Reliability Engineering and System Saf~'ty 4"/(1995) 141-151

© 1994 Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Northern Ireland. All rights reserved
EI. SEVIER 0951-8320(94)00063-8 0951-8320/95/$9.5!1

Geotechnicai system reliability of slopes

R. N. Chowdhury & D. W. Xu
Department of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of Wolhmgong, P.O. Box 1144, Wollongong, 2500 NSW, Australia

(Received 22 September 1994: accepted 28 September 1994)

In slope stability analysis it is customary to search for the critical slip surface
considering the conventional factor of safety as an index of stability. With the
development of reliability analysis approaches within a probabilistic frame-
work, alternative definitions of the critical slip surface can be adopted. Thus
one may define a critical slip surface as one with the lowest reliability index or
one with the highest probability of failure. However, it is important to consider
the slope stability problem in terms of a system of many potential slip surfaces.
For such a system, the calculation of system reliability is appropriate and
desirable. In this paper, system reliability bounds are calculated within a
probabilistic framework. The 'system reliability' or the "system probability of
failure" must be estimated for comparison with the corresponding reliability or
probability of failure with respect to a 'critical' slip surface. The general slope
stability problem involving non-zero internal friction angle involves a non-
linear performance function. Moreover, the expression for factor of safety is
usually inexplicit except for the ordinary method of slices which is not accurate
except when "4, = 0'. This paper addresses the system reliability for inexplicit
and non-linear performance functions as well as for linear and explicit ones.
Any version of the method of slices may be used although the proposed
approach is presented on the basis of the Bishop simplified method. It is shown
that the upper bound of system failure probability is higher than the failure
probability associated with a critical slip surface. The difference increases as
the coefficient of variation of the shear strength parameters increases.

INTRODUCTION T h e r e is no one-to-one correspondence between the

A m o n g geotechnical engineers there is now, after
more than two decades of assessment, an increasing
appreciation of the fact that significant uncertainties
are associated with slope stability problems and that
these uncertainties often can not be r e m o v e d by
reasonable investigative effort or expenditure. Analy-
sis has to be p e r f o r m e d with limited or imperfect
information. Moreover, the nature and range of
uncertainties are dependent, amongst other factors, on
the e n v i r o n m e n t and history of a particular slope or
sloping area. Therefore, while deterministic studies
are generally p e r f o r m e d to assess slope stability, the
results of such studies are now recognised to have
limited value. More detailed studies within a
probabilistic f r a m e w o r k are often appropriate and
desirable. For risk studies such analyses are essential
so that significant uncertainties can be identified and
their influence on reliability studied systematically.
The use of a probabilistic approach should not be
regarded merely as the r e p l a c e m e n t of the conven-
tional 'factor of safety' by the 'probability of failure'.
141
calculated values of the factor of safety and those of
the probability of failure. The latter depend on the
probability distributions of various random variables
as well as on their spatial variability. The probability
of failure also incorporates the influence of various
errors including the errors in the assumed geotechni-
cal models.
More importantly, however, probabilistic models
can help develop new perspectives concerning risk and
reliability which are outside the scope of conventional
deterministic methods. This may be so even where the
basic geotechnical models are the widely accepted
ones used in deterministic slope stability, e.g., the
limit equilibrium models. As a striking example of
such a new perspective, V a n m a r c k e ~ presented an
approach for e m b a n k m e n t stability assuming the soil
shear strength as a one-dimensional r a n d o m field. In
such a soil strength model, spatial variability is taken
into consideration. It was shown that a probabilistic
model, developed from classical limit equilibrium
concepts, facilitates the calculation of a most probable
failure length of the e m b a n k m e n t . Such a calculation
142 R. N. Chowdhurv, D. W. Xu
is obviously outside the scope of any deterministic
approach even if the stability of a long embankment is
considered as a three-dimensional problem as was
done by Vanmarcke. ~
One of the advantages of working within a
probabilistic framework is that reliability of a system
can be considered in a logical manner. In this paper,
previous work on system reliability is extended to a
general problem of slope stability.
SYSTEM RELIABILITY A N D ITS
RELEVANCE TO SLOPE STABILITY
Introduction
For a structural or geotechnical system with several
components, the overall reliability will depend not
only on the i-eliabilities or individual components but
also on other factors including the correlations
between different components or elements of the
system. In a similar way, for a geotechnical system
with several potential modes of failure, the overall
reliability will depend on the reliability considering
individual modes of failure as well as the correlations
between the different failure modes. An illustrative
example of 'combinatorial' reliability was presented
by Harr 7 involving a foundation near a slope which is
supported by a retaining wall. Among the many
modes of potential failure, about ten were identified in
that example.
The calculation of combinatorial or system re-
liability in such problems is not easy. However, for
illustration, one may simplify the problem by
considering it as a simple series system (failure occurs
if any element of the system fails) or a parallel system
(the failure of one element of the system leads to
further loading of other elements and consequent
decrease in reliability but the system does not fail
unless all elements fail) or a combination of both. As
Harr 7 showed, the combinatorial probabilities of
failure can vary by many orders of magnitude.
Whereas the assumption of a series system leads to
significantly high failure probabilities, the assumption
of a parallel system leads to extremely low failure
probabilities. Similar examples have been presented
by others (see, for example, Ang & Tang ~).
In geotechnical engineering systems, as in structural
systems, the situation is usually far more complex and
the characterisation of a problem as a series or
parallel system is not justified. Exact mathematical
solutions to the probability of failure or reliability of a
system are difficult to obtain. The problem has,
therefore, been considered in an approximate way by
considering the 'upper bound" and 'lower bound' to
the mathematically exact probability of failure or
reliability. Solutions for such 'bounds' for structural
systems were originally proposed by Cornell 4 and
Moses & Kinser. 1"
The usefulness of these bounds depends on how
close they are to each other and according to
Ditlevsen 6 the original solutions gave rather wide
bounds in many cases. Therefore, a solution for
narrow reliability bounds was presented by Ditlevsen. ~
He showed that the proposed bounds could be
generalized to structural systems with a random
number of potential failure modes.
The general approach to such bounds is now well
known and has, for instance, been incorporated in the
text book by Ang & Tang.
Slope stability
It is customary in soil slope stability problems to
'search' for the critical slip surface on the basis of the
conventional factor of safety. Considering a given
limit equilibrium model as the basis of calculation,
the slip surface with the lowest factor of safety is
characterised as the critical slip surface. Within a
probabilistic framework, a similar 'search' procedure
may be adopted but the critical slip surface could be
defined as that which is associated with the highest
probability of failure or the lowest reliability.
The calculation of the minimum factor of safety or
the minimum reliability based on a single slip surface
means that only one mode of potential failure has
been considered. In reality the slope stability problem
can be considered as a system with many possible
failure modes. Almost two decades back, Cornell ~
pointed out that the overall probability of failure of a
slope with many potential slip surfaces can be greater
than the probability of failure considering any
individual slip surface. The difference between the
system failure probability on the one hand and the
probability of failure considering the critical slip
surface on the other hand will depend on the
correlation between the failure probabilities as-
sociated with various slip surfaces. It is, therefore,
somewhat surprising that procedures for system
reliability studies have so far not been developed for
slopes. The only exception is a recent paper ~ which
presented system reliability analysis for a particular
example in which the factors of safety of several slip
surfaces are poorly correlated. Although the example
involves only a linear and explicit performance
function based on the 'd~ = 0' assumption (applicable
to saturated clays under undrained conditions), the
results indicate that the upper bound of system failure
probability can be significantly higher than the failure
probability associated with a critical slip surface.
Therefore, it is important to develop methods for
dealing with the general slope stability problem
involving both components of shear strength (cohe-
sion and internal friction angle) and in which both
 Geotechnical system reliability o f slopes 143

