Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Proceedings, Soil and Rock America 2003, 12th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering and 39th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, M.I.T., Cambridge,
Massachusetts, June 22-26, 2003, Verlag Glückauf GmbH Essen, Vol. 2, pp.2777-2784.
Abstract
A practical procedure is described for implementing Spencer’s method of slices with varying side force inclination.
The search for the noncircular critical slip surface is accomplished using spreadsheet-automated constrained
optimization. The deterministic formulation is then extended probabilistically to compute the Hasofer-Lind
reliability index via constrained optimization of the dispersion hyperellipsoid in the original space of the random
variables. Reliability analyses involving spatially correlated normal and lognormal random variables are
illustrated for an embankment on soft ground, with search for the reliability-based noncircular critical slip surface.
The probabilities of failure and the probability density functions inferred from reliability indices are compared with
Monte Carlo simulations. It is demonstrated that the hitherto complicated problems of locating noncircular critical
surface and reliability analysis involving implicit functions and correlated nonnormals can be solved with relative
ease and transparency using cell-object-oriented constrained optimization in the ubiquitous spreadsheet platform.
Resumen
Se describe un procedimiento práctico para el uso del método de secciones de Spencer con inclinación variable de
fuerza lateral. La búsqueda de la superficie crítica no circular de deslizamiento se logra utilizando optimización
restringida automatizada por hojas de cálculo. La formulación determinista es entonces extendida
probabilísticamente para computar el índice de confiabilidad de Hasofer-Lind vía la optimización restringida del
hiperelipsoide de dispersión en el espacio original de las variables randómicas. Los análisis de confiabilidad que
implican variables normales y lognormales randómicas espacialmente correlacionadas se ilustran para un
terraplén sobre suelo blando, con la búsqueda, basada en confiabilidad, de la superficie de deslizamiento crítica
no circular. Las probabilidades de falla y las funciones de densidad de la probabilidad deducidas de índices de
confiabilidad se comparan con simulaciones de Monte Carlo. Se demuestra que los problemas hasta ahora
complicados para localizar la superficie critica no circular y los análisis de confiabilidad que envuelven funciones
implícitas y no normales correlacionadas se pueden solucionar con relativa facilidad y transparencia usando la
optimización restringida orientada a celdas y objetos en la plataforma ubicua de una hoja de cálculo.
∑ [T cosα
i i − Pi sin α i ] − Pw = 0 (4) 3 HASOFER-LIND INDEX & NONNORMALS
2778
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R
1 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 SPENCER method λ′ F DumEq
2 10
Embankment 0.105 1.287 1.287
3 x0 λi-1Ei-1
5 ytop
4 Wi ΣM ΣForces Varying λ
xn
Ω λiEi Ei-1
5 0 0.00 0.00 TRUE
6 Soft clay
-5 ybot Ei Array formulas
7 l Ti
8 -10
αi Varying side-force angle λ
9 slope angle Pi λ
10 Ω H hc γw Pw Mw ru xc yc R xmin xmax
11 27 5 1.73 10 15 61.518 0.2 4.91 7.95 13.40 -5.89 17.467
xn x0
12
Units: m, kN/m , kN/m , kN,
3 2 Center of Rotation (xi − x0 )
13 λ = λ ′ sin π
(xn − x0 )
or other consistent set of units.
