Geotech Geol Eng
DOI 10.1007/s10706-015-9955-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
Effect of 2-D Random Field Discretization on Failure
Probability and Failure Mechanism in Probabilistic
Slope Stability
Liang Li . Xuesong Chu
Received: 9 July 2015 / Accepted: 16 November 2015
Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
Abstract This paper investigates, using the random
field theory and Monte Carlo simulation, the effects of
random field discretization on failure probability, pf,
and failure mechanism of cohesive soil slope stability.
The spatial sizes of the discretized elements in random
field Dx, Dy in horizontal and vertical directions,
respectively, are assigned a series of combinational
values in order to model the discretization accuracy.
The pf of deterministic critical slip surface (DCSS)
and that of the slope system both are analyzed. The
numerical simulation results have demonstrated that
both the ratios of Dy/ky (ky = scale of fluctuation in
vertical direction) and Dx/kx (kx = scale of fluctuation
in horizontal direction) contribute in a similar manner
to the accuracy of pf of DCSS. The effect of random
field discretization on the pf can be negligible if both
the ratios of Dx/kx and Dy/ky are no greater than 0.1.
The normalized discrepancy tends to increase at a
linear rate with Dy/ky when Dx/kx is larger than 0.1,
and vice versa for pf of DCSS. The random field
discretization tends to have more considerable influ-
ence on the pf of DCSS than on that of the slope
system. The variation of pf versus kx and ky may
exhibit opposite trends for the cases where the limit
L. Li (&)  X. Chu
School of Civil Engineering, Qingdao University
of Technology, Qingdao, China
e-mail: ll_sdjydszylm@163.com
state functions of slope failure are defined on DCSS
and on the slope system as well. Finally, the pf of slope
system converges in a more rapid manner to that of
DCSS than the failure mechanism does to DCSS as the
spatial variability of soil property grows from signif-
icant to negligible.
Keywords Slope stability  Random field
discretization  Failure probability 
Monte Carlo simulation
1 Introduction
In geotechnical analysis, the largest uncertainties
usually stem from the mechanical properties of the
soil material. In addition, the uncertain material
properties tend to vary in space, even within homo-
geneous layers (i.e., inherent spatial variability). The
last decade has witnessed the progress in methodolo-
gies for probabilistic slope stability analysis account-
ing for the inherent spatial variability of soil property
(El-Ramly et al. 2002; Low et al. 2007; Cho 2007,
2010; Hicks and Spencer 2010; Wang et al 2011; Ji
et al. 2012; Ji 2014; Jiang et al. 2014, 2015; Li et al.
2014a, 2015; Chu et al. 2015). The methodologies
incorporating non-intrusively the deterministic
numerical tools (e.g., finite element method/FEM,
limit equilibrium method/LEM, and limit analysis/
LA) and the random field theory are widely adopted in
the literature (El-Ramly et al. 2002; Wang et al 2011;
123

Ji and Chan 2014; Jiang et al. 2014, 2015; Li et al.
2014a, 2015).
The random field discretization is inevitable before it
can be utilized in the practical procedure. That is, the
average of soil property over the discretized element
(characterized by spatial sizes Dx and Dy in horizontal
and vertical direction, respectively) is more meaningful
than that defined in point level (Vanmarcke 1977;
El-Ramly et al. 2002). That is, most engineering
property parameters used for modeling macroscale
problems are poorly defined for an infinitesimally small
domain. However, the random field discretization leads
to an issue on the balance between levels of accuracy
and efficiency of modeling. It is obvious that the smaller
element sizes (i.e., a finer discretization scheme) will
model the random field with higher accuracy, but with
longer computing time, and vice versa. A sufficiently
small element size is conventionally adopted in the
literature (Jiang et al.2015; Wang et al. 2011) to attain a
compromise between simulation accuracy and effi-
ciency. A trial-and-error approach is usually performed
in order to obtain a rational result. Ching and Phoon
(2013) have pointed out that the tolerable maximum
element sizes to achieve acceptable accuracy for soil
shear strength are surprisingly small. The quantitative
effect of discretization density on the accuracy of the
numerical results (e.g., failure probability, pf, failure
mechanism in slope failure) remains an open question,
and further explorations are in demand.
The objective of this paper is to quantitatively study
the influence of element sizes on the accuracy of pf and
on the distribution of volume of sliding mass in slope
stability analysis. The paper starts with a concise
review of the random field theory for modeling the
inherent spatial variability of soil property, followed
by the procedures for the evaluation of pf and
identification of failure mechanism of slope stability.
Then, the effect of element sizes on pf and failure
mechanism is investigated through a cohesive soil
slope. Finally, the conclusions are drawn, and some
insights into the distribution of volume of sliding mass
in slope stability are highlighted.
2 Random Field Modeling of Inherent Spatial
Variability
The inherent spatial variability of soil property (e.g.,
undrained shear strength Su) can be properly modeled
123
Geotech Geol Eng
by a two-dimensional (2-D) stationary lognormal
random field R(Su) which can be characterized by
mean, variance, and correlation function. There are
several random field generation strategies available
for simulating R(Su), for example, the local average
subdivision method (Fenton and Vanmarcke 1990),
Fourier series method (Jha and Ching 2013), and
covariance matrix decomposition method (Wang et al.
2011; Li et al. 2013a, 2014b; Li and Chu 2015a, b, c).
The 2-D single-exponential correlation function is
adopted.
!
2jdijx j 2jdijy j
qij ¼ exp   ð1Þ
kx ky
where qij is the correlation coefficient between values
of ln(Su) at location i and j; jdijx j and jdijy j are horizontal
and vertical distances between locations i and j, and kx
and ky are horizontal and vertical scale of fluctuation
of ln(Su), respectively.
It is of practical necessity to discretize the contin-
uous R(Su) into a representation suitable for use with
computers. There are several methods available for
random field discretization. For example, Ji and Chan
(2014) employed controlling point-based approach,
and the Su value at any location was interpolated by
using those values of adjacent controlling points. A
local averaging approach (Vanmarcke 1977; Vanmar-
cke et al. 1986) is adopted in this paper. The
continuous random field is discretized into a finite
number of elements each of which has spatial sizes
Dx and Dy. In the ensuing case studies, the influence of
Dx and Dy on pf and failure mechanism in slope
stability will be explored in combination with Monte
Carlo simulation (MCS). The brief review of MCS in
slope stability analysis is given in the next section.
3 Calculation of pf and Identification of Failure
Mechanism by MCS
Figure 1 illustrates the flowchart for the calculation of
pf and identification of failure mechanism (i.e., the
distribution of volume of sliding mass) by MCS. After
the characterization of slope geometry and the statis-
tics, the random field discretization for statistically
homogeneous soil layer is performed, and subse-
quently, a large number N of samples in accordance
with the probability distribution is generated. For each
Geotech Geol Eng