these components are regarded as random variables. several random variables given by the vector
In this paper, a general procedure is developed which X = (Xi, X: . . . . . X,,). Thus,
can be used for linear as well as non-linear G=G(X) and F=F(X) (la)
performance functions. In general, the performance
function is non-linear and inexplicit when considering Consider a slope above a slip surface of circular
non-zero internal friction angle ~b. The procedure shape to be subdivided into n vertical slices. The i-th
must be able to handle slopes involving several soil slice has a weight Wi and inclination of its base to the
layers with different values of cohesion and internal horizontal is a~. For the '4' = 0' case, the factor of
friction angle. More importantly, any general slope safety of a slope may be defined as the ratio of
stability problem may involve an explicit performance resisting and overturing moments as follows:
and this aspect must be addressed in the reliability
analysis procedure.
• c,I,
i-I
F (2)
~ sin a,
i=l
THE PROPOSED APPROACH FOR SLOPE
RELIABILITY where c~ is the undrained cohesion along the base of
any slice, and 1~is the length of its base.
The basis of the procedure---important elements If there are m soil layers with different undrained
shear strengths c~, c2 . . . . . c,,,, eqn (2) can be
The basis of the proposed approach is the concept of rewritten as:
limit equilibrium. Any popular method of slices,
1
simplified or rigorous, may be used. In this paper, the F- ( c l L l + ceL: 4. . . . ~- c,,,L,,,) (3)
simplified Bishop method, which is widely accepted as W, sin a,
reasonably accurate, is adopted. However, with i=l

appropriate modification, the proposed procedure can where Li (J = 1,2 . . . . . m) is the length of the slip
be used in conjunction with other methods applicable surface in layer j.
to slip surfaces of circular or arbitrary shape. The performance function considering an individual
The 'reliability index' is used as a basis for the slip surface k may be written as follows:
calculation of the probability of failure assuming the
performance function, the factor of safety, to be a
Gk = ao~ + 2 aiac, (4)
random variable which follows a normal or Gaussian i !
distribution. in which a~a = - 1;
In this paper, two alternative definitions of the
"reliability index' are used. The first definition is the Ljk
aik --
commonly used one which is a ratio of the mean
~ W , k sin a,a
safety margin and the standard deviation of the safety
factor. The second definition is based on the
Considering the simplest definition of reliability index
l-Iasofer-Lind formulation as shown in a subsequent
as a ratio of the mean safety margin to its standard
sub-section.
deviation, the reliability index associated with slip
An optimization or search procedure is required for
surface or failure mode k is:
identifying the critical slip surface so that reliability
associated with such a surface can be compared to the bok
reliability bounds for the system. In this paper, the /3k - L,~ (5)
conjugate gradient method is used for this purpose L/ I
and the critical slip surface is identified on the basis of
the minimum conventional safety factor. where
The formulation for the linear and the non-linear
cases is considered separately below. Ljkc-~
i~ I
b.k = 1:
Linear and explicit p e r f o r m a n c e function 'oh = O' case W,. sin c~ik
i: I
In the reliability analysis of a slope, a performance
function may be defined in terms of the safety margin bj~ - Ljk or,, .
which is related to the safety factor F as follows:
~; W,k sin ~ik
G=F-1 (1) i=|