14 framed cells contain equations
15 # x ybot ytop γave c φ W αrad u l P T E λ σ' Lx Ly
16 0 17.47 3.27 5.00 15 0.000
17 1 16.58 1.37 5.00 20.00 10.00 30 47.4 1.136 10.73 2.10 49.72 28.50 48.1 0.012 12.98 12.12 5.63
18 2 15.70 0.00 5.00 20.00 10.00 30 76.3 0.997 17.27 1.63 80.96 36.36 96.3 0.025 32.49 11.24 7.26
19 3 14.72 -1.18 5.00 19.58 35.26 0 107.4 0.879 21.89 1.54 112.01 42.14 155.7 0.038 50.94 10.30 8.54
20 4 13.74 -2.14 5.00 19.00 27.15 0 124.2 0.770 25.31 1.37 137.12 28.84 230.5 0.050 74.97 9.32 9.61
21 5 12.76 -2.92 5.00 18.66 22.52 0 137.8 0.673 28.09 1.25 149.26 21.95 306.3 0.062 90.90 8.34 10.47
22 6 11.78 -3.56 5.00 18.43 20.00 0 149.0 0.582 30.37 1.17 156.36 18.25 377.0 0.072 102.75 7.36 11.19
23 7 10.79 -4.10 5.00 18.27 20.00 0 158.3 0.496 32.25 1.12 160.90 17.34 438.4 0.082 111.92 6.38 11.78
24 8 9.81 -4.53 5.00 18.15 20.00 0 165.8 0.415 33.80 1.07 165.06 16.66 489.6 0.090 120.14 5.40 12.26
25 9 8.83 -4.87 4.50 18.01 20.00 0 167.0 0.336 34.04 1.04 164.03 16.15 528.5 0.096 123.77 4.42 12.64
26 10 7.85 -5.13 4.00 17.84 20.00 0 161.9 0.259 33.00 1.02 158.16 15.78 553.8 0.101 122.79 3.43 12.95
27 11 6.87 -5.31 3.50 17.67 20.66 0 155.6 0.184 31.71 1.00 152.37 16.03 565.9 0.103 120.93 2.45 13.17
28 12 5.89 -5.42 3.00 17.51 21.10 0 148.1 0.110 30.18 0.99 146.54 16.19 565.9 0.105 118.26 1.47 13.31
29 13 4.91 -5.46 2.50 17.34 21.32 0 139.4 0.037 28.41 0.98 140.44 16.27 554.8 0.104 114.61 0.49 13.39
30 14 3.93 -5.42 2.00 17.17 21.32 0 129.6 -0.037 26.41 0.98 133.80 16.27 533.7 0.101 109.85 -0.49 13.39
31 15 2.94 -5.31 1.50 16.98 21.10 0 118.6 -0.110 24.18 0.99 126.36 16.19 503.7 0.097 103.81 -1.47 13.31
32 16 1.96 -5.13 1.00 16.77 20.66 0 106.5 -0.184 21.71 1.00 117.86 16.03 466.3 0.091 96.36 -2.45 13.17
33 17 0.98 -4.87 0.50 16.52 20.00 0 93.2 -0.259 19.00 1.02 107.99 15.78 423.4 0.083 87.37 -3.43 12.95
34 18 0.00 -4.53 0.00 16.20 20.00 0 78.7 -0.336 16.04 1.04 96.74 16.15 376.3 0.074 77.03 -4.42 12.64
35 19 -0.98 -4.10 0.00 16.00 20.00 0 67.7 -0.415 13.80 1.07 89.12 16.66 325.1 0.064 69.32 -5.40 12.26
36 20 -1.96 -3.56 0.00 16.00 20.00 0 60.1 -0.496 12.25 1.12 85.34 17.34 269.2 0.053 64.22 -6.38 11.78
37 21 -2.94 -2.92 0.00 16.00 20.00 0 50.9 -0.582 10.37 1.17 79.74 18.25 210.1 0.040 57.52 -7.36 11.19
38 22 -3.93 -2.14 0.00 16.00 22.52 0 39.7 -0.673 8.09 1.25 73.92 21.95 146.9 0.027 50.84 -8.34 10.47
39 23 -4.91 -1.18 0.00 16.00 27.15 0 26.1 -0.770 5.31 1.37 68.39 28.84 78.6 0.014 44.70 -9.32 9.61
40 24 -5.89 0.00 0.00 16.00 35.26 0 9.3 -0.879 1.89 1.54 67.12 42.14 0.0 0.000 41.75 -10.30 8.54
41
42 cu (kPa)
43 Undrained shear strength profile of soft clay 0 25 50 Embankment
44 depth 0 1.5 3 5 7 10 (m) 0 cm φm γm
45 cu 40 28 20 20 26 37 (kPa) 2 10 30 20
o 3
46 4 (kPa) ( ) (kN/m )
Depth
47
6
48 γclay
(kN/m ) 3 8
49 16
50 10
Figure 1. Deterministic analysis of a 5 m high embankment on soft ground with depth-dependent undrained
shear strength. The limit equilibrium method of slices is based on Spencer (1973), with half-sine variation of
side force inclination.
where v is a vector representing the set of random 2779
Function Slice_c(ybmid, dmax, dv, cuv, cm) Solver Parameters
'comment: dv = depth vector,
‘cuv = cu vector, Fig. 1.
