example 2
with the numerical approximation of the partial derivatives in the
FOSM method.
Soil 1 共embankment兲 Soil 2 共in situ soil兲
c c
Case 共kPa兲 COV ␾ 共°兲 COV 共kPa兲 COV ␾ 共°兲 COV
A 38.31 0.2 0 0 23.94 0.2 12 0.1
B 38.31 0.4 0 0 23.94 0.2 12 0.1
C 38.31 0.2 0 0 0 0 30 0.1
D 38.31 0.4 0 0 0 0 30 0.1
E 23.94 0.2 12 0.1 38.31 0.2 0 0
F 23.94 0.4 12 0.1 38.31 0.2 0 0
G 23.94 0.2 12 0.1 0 0 30 0.1
H 23.94 0.4 12 0.1 0 0 30 0.2
I 0 0 30 0.1 38.31 0.2 0 0
J 0 0 30 0.2 38.31 0.4 0 0
K 38.31 0.4 0 0 38.31 0.2 0 0
L 38.31 0.2 0 0 38.31 0.4 0 0
M 38.31 0.4 0 0 47.88 0.4 0 0
N 23.94 0.4 12 0.1 47.88 0.4 0 0 Fig. 7. Comparison of ␤ values for Example 2

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007 / 883

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(7): 878-886

 Table 4. Soil Properties in Example 3 共Adapted from Liang et al. 1999兲
Mean
Material type Properties value COV
Sand and miscellaneous fill ␥ 共kN/ m 兲
3
17.28 0
␾ 共°兲 30 0
c 共kPa兲 0 0
Stiff gritty blue clay 共upper layer兲 ␥ 共kN/ m3兲 20.75 0
␾ 共°兲 0 0
c 共kPa兲 50.77 0.51
Medium gritty blue clay 共middle layer兲 ␥ 共kN/ m3兲 20.11 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

␾ 共°兲 0 0
c 共kPa兲 29.69 0.26
Fig. 8. Comparison of slip surfaces for Case A in Example 2 Medium gritty blue clay 共lower layer兲 ␥ 共kN/ m3兲 20.11 0
␾ 共°兲 0 0
Historic Slope Study „Example 3… c 共kPa兲 37.36 0.32

As part of the construction of the Congress Street superhighway

in Chicago, an ⬇14 m deep-benched cutting was undertaken 共Fig.
10兲. A large rotational slope failure occurred during construction
on the south side of the open cut. The failure is described in detail
by Ireland 共1954兲. The excavation was taken through a 3.3 m
layer of sand and fill, and a 13.2 m thick stiff blue clay layer
underlain by stiff to very stiff clay. The stiff clay layer in which
the failure occurred was divided into three sublayers based on the
soil consistency 共Ireland 1954兲; an upper layer described as stiff
gritty clay, a middle layer described as medium gritty blue clay,
and a lower medium gritty blue clay. Details of the engineering
parameters of the soil are contained in Ireland 共1954兲.
The failure occurred suddenly in the saturated stiff clay, and
therefore undrained analysis is appropriate 共Skempton and Hutch-
inson 1969兲. Because of the detailed description of the failure and
soil properties available, the slide has been back-analyzed by a
number of authors and further details are available in Liang et al.
共1999兲, Chowdhury and Xu 共1995兲, and others. Measurements of
undrained strength were made on samples obtained from
50.8 mm 共2 in.兲 diameter Shelby sampling tubes. Ireland 共1954兲,
recognizing the gross disturbance associated with these samples
and the natural variability of the local soils, performed a statistical
analysis of FS by assigning large standard deviations to the mean
shear strength data in a total stress analysis. In the application of
GASSA, we have assumed the same normally distributed soil
properties as described by Liang et al. 共1999兲, in which the und-
rained strength varied from 29.69 to 50.77 kPa and the COV
ranged from 0.26 to 0.51, as shown in Table 4.
Graphical results of the analysis are shown in Fig. 11, where it
is seen that the shape of the failure surface predicted is similar to
the actual failure surface. The calculated ␤ value of zero corre-
sponds to a probability of failure of 50%. Because of the defini-
tion of failure adopted in the derivation of the method, it is not
possible to predict ␤ ⬍ 0. Having made the assumption that FS is
normally distributed, the lowest P f that can be calculated is 50%.
This value is close to the range of 35–40% reported by Liang
et al. 共1999兲 and suggests a very high likelihood of failure for the
given slope.