in which F is the factor of safety of a slope. In general = the mean value of cohesion in layer j;
the performance functions G and F are functions of ~r,. = the standard deviation of cohesion in layer j.
144 R. N. Chowdhury, D. W. X u

The performance function, in this case, is linear of the safety margin. Now expanding the performance
and, therefore, the Hasofer-Lind definition of function (eqn 1) as a Taylor series at the mean values
reliability index leads to exactly the same expression. of the random variables, one can write:
For the system reliability formulation it is necessary
to calculate the correlation coefficient between G: k- l+ (x,- x,)
different slip surfaces based on the number of soil ,=I x=X
layers, their shear strength and the other slope details 1 m2
(e.g. slope geometry). + ~.E~, (x, - 2 , ) ( < - 2 0
• "= i=1
Considering two slip surfaces k and l and, say, three
layers of soil ] = (1, 2, 3) the correlation coefficient (02c
between the slip surfaces k and l can be written as × \ o x i O X / x : x +" " " (8)
follows (see, for instance, Ang & Tang ~)
where Xg and )(i (i = 1, 2 . . . . . m) are respectively the
3 random variables and their mean values. In
E bj, bj,
j-! second-moment approximation, that is, truncating eqn
(8) at the second term, the performance function for
(6)
Ok, : [
j:ll
2 3
b]klE bj2]] 1/2" slip surface k may be written as:

Gk "~ aok + ~ ai~Xi (9)

i=l
Non-linear and inexplicit performance function
in which
For evaluating the lower and upper bounds of the F n_~! • ]
• • Gk •
system failure probability, the mutual correlations : -

between failure modes (or different slip surfaces) are

required as shown in the previous section. It is difficult
to calculate accurately the correlation coefficients
aik \OX~/x-x •

between failure modes when the performance function

is inexplicit and non-linear. To overcome this problem
in system reliability analysis concerned with an
inexplicit and non-linear performance function, a
linearizing procedure must be used. In slope analysis
the performance functions defined on the basis of
different versions of the method of slices are inexplicit
(except for the ordinary method of slices which is
regarded as inaccurate except for the '& = o '
situation)•
The expansion of a performance function as a
Taylor series and the subsequent first-order second
moment approximation is well known in reliability
analysis. A high order approximation may also be
used. Based on such an approach, the two alternative
definitions of reliability index can now be considered.
The first one implies expansion at the mean values of
random variables and the second (Hasofer & Lind ~)
implies consideration of the most probable failure
point on the failure surface as explained by
Chowdhury & Xu 3.
The formulations based on the alternative defini-
tions are given below•
1. Conventional definition of reliability index•
In this case, the reliability index is defined as:
F-1 (9
/3- or ~=--
O"F O"G
where P and ~r~- are respectively the mean and the
standard deviation of the factor of safety and C; and
~rc, are respectively the mean and standard deviation
2. Hasofer-Lind reliability index.
Hasofer and Lind ~ proposed a definition of
reliability index as the minimum distance from the
failure surface (G = 0) to the origin of the reduced (or
normalised) random variables. According to this
definition, the formulation of reliability index is as
follows:
3" : (10)
in which (OG/OX), is the gradient vector of the
performance function at the most probable failure
point X * = ( X * , X * . . . . . X,*) on failure surface
[G(X*) = 0]: X and [o-2] are respectively the vector of
the mean values and the variance matrix of the
random variables.
Obviously, an interative procedure must be used for
obtaining the reliability index because the perfor-
mance function based on the Bishop method is a
non-linear and inexplicit function. The iterative
formulation is given below:
, _X+ 2 OG
x,.,>-
(7)
c]X(i)I ,
× (11)
OG \ r 2 /OG \ "
 Geotechnical system reliability of slopes
The details of this formulation have been derived
separately ~ and the expression has been successfully
used in illustrative examples.
After obtaining the most probable failure point X*,
the performance function can be expanded by Taylor
series at the point X*, which is on the failure surface
G(X*) = 0. The performance function for slip surface
k may be written as:
A{,k
ak~ ~ + 2 a~X,
i=l
in which
a{}k ~ , / OGk\
OG
In addition to the reliability index, once again it is
necessary to derive the correlation coefficient between
the slip surfaces (or potential failure modes) k and I.
Based on the linearization procedure involving
expansion as a Taylor series and truncating at second
order terms, the correlation coefficient is
j~l OGk' 0Gl ,
Pkl =
where m denotes the number of random variables.
The partial derivatives of the performance function
may be estimated by using the rational polynomial
technique (see Chowdhury & Xu 2) and the value of
depends on the definition of reliability index.
In the above equations the expression for the
performance function g involves the factor of safety F
(see eqn 1). As an example of a non-linear and
inexplicit formulation of F, the Bishop simplified
method is considered in this paper. The appropriate
expression relating F to shear strength and geometri-
cal slope parameters is
I [
[c'lil + (Wi see ai - Ui) tan cbg]/m,,,
F =
~ sin a,
i I
in which
c~ and &~ are the effective shear
parameters of the i-th slice;
m,~, = 1 + tan ¢b; tan ai/F;
and Ui is the force due to water pressure on the base
of the i-th slice.
145
For 'oh = 0' situation (relevant to a saturated clay
slope under undrained conditions), the Bishop method
is identical to the ordinary method of slices and,
moreover, the performance function G is linear.
Consequently, the simpler approach for linear
performance functions can be used. However, for soils
with non-zero ¢b, the slope reliability analysis involves
the more complex procedure, i.e., the second one
discussed above. Evaluating the numerator and
denominator in the first expression for reliability index
(12)
involves iterative calculations to determine the mean
and standard deviation of F. Evaluating the
Hasofer-Lind reliability index is more complex
because it involves a further iterative procedure since
the reliability index is not an explicit function of the
mean and standard deviation of F.
Evaluation of the partial derivatives in eqns
(8)-(13) is usually considered to be problematic.
However, the rational polynomial technique (Chow-
dhury & Xu 2) facilitates the evaluation of these
derivatives.
Reliability bounds
Consider again a slope which may fail according to m
different modes (or along any of m potential slip
surfaces). Let Ek represent the event of failure for the
k-th mode (i.e. Gk < 0) where G~ is the performance
function for the k-th mode and each performance
(13)
function is a function of n random variables
X = (X1. X2 . . . . . X,,). It has been shown (see, for
instance, Ang & Tang r) that the expression for lower
and upper bounds of the failure probability of such a
system can be formulated as follows.
L O W E R BOUND:
P(E)>-P(E,)
+ max 2~2 P(Ei) - P(E, Ej) :0 {~6)
j= 1
UPPER BOUND:
(14) p(E)<_ ~2 P(E~)- ~2 maxP(E, Ei).
i=1 ~=2 ! t
(17)
Both bounds involve the joint probabilities as-
sociated with the events E~ and E/. Some or all of the
failure modes may be correlated and. therefore, the
strength joint probabilities P(EiEj) will be non-zero for those
pairs of failure modes which are correlated.
Following Ditlevsen 6 the lower and upper bounds of
the joint probability P(EiEj) may be evaluated as
follows based on Gaussian probability distributions
of the variables X = ( X ~ , X 2 . . . . . X,,) when the
146 R. N. Chowdhury, D. W. Xu