If ybmid > 0 Then
Slice_c = cm
Exit Function
End If
ybmid = Abs(ybmid)
If ybmid > dmax Then 'undefined domain,
Slice_c = 300 'hence assume hard stratum.
Exit Function
End If
For j = 2 To dv.Count 'array size=dv.Count
If dv(j) >= ybmid Then
interp = (ybmid - dv(j - 1)) / (dv(j) - dv(j - 1))
Slice_c = cuv(j - 1) + (cuv(j) - cuv(j - 1)) * interp
Exit For
End If
Next j
End Function
2780
mean StDev vn Correlation matrix, "crmat"
DistName vi mi s m
N
s
N N
(v-m )/s
N cm φm γm cu1 cu2 cu3 cu4 cu5 cu6
lognormal cm 10.47211 10 1.50 9.873 1.562 0.384 1 -0.3 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
lognormal φm 30.9485 30 3.00 29.831 3.087 0.362 -0.3 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
lognormal γm 20.75761 20 1.00 19.960 1.037 0.769 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
lognormal cu1 34.07298 40 6.00 39.158 5.083 -1.001 0 0 0 1 0.6065 0.3679 0.1889 0.097 0.0357 0
lognormal cu2 22.73551 28 4.20 27.218 3.391 -1.322 0 0 0 0.6065 1 0.6065 0.3114 0.1599 0.0588 1.5
lognormal cu3 15.90681 20 3.00 19.372 2.373 -1.461 0 0 0 0.3679 0.6065 1 0.5134 0.2636 0.097 3
lognormal cu4 15.852 20 3.00 19.360 2.365 -1.484 0 0 0 0.1889 0.3114 0.5134 1 0.5134 0.1889 5
lognormal cu5 22.46311 26 3.90 25.498 3.351 -0.906 0 0 0 0.097 0.1599 0.2636 0.5134 1 0.3679 7
lognormal cu6 34.81741 37 5.55 36.547 5.194 -0.333 0 0 0 0.0357 0.0588 0.097 0.1889 0.3679 1 10
0 1.5 3 5 7 10 dv
EqvN(…, 1) EqvN(…, 2)
β PrFail Equation 9 autofilled
Array formula: Ctrl+Shift, then Enter 1.962 0.0249 =normsdist(-β)
=SQRT(MMULT(TRANSPOSE(vn),MMULT(MINVERSE(crmat),vn))) Probability of failure
Figure 6. Correlation matrix, and array formula of β index, for reliability analysis of the embankment
shown in Figure 1. The two templates are easily coupled by replacing the values cm, φm, γm and the cu
values of Figure 1 with formulas that point to the values of the vi column of this figure. The simple
VBA function code “EqvN” performs equivalent normal transformation for lognormal variates.
value of the multivariate normal PDF, and to find matrix (which is equivalent to rotating the frame
the smallest ellipsoid tangent to the limit state of reference). Also, the iterative computations of
surface is to find the most probable failure point. the equivalent normal mean (mN) and equivalent
Reliability analyses were performed for the normal standard deviation (σN) for each trial
embankment of Fig. 1, as shown in Fig. 6. The design point are automatic during the constrained
coupling between Fig. 1 and Fig. 6 is brought optimization search.
about simply by entering formulas in cells Starting with a deterministic critical noncircular
C45:H45 and P45:R45 of Fig. 1 to read values slip surface of Figure 4, the λ′ and F values of Fig.
from column vi of Fig. 6. 1 were reset to 0 and 1, respectively. The vi values
Spatial correlation in the soft ground is modeled in Figure 6 were initially assigned their respective
by assuming an autocorrelation distance (δ) of 3 mean values. The Solver routine in Microsoft
m in the following established negative Excel was then invoked, to:
exponential model: - Minimize the quadratic form (a 9-dimensional
Depth (i )− Depth ( j )
ellipsoid in original space), i.e., cell “β”.