Conclusion

Fig. 9. Comparison of slip surfaces for Case K in Example 2 A new method of analyzing slope stability problems, which si-
multaneously locates the critical slip surface and the reliability

Fig. 10. Cross section of cut and actual slip surface at Congress Fig. 11. Comparison of predicted and actual slip surface for
Street 共adapted from Liang et al. 1999兲 Congress Street cut

884 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(7): 878-886

 index of a slope, is presented. The soil properties are considered
as random variables and analyzed with probabilistic theory. By
considering these variables in polar coordinates, the reliability
index defined with the Hasofer-Lind method is formulated as a
function of the soil properties and the slip surface. The determi-
nation of the reliability index and critical slip surface is translated
into a nonlinear programming problem. With the powerful genetic
algorithm method, the problem can be solved easily and effi-
ciently 共about 10 s with a DELL Dimension 2400 personal com-
puter兲. The reliability index and critical slip surface are found
simultaneously.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The method performed well in comparison to FOSM and
Monte Carlo simulations when calculating the reliability of case
histories of slope failures from the literature. Possible shortcom-
ings of the method include the implementation of the simplified
Bishop’s method, which means that moment equilibrium cannot
be satisfied and the assumption that the variables considered in
the analysis are independent is questionable. Later versions of
the software will allow the user to specify a preferred slope sta-
bility analysis approach and include the specification of correlated
variables.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by Iarnród Éireann. The writers wish to
thank Mr. Brian Garvey, chief civil engineer with Iarnród Éire-
ann, for technical and financial assistance. The first writer was the
recipient of a Geotechnical Trust Fund award from the Geotech-
nical Society of Ireland. The writers also wish to acknowledge the
detailed comments provided by the reviewers of the paper.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
C ⫽ capacity 共slope resistance兲;
c ⫽ cohesion of soils;
D ⫽ demand 共disturbing force兲;
E共X兲 ⫽ mean value of vector X;
g共X兲 ⫽ limit-state function defined with vector 关X兴;
g共X̄兲 ⫽ limit-state function defined with reduced variables;
r ⫽ radius in polar coordinate;
Ui ⫽ force due to water pressure acting on bottom of ith
slice of slopes;
Wi ⫽ weight of ith slice of slopes;
X ⫽ vector of variables;
X̄ ⫽ vector of reduced variables;
共x , y兲 ⫽ variables define position of slip surface;
␣i ⫽ tangential inclination on base of ith slice of slopes;
␤ ⫽ reliability index;
␤ f ⫽ reliability index obtained with floating surface
method;
␤FS ⫽ reliability index based on the slip surface of
minimum FS;
␤HL ⫽ reliability index defined with Hasofer-Lind method;
␥ ⫽ unit weight of soils;
⌬xi ⫽ slice width;
⳵ ⫽ partial differential;
␪ ⫽ angle in polar coordinate;
␴共X兲 ⫽ standard deviation of vector X;
␾ ⫽ friction angle of soils;
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007 / 885
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(7): 878-886
⌿ ⫽ failure space in defining reliability index; and
⍀ ⫽ variable space in reliability model.
References
Baecher, G. B., and Christian, J. T. 共2003兲. Reliability and statistics in
geotechnical engineering, Wiley, New York.
Bhattacharya, G., Jana, D., Ojha, S., and Chakraborty, S. 共2003兲. “Direct
search for minimum reliability index of earth slopes.” Comput. Geo-
tech., 30, 445–462.
Chowdhury, R. N., and Grivas, D. A. 共1982兲. “Probabilistic model of
progressive failure of slopes.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 108共6兲,
803–819.
Chowdhury, R. N., and Xu, D. W. 共1995兲. “Geotechnical system reliabil-
ity of slopes.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 47, 141–151.
Christian, J. T., Ladd, C. C., and Baecher, G. B. 共1994兲. “Reliability
applied to slope stability analysis.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 120共12兲,
2180–2207.
Cui, L., and Sheng, D. 共2005兲. “Genetic algorithms in probabilistic finite
element analysis of geotechnical problems.” Comput. Geotech., 32,
555–563.
Goh, A. T. C. 共1999兲. “Genetic algorithm search for critical slip surface in
multiple-wedge stability analysis.” Can. Geotech. J., 36 382–391.
Greco, V. R. 共1996兲. “Efficient Monte Carlo technique for locating critical