correlation coefficient is greater than zero (positive the covariance and the product of the standard
correlation, p~j > 0). deviations of the two safety margins.

max[P(A), P(B)] -< P(E,Ej) <-P(A) + P(B) (18)

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES
where
Linear performance f u n c t i o n n ' ~ = 0' case (3
P(A) = ~ ( - ~ i ) ~ /- flj~/-fl,Po~ (19)
examples)

P(B) } (201
in which ~(.) is the cumulative function of the
standard normal distribution, and /3, and flj are
respectively the reliability index values for mode i and
mode j.
If modes E~ and Ej are negatively correlated, i.e.
pij < 0, the lower and upper bounds of P(EiE~) are
O<-P(Efj)<-min[P(A), P(B)]
where P(A) and P(B) are given by eqns (19) and (20).
As stated earlier, the correlation coefficient p# of a
pair of performance functions associated with modes i
and j is
k-I
P" a~,o-:x.)(
~ ak,~rx.)J
k=l lkk=l
This follows from the following expressions for the
performance functions Gi(X) and Gj(X) which, in
turn, are based on the tangent plane by which the
performance functions are evaluated (depending on
the choice of definition adopted for the reliability
index).
Gi(X) = aoi + ~ akiXki1
k[l
Gj(X) = ao, + ,=,Ea~jXk,j
where Xk (k = 1, 2. . . . . n) are uncorrelated variables,
i.e. cov(Xl, A m ) = 0 (1 # m). Thus, the covariance of
Gi and Gj may be obtained as follows:
Example 1
The geometry of the slope is as shown in Fig. 1 and
this example is the well known Congress street cut
(Ireland'2). It is also the case history analysed by Oka
& WuY The clay deposit is divided into three layers
following Ireland. t2 One set of mean values and
standard deviations of the undrained shear strength
are shown in Table l(a). The set of slip surface
tangential to bottom of clay 2 is denoted as set 2 and
the set of slip surfaces tangent to bottom of clay 3 is
(21) denoted as set 3. The top layer of sand has negligible
influence on stability because of zero cohesion and
low normal stress and has. therefore, been neglected
as in the analysis of Ireland t2 and Oka & WuY
The results of analysis for the upper and lower
bounds of the system failure probability are shown in
Table l(b) along with failure probability associated
with the critical slip surface considering either slip
surface set 2 or slip surface set 3 or both together i.e.
(22)
the whole system. In this example, the results for set 2
and 3 considered separately show no difference
between critical slip surface probability and system
failure probability bounds. Even when the whole
system is considered together, the lower bound is
identical to the critical failure surface probability but
the upper bound is higher by nearly 40%.
Example 2
This is again a case involving the '4) = 0' situation and
linear performance function, and the geometry of the
(23) slope and thickness of layers are the same as for
Example 1 (see Fig. l). The shear strength data are
different for the clay layers as shown in Table 2(a)
with the corresponding results in Table 2(b). In
contrast to Example 1, the upper bound of system
failure probability is only slightly different from the
lower bound and from the probability of failure
associated with the critical slip surface.