−
ρ ij = e δ
(9) - By changing the nine random variables vi, the
λ′ in Figure 1, and the 25 coordinate values
Only normals and lognormals are considered. x0, x2, x24, yb1, yb3:yb23 of the slip surface. (F
The user-created VBA code in Fig. 6 implements remains at 1, i.e. at failure, or at limit state.)
the Rackwitz-Fiessler (1978) equivalent normal - Subject to the constraints –1 ≤ λ′ ≤ 1, x0 ≥
transformation when lognormals are involved. H/tan(radians(Ω)), x0 ≥ x2, x24 ≤ 0, yb3:yb23 ≤
Unlike a widely documented classical approach, yt3:yt23, ∑Forces = 0, ∑M = 0, and σ1′:σ24′ ≥
there is no need to diagonalize the correlation 0. The Solver option “Use automatic scaling”
was also activated.
2781
The β index is 1.962 for the case with 6
lognormal variates (Fig. 6). The corresponding 4
probability of failure based on the hyperplane 2
assumption is 2.49%. The reliability-based noncir- 0
cular slip surface is shown in Fig. 7. The nine vi -10 -5 -2 0 5 10 15 20
values in Fig. 6 define the most probable failure -4
point, where the equivalent dispersion ellipsoid is
-6
tangent to the limit state surface (F = 1) of the deterministic critical
reliability-based critical slip surface. At this -8
tangent point the values of cu are, as expected, Figure 7. Comparison of reliability-based critical
smaller than their mean values, but the cm and φm noncircular slip surfaces (the two upper curves, for
values are slightly higher than their respective normal variates and lognormal variates) with the
mean values. This peculiarity is attributable to cm deterministic critical noncircular slip surface (the
and φm being positively correlated to the unit lower dotted curve).
weight of the embankment γm, and also reflects
the dependency of tension crack depth hc (an 4 DERIVING PROBABILITY DENSITY
adverse effect) on cm, since the equation hc = FUNCTIONS FROM RELIABILITY INDI-
2cm/γ√Ka is part of the model in Figure 1. CES, AND COMPARISON WITH MONTE
By replacing “lognormal” with “normal” in the CARLO SIMULATIONS
first column of Fig. 6, re-initializing column vi to
mean values, and invoking Solver, one obtains a β The reliability index β in Fig. 6 has been
index of 1.857, with corresponding probability of obtained with respect to the limit state surface
failure equal to 3.16%, compared with 2.49% for defined by F = 1.0. The mean value point,
the case with lognormal variates. The reliability- represented by column mi, is located on the 1.253
based noncircular critical slip surface of the case factor-of-safety contour, as calculated in the
with normal variates is practically indistinguish- deterministic noncircular slip surface search of
able from the case with lognormal variates. Both Section 2. A dispersion hyperellipsoid expanding
are however somewhat different (Fig. 7) from the from the mean-value point will touch the limit
deterministic critical noncircular surface from state surface F = 1.0 at the design point
which they evolved via 25 degrees of freedom represented by the values in the column labeled vi.
during Solver’s constrained optimization search. The probability of failure 2.49% approximates the
This difference in slip surface geometry matters integration of probability density in the failure
little, however, for the following reason. domain F ≤ 1.0. If one defines another limit state
If the deterministic critical noncircular slip surface F = 0.8, a higher value of β is obtained,
surface is used for reliability analysis, the β index with a correspondingly smaller probability that F
obtained is 1.971 for the case with lognormals, ≤ 0.8, reflecting the fact that the limit state surface
and 1.872 for the case with normals. These β defined by F = 0.8 is further away from the mean
values are only slightly higher (<1%) than the β value point (which is on the factor-of-safety
values of 1.962 and 1.857 obtained earlier with a contour 1.253). In this way forty-two values of
“floating” surface. Hence, for the case in hand, reliability indices (from positive to negative)
performing reliability analysis based on the fixed corresponding to different specified limit states
deterministic critical noncircular slip surface will (from F = 0.8 to F = 1.8) were obtained promptly
yield practically the same reliability index as the using a short VBA code that automatically
reliability-based critical slip surface. invokes Solver for each specified limit state F.