slip surface.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 122共7兲, 517–525.
Harr, M. E. 共1987兲. Reliability-based design in civil engineering,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hasofer, A. M., and Lind, N. C. 共1974兲. “Exact and invariant second-
moment code format.” J. Engrg. Mech. Div., 100共1兲, 111–121.
Hassan, A. M., and Wolff, T. F. 共1999兲. “Search algorithm for minimum
reliability index of earth slopes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
125共4兲, 301–308.
Ireland, H. O. 共1954兲. “Stability analysis of the Congress Street open cut
in Chicago.” Geotechnique, 4, 163–168.
Juang, C. H., Chen, C. J., Rosowsky, D. V., and Tang, W. H. 共2000兲.
“CPT-based liquefaction analysis. 2: Reliability for design.” Geotech-
nique, 50共5兲, 593–599.
Kottegoda, N. T., and Rosso, R. 共1997兲. Statistics, probability, and reli-
ability for civil and environmental engineering, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Lee, Y.-F., Chi, Y. Y., Lee, D. H., Juang, C. H., and Wu, J. H. 共2007兲.
“Simplified models for assessing annual liquefaction probability—A
case study of the Yuanlin area, Taiwan.” Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam), in
press.
Liang, R. Y., Nusier, O. K., and Malkawi, A. H. 共1999兲. “A reliability
based approach for evaluating the slope stability of embankment
dams.” Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam), 54, 271–285.
Low, B. K. 共1996兲. “Practical probabilistic approach using spreadsheet.”
Uncertainty in the geologic environment: From theory to practice,
C. D. Shakelford, P. P. Nelson, and M. J. S. Roth, eds., ASCE, New
York, 1284–1302.
Low, B. K. 共1997兲. “Reliability analysis of rock wedges.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 123共6兲, 498–505.
Low, B. K. 共2003兲. “Practical probabilistic slope stability analysis.”
Proc., Soil and Rock America 2003, 12th Pan-America Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, and 39th U.S. Rock Me-
chanics Symp., MIT, Cambridge, Mass., 2777–2784.
Low, B. K., and Tang, W. H. 共1997兲. “Reliability analysis of reinforced
embankments on soft ground.” Can. Geotech. J., 34, 672–685.
Malkawi, A. I. H., Hassan, W. F., and Abdulla, F. A. 共2000兲. “Uncertainty
and reliability analysis applied to slope stability.” Struct. Safety, 22,
161–187.
Malkawi, A. H., Hassan, W. F., and Sarma, S. K. 共2001兲. “Global search
method for locating general slip surface using Monte Carlo tech-
niques.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127共8兲, 688–698.
Paikowsky, S. G., Birgisson, B., Mcvay, M., and Nguyen, T. 共2004兲.
 “Load and resistance factor design 共LRFD兲 for deep foundations.”
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Pan, J. Z. 共1980兲. Antislide of buildings and slope stability analysis, Hy-
draulic Publisher, Beijing 共in Chinese兲.
Skempton, A. W., and Hutchinson, J. N. 共1969兲. “Stability of natural
conditions, the reliability index value of the slopes and embankment
foundations.” Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 共USACE兲. 共1999兲. “Risk-based analysis in
geotechnical engineering for support of planning studies.” ETL 1110-
2-556, Appendix A, A1–A23, Vicksburg, Miss.
Val, D., Bljuger, F., and Yankelevsky, D. 共1996兲. “Optimization problem
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 06/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
solution in reliability analysis of reinforced concrete structures.”
Comput. Struct., 60共3兲, 351–355.
Whitman, R. V. 共1984兲. “Evaluating calculated risk in geotechnical engi-
886 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2007, 133(7): 878-886
neering.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 110共2兲, 143–188.
Whitman, R. V., and Bailey, W. A. 共1967兲. “Use of computer for slope
stability analysis.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 93共4兲, 475–498.
Xue, J. F. 共2002兲. “Stability analysis with genetic algorithm and reliability
study of earth slopes under earthquake.” MEng thesis, HuaQiao Univ.,
Quanzhou, China.
Xue, J. F. 共2007兲. “Reliability analysis and the simulation of rainfall
infiltration into partly saturated soil slopes.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Col-
lege Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Zolfaghari, A. R., Heath, A. C., and McCombie, P. F. 共2005兲. “Simple
genetic algorithm search for critical non-circular failure surface in
slope stability analysis.” Comput. Geotech., 32, 139–152.
Zou, G. D. 共1989兲. “Optimum method in complex earth slope stability
analysis.” Chinese J. Hydraulic Engineering, 20共2兲, 55–60.