k=l k=l Example 3

This is also an example involving a '4, = 0' situation
- G,(X) - G;(~) and hence a linear performance function for the same
slope geometry and thickness of soil layers as for
Examples 1 and 2 (see Fig. 1). The shear strength data
= ~ akia~jo-2k (24)
are, however, different again as shown in Table 3(a)
k=l
with the corresponding computed failure probabilities
Following from the basic defininition of the in Table 3(b). In this case there is a significant
correlation coefficient, it is then derived as the ratio of difference between the upper bound of the failure
 Geotechnical system reliability of slopes 147

Slip Surface Set

Slip Surface Set

3,3 in thic k

//" /q 4.5,n,,i
/

Fig. 1. C r o s s s e c t i o n o f c o n g r e s s s t r e e t cut.

probability of the whole system and the failure
probability associated with critical slip surface as also
reported by Oka and WuY The upper bound is almost
twice the lower bound and the latter is identical to the
failure probability associated with critical slip surface.
Based on the above studies (Example 1, 2 and 3) it
is clear that the difference between the upper and
lower bounds increases as the coefficients of variation
of the random variables increase and vice versa.
Moreover, the difference between the upper bound of
the system failure probability and the failure
probability associated with the critical slip surface also
increases as the coefficients of variation of the random
variables increase.
Non-linear performance function--3 examples
Example 4
For the same problem geometry as for Examples l, 2
and 3 (see Fig. 1), general cases are now considered
with non-zero values for the internal friction angles of
the three clay layers. The solution is obtained on the
basis of the Bishop simplified method. Therefore, this
is a case of non-linear and inexplicit performance
function. The assumed shear strength data are
presented in Table 4(a) and the results in Table 4(b).
The system reliabilities for sets 2 and 3 arc identical to
those associated with the corresponding critical slip
surfaces. Considering the whole slope together, only

Table 1. [a) Shear strength parameters for Example 1 Table 2. (a) Shear strength parameters for Example 2

Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3 Clav 1 ('lay 2 (?lay 3

CI C2 C3 CI C, ('3

Mean (kPa) 55 43 56 Mean (kPa) 68.1 39.3 50.8

Standard deviation (kPa) 20,4 8-2 13.2 Standard deviation (kPa) 6.6 1.4 1.5
Coefficient of variation 37% 19% 24% Coefficient of variation 9.6% 3"5% 2"9

(b) Computed failure probabilities for Example 1 (b) Computed failure probabilities for Example 2
Condition Failure probability Safety factor Condition Failure probability Safety factor
(1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3)

Layer 2 only (6 slip surfaces) Layer 2 only (6 slip surfaces)

Critical slip surface 0,265 92 1.117 8 Critical slip surface 0.004 80 1-109 6
Upper bound of system 0.265 92 -- Upper bound of system 0.004 80 --
Lower bound of system 0-265 92 -- Lower bound of system 0.004 80 --
Layer 3 only (6 slip surfaces) Layer 3 only (6 slip surfaces)
Critical slip surface 0-273 89 1.108 8 Critical slip surface 0.013 05 1.063 9
Upper bound of system 0.273 89 -- U p p e r bound of system 0-014 25 --
Lower bound of system 0.273 89 -- Lower bound of system 0.014 25 --
Layer 2 and 3 (12 slip surfaces) Layer 2 and 3 (12 slip surfaces)
Critical slip surface 0-273 89 1-108 8 Critical slip surface 0,013 05 1.063 9
U p p e r bound of system 0.447 33 -- Upper bound of system 0.017 67 --
Lower bound of system 0-273 89 -- Lower bound of system 0.014 25 --
148 R. N. Chowdhury, D. W. Xu

Table 3. (a) Shear strength parameters for Example 3 (see Table 5. (a) Assumed shear strength data (see Fig. 1). The
Oka & Wu 9) shear strength data is the same as in Table 4ta)

Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3

(b) Computed failure probabilities based on Bishops simpl-
ified method (the reliability index is based on the Hasofer-
CI C2 C3
Lind definition)
Mean (kPa) 136 80 102
Condition Failure probability Safety factor
Standard deviation (kPa) 50 15 24
(z) (2) (3)
Coefficient of variation 36.8% 18-8% 23.5%

Layer 2 only (6 slip surfaces)