Table 1 summarizes the reliability indices for The series of β indices yields the cumulative
the case in hand. distribution function (CDF) of the factor of safety,
based on Pr[ F ≤ FLimitState] ≈ Φ(-β), where Φ(.) is
Table 1. Reliability Indices for the Example Case the standard normal cumulative distribution
Lognormal Normal function. The probability density function (PDF)
variates variates plots in Fig. 8 (solid curves) were then obtained
Reliability index 1.962 1.857 readily by applying cubic spline interpolation
(1.971)* (1.872)* (e.g., Kreyszig, 1988) to the CDF, during which
Prob. of failure 2.49% 3.16% process the derivatives (namely the PDF) emerged
(2.44%)* (3.06%)* from the tridiagonal spline matrix. The whole
*at deterministic critical noncircular surface process is achieved easily using standard
2782
3 3
2.5 from β indices Norm al from β indices Lognorm al
2.5
from Monte Carlo variates variates
2 from s im ulation,
s im ulation, 2
20000 trials
PDF
3 3
Both curves from
2.5 Both curves bas ed Norm al variates 2.5
Monte Carlo
2 on β indices 2 s im ulations , Norm als
each 20000 trials
PDF
1.5 1.5
1 1 Lognorm als
Lognorm als
0.5 0.5
0 0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Factor of s afe ty Factor of s afe ty
Figure 8. Comparing the probability density functions (PDF) obtained from reliability indices
with those obtained from Monte Carlo simulations. ‘Normals’ means the nine input variables are
correlated normal variates, and ‘Lognormals’ means they are correlated lognormal variates.
spreadsheet matrix functions. Another alternative The computation time for 20,000 realizations in
was given in Lacasse & Nadim (1996), which Monte Carlo simulations would be prohibitive
examined pile axial capacity, and approximated (20,000×15 sec., or 83 hours) if a search for the
the CDF by appropriate probability functions. critical noncircular slip surface is carried out for
For comparison, direct Monte Carlo simulations each random set (cm, φm, γm, and the cu values)
with 20,000 realizations were performed using the generated. Hence the PDF plots of Monte Carlo
commercial software @RISK with Latin simulations shown in Fig. 8 have been obtained by
Hypercube sampling. The random variables were staying put at the reliability-based critical
first assumed to be normally distributed, then noncircular slip surface found in the previous
lognormally distributed. The mean values, section. In contrast, computing 42 values of β
standard deviations and correlation structure were indices (with fresh noncircular surface search for
as in Fig. 6. each limit sate) will take only about 14 minutes.
The solid PDF curves derived from the β Nevertheless, for consistency of comparison with
indices agree remarkably well with the Monte the Monte Carlo PDF plots, the 42 β values
Carlo PDF curves (the dashed curves in Fig. 8) underlying each solid PDF curve of Fig. 8 have
On a Pentium-4 CPU 1.9 GHz desktop PC, the also been computed based on the same reliability-
time taken by Solver to determine either the factor based critical noncircular slip surface shown in
of safety F or the reliability index β of the Fig. 7. Thus it took about 1.4 minutes (42 × 2
embankment in hand is as follows: seconds) to produce each reliability-indices-based
PDF curve, but about 70 times as long (≈ 20,000 ×
Table 2. Solver’s computing time on Pentium-4 0.3 seconds) to generate each simulation-based
F, for specified slip surface ≈ 0.3 second PDF curve.
F, search for noncircular surface 15 seconds The probabilities of failure (F ≤ 1) from Monte
β, for specified slip surface 2 seconds Carlo suimulations with 20,000 realizations are
β, search for noncircular surface 20 seconds 2.41%± for lognormal variates, and 3.28%± for
2783
normal variates. These compare well with the The present study is not a comprehensive risk
2.49% and 3.16% shown in Table 1. Note that assessment approach, but it may contribute
only one β index value is needed to compute each component blocks necessary for such a final
probability of failure in Table 1. Only for PDF edifice. It may also help to overcome a language
does one need about 30 or 40 beta values of barrier that hampers wider adoption of the more
different limit states, in order to define the CDF, consistent Hasofer-Lind reliability index and
from which the PDF are then obtained. Note also reliability-based design. Among the issues not
that the accuracy of a Monte Carlo simulation covered in this paper are model uncertainty,
depends on the number of realizations. human uncertainty, and estimation of statistical
parameters. These and other important issues were
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS considered in Vanmarcke (1977), Christian et al.