(b) Computed failure probabilities for Example 3
Critical slip surface 0.015 59 1.423 9
Upper bound of system 0.019 32 --
Condition Failure probability Safety factor
Lower bound of system 0-019 24 --
(1) (2) (3)
Layer 3 only (6 slip surfaces)
Layer 2 only (6 slip surfaces) Critical slip surface 0.004 91 1-507 5
Critical slip surface 0-011 51 2.234 3 Upper bound of system 0.009 13 --
Upper bound of system 0-011 51 -- Lower bound of system 0.0(}4 95 --
Lower bound of system 0.011 51 -- Layer 2 and 3 ( 12 slip surfaces)
Layer 3 only (6 slip surfaces) Critical slip surface 0.015 59 1.423 9
Critical slip surface 0.002 42 2.139 6 Upper bound of system
Upper bound of system 0-002 42 -- Lower bound of system 0.1)27 84 --
Lower bound of system 0.002 42 -- 0-019 24

Layer 2 and 3 (12 slip surfaces)

Critical slip surface 0.002 42 2.139 6
Upper bound of system 0-013 30 --
Lower bound of system 0.011 51 --
in Table 5(b) are only slightly higher than the
corresponding results in Table 4(b). The results for
the whole slope taken together in Table 5(b) are also
the lower bound is identical to the critical slip surface slightly higher than the corresponding results in Table
failure probability; the upper bound is significantly 4(b).
higher.
Table 5(b) shows the results based on Hasofer-Lind Example 5
definition of reliability index considering the same An embankment founded on a deposit of soft clay is
data as for Example 4 (Table 4a or Table 5a). The considered in this case (see Fig. 2). Two sets of slip
results presented in Table 5(b) for set 2 are identical surfaces are considered namely those passing only
to those in Table 4(b), the results for set 3 presented through the embankment and those tangential to the
base of the soft foundation layer. The assumed shear
strength data are shown in Table 6(a) with the
Table 4. (a) Assumed shear strength data (see Fig. 1)
corresponding results in Table 6(b) based on the first
Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3 definition of reliability index. In this case the upper
4) c~ 4, "2 4, ,., bound system failure probability for the whole system
(kPa) (kpa) (kPa)
is dramatically higher (more than 41% higher) than
Mean value 5° 55 7° 43 8° 56 the failure probability associated with the critical slip
Standard deviation 1° 20-4 1"5° 8.2 1.7° 13.2 surface. The results, based on Hasofer-Lind reliability
Coefficient of variation 20% 37% 21% 19% 21% 24%
index, are shown in Table 7(b) and those results also
(b) Computed failure probabilities based on Bishops simplified method (the show that the upper bound of system failure
reliability index is defined as ~ = (F - 1)]crF) probability is significantly higher than the failure
Condition Failure probability Safety factor
probability associated with the critical slip surface.
(l) (2) (3) The values of upper and lower bounds in Tables
4(b), 5(b), 6(b) and 7(b) indicate that the conventional
Layer 2 only (6 slip surfaces)
Critical slip surface 0.015 59 1"423 9
definition of reliability index can usually produce
Upper bound of system 0.019 38 closer reliability bounds than the Hasofer-Lind
Lower bound of system 0.019 35 -- definition. However, the difference of results based on
Layer 3 only (6 slip surfaces) these two definitions is not significant.
Critical slip surface 0-004 68 1.507 5
Upper bound of system 0.006 85 --
Lower bound of system 0.(X)4 71 -- Example 6
Layer 2 and 3 (12 slip surfaces) This example is concerned with a slope which has an
Critical slip surface 0.015 59 1.423 9 existing plane of weakness such as a joint or a fault
Upper bound of system 0-026 21 -- plane. The cohesion along this plane has been reduced
Lower bound of system ()-(11935 --
to zero during past movements. It is obviously the
 Geotechnical system reliability of slopes 149

Slip surfaces (D

5 ~ . ~ J Slip surface (ID

Layer 2 / ~ Foundation 10In

(Soft soil)

-:-7-2-2-7-2-2-2-2-:-:+2+:-7-2+:-2"hXhb'EX'~tI~ 7:22:2::::22::2:::::22:::2:::2:::2::::27:::2
Fig. 2. A n embankment on soft clay foundation.

critical slip surface. H o w e v e r , o t h e r p o t e n t i a l failure DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

m o d e s can be c o n s i d e r e d . T h e a s s u m e d s h e a r s t r e n g t h
d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 8(a) a n d T a b l e 9(a). T h e Discussion
results a c c o r d i n g to the o r d i n a r y d e f i n i t i o n of
r e l i a b i l i t y i n d e x are s h o w n in T a b l e 8(b) a n d T h e stability o f a s l o p e has t r a d i t i o n a l l y b e e n
a c c o r d i n g to the H a s o f e r - L i n d d e f i n i t i o n in T a b l e c o n s i d e r e d in r e l a t i o n to the critical slip surface, i.e., a
9(b). slip s u r f a c e w h i c h l e a d s to the m i n i m u m factor of
T h e s y s t e m failure p r o b a b i l i t y is a g a i n significantly safety. W i t h i n a p r o b a b i l i s t i c f r a m e w o r k , a slip surface
h i g h e r t h a n the failure p r o b a b i l i t y a s s o c i a t e d with t h e with t h e m a x i m u m p r o b a b i l i t y of failure can b e
critical slip surface. T h e results b a s e d o n two d i f f e r e n t i d e n t i f i e d a n d such a slip surface m a y be r e g a r d e d as
d e f i n i t i o n s o f the r e l i a b i l i t y i n d e x are, h o w e v e r , q u i t e an a l t e r n a t i v e to the c o n v e n t i o n a l critical slip surface.
close to e a c h o t h e r . H o w e v e r , n e i t h e r of t h e s e m a y l e a d to a realistic
e s t i m a t e o f t h e s l o p e reliability. This is b e c a u s e t h e r e
a r e m a n y p o t e n t i a l slip surfaces a n d e a c h has a
Table 6. (a) Assume shear strength data for Example 5 (see
Fig. 2) p r o b a b i l i t y of failure a s s o c i a t e d with it. T h e r e f o r e , the
s l o p e s t a b i l i t y p r o b l e m m u s t b e c o n s i d e r e d as a system
Layer 1 Layer 2 r e l i a b i l i t y p r o b l e m . In such a p r o b l e m , the c o r r e l a -
tions b e t w e e n the v a r i o u s " e l e m e n t s ' o f the s y s t e m are,
6; cl (kPa) ~b~ c~ (kPa) o f c o u r s e , v e r y i m p o r t a n t . T h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the
Mean value 12° 10 0 40
Standard deviation 3° 2 0 8 Table 7. (a) Assumed shear strength data for Example 5
Coefficient of variation 25% 20% 0 2{)% (see Fig. 2). The shear strength data is the same as in Table
6(a)
Unit weight of soil 2(7 kN/m ~ 18 kN/m 3
(b) Computed failure probabilities based on Bishops simpl-
(b) Computed failure probabilities based on Bishops simplified ified method (the reliability index is based on Hasofer-Lind
method (the reliability index is defined as 13= (F - 1)]~v) definition)

Condition Failure probability Safety factor Condition Failurc probability Safety factor
/1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3)

Layer I only (6 slip surfaces) Layer 1 only (6 slip surfaces7

Critical slip surface 0.202 25 1-162 5 Critical slip surface 0.200 99 1.162 5
Upper bound of system ¢/.261 88 -- Upper bound of system 0.26(745 --
Lower bound of system 0-205 82 -- Lower bound of system 0.204 52 --
Layer 2 only (6 slip surfaces) Layer 2 only (6 slip surfaces)
Critical slip surface 0.197 33 1.147 9 Critical slip surface (7.197 33 1.147 9
Upper bound of system 0.227 35 -- Upper bound of system (7-22735 --
Lower bound of system 0.227 35 -- Lower bound of system 0-227 35 --
Layer [ and 2 (12 slip surfaces) Layer 1 and 2 (12 slip surfaces)
Critical slip surface (7-19733 1.147 9 Critical slip surface (7-197 33 I. 147 9
Upper bound of system 0.449 60 -- Upper bound of system 0.446 42 --
Lower bound of system 0.227 35 -- Lower bound of system ¢7.22735 --
150 R. N. Chowdhury, D. W. Xu