(1994), Whitman (1984, 1996), and Morgenstern
A practical object-oriented constrained optimi- (1997), among others.
zation approach in the ubiquitous spreadsheet
platform has been presented to implement the REFERENCES
generalized Spencer method. Slope reliability Christian, J.T., Ladd, C.C., and Baecher, G.B. (1994).
analyses involving spatially correlated normal and “Reliability applied to slope stability analysis.” J.
Geotechnical Engrg., ASCE, 120(12): 2180-2207.
lognormal variates were demonstrated, with Hasofer, A. M. and Lind, N. C. (1974). “Exact and
search for the critical noncircular slip surface. The invariant second-moment code format.” J. Engrg.
Hasofer-Lind reliability index was re-interpreted Mechanics, 100: 111-121, ASCE, New York.
using the perspective of an expanding equivalent Kreyszig, E. (1988). Advanced Engineering Mathema-
dispersion ellipsoid centered at the mean in the tics, 6th ed., John Wiley & Sons, pp. 972-973.
original space of the random variables. The Lacasse, S. & Nadim, F. (1996). “Model uncertainty in
pile axial capacity calculations.” Proc. 28th
probabilities of failure inferred from reliability Offshore Technology Conference, Texas, 369-380.
indices are in good agreement with those from Low, B.K. and Wilson H. Tang (1997). “Efficient
Monte Carlo simulations for the example case in reliability evaluation using spreadsheet.” J. Engrg.
hand. The probability density functions (of the Mechanics, 123(7): 749-752, ASCE, New York.
factor of safety) were also derived from reliability Low, B. K., Gilbert, R. B., and Wright, S. G. (1998).
“Slope reliability analysis using generalized method
indices using simple spreadsheet-based cubic of slices.” J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
spline interpolation, and found to agree well with Engrg., 124(4): 350-362, ASCE, New York.
those generated by the far more time-consuming Low, B. K. (2001). "Probabilistic slope analysis
Monte Carlo simulation method. involving generalized slip surface in stochastic soil
The coupling of spreadsheet-automated cell- medium." Proc., 14th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
object-oriented constrained optimization and Conf., December 2001, Hong Kong, pp.825-830,
A.A.Balkema Publishers.
minimal macro programming in the ubiquitous Morgenstern, N. R. (1995). “Managing Risk in
spreadsheet platform, together with the intuitive Geotechnical Engineering.” Proc., Pan Am. Conf.,
expanding ellipsoid perspective, renders a hitherto ISSMFE.
complicated reliability analysis problem Rackwitz, R., and Fiessler, B. (1978). “Structural
conceptually more transparent and operationally reliability under combined random load sequences.”
Computers & Structures, Elsevier, 9:484-94.
more accessible to practicing engineers. The Spencer, E. (1973). “Thrust line criterion in
computational procedure presented herein embankment stability analysis.” Geotechnique,
achieves the same reliability index as the classical 23:85-100.
first order reliability method (FORM), but without U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1999) document, “ETL
involving the concepts of eigenvalues, 1110-2-556, Risk-based analysis in geotechnical
eigenvectors, and transformed space. It also engineering for support of planning studies”,
Appendix A, pages A11 & A12. (http://www.usace.
affords possibilities yet unexplored or difficult army.mil/publications/eng-tech-ltrs/etl-cw.html)
hitherto. Although slope stability analysis is dealt Vanmarcke, E. H. (1977). “Reliability of earth slopes.”
with in the paper, the perspectives and techniques J. Geotechnical Engrg., ASCE, 103(11): 1247-1266.
presented could be useful in many other Whitman, R.V. (1984). “Evaluating calculated risk in
engineering problems. geotechnical engineering,” J. Geotechnical Engrg.,
ASCE, 110(2): 145-188.
Although only correlated normals and Whitman, R.V. (1996). “Organizing and evaluating
lognormals were illustrated in the paper, the VBA uncertainnty in geotechnical engineering.” Proc.,
code shown in Fig. 6 can be extended to deal with Uncertainty in Geologic Environment: from Theory
the triangular, the exponential, the gamma, the to Practice, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication
Gumbel, and the beta distributions, for example. #58, V1, 1-28.
2784