Table 8. (a) Assumed shear strength data (see Fig. 3) the various elements of the system is very high. In
other words, the probability of failure along different
Circular slip Plannar slip
surface surface slip surfaces is highly correlated. Therefore, the upper
~bl cl (kPa) &~ c" (kPa) bound of the system failure probability slip surfaces is
highly correlated. Therefore, the upper bound of the
Mean value 12° 10 0 40 system failure probability is close to or identical with
Standard deviation 3° 2 0 8 the failure probability on the basis of the critical slip
Coefficient of variation 25% 20% 0 20%
surface. This conclusion is only 'true' for the "lumped'
Unit weight of soil 20 kN/m3 model in which spatial variability of shear strength
p a r a m e t e r s within a ' h o m o g e n e o u s ' soil mass is
(b) Computed failure probabilities based on Bishops simplified
method (the reliability index is defined as [~ = (F - 1)]CrF) ignored. The inclusion of spatial variability would
require that each shear strength p a r a m e t e r be
Condition Failure probability Safetyfactor regarded as a r a n d o m field rather than a random
(1) (2) (3) variable and would require further development of the
method proposed in this paper.
Planar slip surface
Critical slip surface 0-254 43 1-1606 For layered slopes, the upper bound of the system
Upper bound of system 0.254 43 -- failure probability is found to be higher than the
Lower bound of system 0.254 43 -- failure probability associated with a critical slip
Circular slip surfaces (6 slip surfaces) surface. The correlation between different potential
Critical slip surface 0.159 16 1.171 6 slip surfaces is not high. The lower the correlation the
Upper bound of system 0.192 68 -- greater the difference between the upper bound of the
Lower bound of system 0.159 16 -- system failure probability on the one hand and the
All slip surfaces (7 slip surfaces) failure probability associated with the critical slip
Critical slip surface 0.254 43 1-1606
surface on the other hand.
Upper bound of system 0.403 41 --
Lower bound of system 0.254 4(1 -- In this p a p e r two types of problems are considered.
The first involves an explicit and linear performance
function, e.g., the performance function relevant to a
saturated clay slope under short-term undrained
exact system reliability is not possible except for very condition for which '4, = 0' assumption is relevant.
simple systems. The slope stability problem is, in This case has previously been considered by O k a &
general, quite complex and, therefore, it is considered Wu ' as well. The second type of problem involves
appropriate to evaluate the ' b o u n d s ' to the system inexplicit and non-linear performance function. Most
reliability. It is desirable to achieve 'narrow bounds' slope stability problems fall in this category: both
and previous work, originally developed for structural shear strength p a r a m e t e r s c and & are non-zero, and
systems, is cited in this context. an iterative solution is required for evaluating the
For ' h o m o g e n e o u s ' slopes, the correlation between factor of safety. The procedure for evaluating system
reliability is more complex and has been described
fully in the text of the paper. Two alternative
Table 9. (a) Assumed shear strength data (see Fig. 3). The
definitions of the reliability index have been used in
shear strength data is the same as in Table 8(a)
this paper. However, the results obtained on the basis
(b) Computed failure probabilities based on Bishops simpl- of these two definitions are quite close.
ified method (the reliability index is based on Hasofer-Lind
definition) Several illustrative examples have been presented
considering both (a) explicit and linear performance
Condition Failure probability Safetyfactor function and (b) inexplicit and non-linear performance
(1) (2) (3) function. The well known Bishop method of slices has
been used as the geotechnical model for the latter
Planar slip surface
Critical slip surface 0-254 43 1-1606 case. However, any other methods of slices may be
Upper bound of system 0.254 43 -- used with appropriate modifications to the computer
Lower bound of system 0.254 43 -- program. Only slip surfaces of circular shape and a
Circular slip surfaces (6 slip surfaces) planar slip surface have been considered in this study.
Critical slip surface 0.157 50 1' 171 16 In future work it is proposed to considered curved slip
Upper bound of system 0.189 07 -- surface of arbitrary shape.
Lower bound of system 0,157 50 --
All slip surfaces (7 slip surfaces) Conclusions
Critical slip surface 0.254 43 1.160 6
Upper bound of system 0-403 41 --
Lower bound of system 0.254 40 -- The main conclusions of this paper may be
summarized as follows.
 Geotechnical system reliability o f slopes
Fig. 3. Cross section of slope for Example 6.
(1) The problem of slope stability may be
formulated as one of system reliability since
there are many potential slip surfaces.
(2) A procedure has been developed to estimate
the reliability bounds (upper bound and lower
bound) of such a system.
(3) The developed procedure can deal with
performance functions which are explicit and
linear as well as those which are inexplicit and
non-linear.
(4) The proposed solution method involves the
determination of reliability index. Two alterna-
tive definitions of the reliability index are used
for comparison.
(5) In a homogeneous system with perfect correla-
tion between variables, the system probability
of failure is identical to the probability of
failure based on the critical slip surface (the
upper and lower bounds of the system are very
close or identical).
(6) For a layered slope, the upper bound of the
system probability of failure is greater than the
probability of failure associated with the critical
slip surface.
(7) For relatively low values of the coefficients of
variation of the basic random variables (c and d~
of various layers or slip surfaces for the
examples considered) the upper bound system
probability is not significantly higher. However,
for cases involving relatively high coefficients of
variation of the variables, the upper bound was
found to be significantly higher (about 40% in
one example). Alternative definitions of the
reliability index lead to results which are very
close to each other.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Support of the University of Wollongong for academic
and research activities is gratefully acknowledged. The
151
Circular slip surfaces
J
15m
Australian Research Council (ARC) has supported
the research work and the second author was
employed as a Senior Research Assistant with ARC
support.
REFERENCES
1. Ang, A. H-S. & Tang, W. H., Probability Concepts in
Engineering Planning and Design. Vol. 2, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 1984, 562 pp.
2. Chowdhury, R. N. & Xu, D. W., Application of
Rational Polynomial Technique in Slope Reliability
Analysis, Research Report. Department of Civil &
Mining Engng, The University of Wollongong, 1990.
3. Chowdhury, R. N. & Xu, D. W., Second Moment
Reliability Index for Slope Design, Research Report.
Department of Civil & Mining Engng, The University
of Wollongong, (1991).
4. Cornell, C. A., Bounds on the Reliability of Structural
Systems. J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 93 (1967) 171-200.
5. Cornell, C. A., First-Order Uncertainty Analysis of Soils
Deformation and Stability. In Proc. Ist Int. Conf on
Application of Statistics and Probability to Soil and
Struct. Engng., 1971, Hong Kong, pp, 12c)-144.
6. Ditlevsen, O., Narrow Reliability Bounds for Structural
Systems. J. Struct. Mech., 7 (1979) 453-472.
7. Harr, M. E., Mechanics ¢~l" Particulate Media--
A Probabilistic Approach. McGraw Hill, New York,
1977.
8. Hasofer, A. M. & Lind, N. (7., Exact and lnvariant
Second Moment Code Format. J. Engng Mech. Div.,
ASCE, 100 (1974) 111-121.
9. Oka, Y. & Wu, T. H., System Reliability of Slope
Stability. J. Geotechnical Engng, ASCE, 116 (1990)
1185-1189.
10. Moses, F. & Kinser, E., Analysis of Struc-
tural Reliability. J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 93 (1967) 147-
164.
11. Vanmarcke, E. H., Reliabilty of Earth Slopes. J.
Geotech. Engng. Div., ASCE, 103 (1976) 1247-1265.
12. Ireland, H. O., Stability analysis of the Congress street
open cut in Chicago. Geotechnique, 4 (1954) 163-168.