Characterize slope geometry and the statistics

(e.g., mean, variance, scale of fluctuation, and
probability distributions of soil properties)

Discretize continuous random field using a proper combination of Δx and Δy,

formulate the correliation matrix and conduct Cholesky decomposition, and
finally generate the random fields

Determine the sample number N in MCS, select convenient numerical tools for
evaluation of deterministic slope response, and define the limit state function of
slope response

For each of N samples, determine the limit state function value, if it is lower than 0.0,
the current sample is referred to as failure sample, restore the volume of sliding mass
corresponding to the current sample

If N samples are all processed in

MCS?

Counter the number of failure samples Nf and define the failure probability as the ratio
of Nf to N; Plot the histogram of volume of sliding mass according to the Nf restored
data

Fig. 1 Flowchart for calculation of failure probability and the identification of distribution of sliding mass by MCS

of N samples, LEM is utilized to determine the factor 15

of safety (FS) and the corresponding volume of sliding
Slope height .(m)

FS=1.02
mass. Therefore, we can obtain N sets of FS and 10
volume of sliding mass. The histograms of FS and the
volume of sliding mass are therefore available for 5
Volume of sliding mass
further investigation and pf can then be estimated as =107m3/m
the proportion of Nf failed simulations (e.g., the 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
relevant FS is lower than 1.0) to the total number of Slope width (m)
simulations (e.g., N).
Fig. 2 Cohesive soil slope geometry and deterministic critical
slip surface

4 Case Study
inclination ratio of 1:1). The short-term shear strength
A cohesive soil slope as shown in Fig. 2 has a height of of cohesive soil is characterized by undrained shear
10 m and slope angle of 45° (corresponding to an strength Su. Short-term stability of the slope is

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

evaluated using ordinary method of slices under
undrained condition (Duncan and Wright 2005). The
saturated unit weight of cohesive soil csat has a
deterministic value of 20 kN/m3. Su is modeled by a
2-D lognormal random field characterized by a mean
of 35 kPa, standard deviation of 10 kPa (correspond-
ing to a coefficient of variation, COV = 28.6 %), and
a 2-D single-exponential correlation function in
Eq. (1). The determination of kx and ky for ln(Su) is
beyond the scope of this study, and an assembly of
discrete possible values for kx and ky are selected to
perform the parametric studies.
The deterministic critical slip surface (DCSS),
which has the minimum FS in deterministic slope
stability analysis, is traditionally of great interest for
geotechnical practitioners. Although previous studies
(Wang et al. 2011; Li et al. 2013b; Zeng et al. 2015)
have demonstrated that multiple slip surfaces rather
than the sole DCSS dominate the slope failure in
probabilistic slope stability analysis, especially for the
cases where inherent spatial variability of soil property
is considered, the pf of DCSS is still of fairly practical
use. Hence, the influence of random field discretiza-
tion on the pf of DCSS is firstly studied. An in-house
Fortran-based software package for deterministic
slope stability analysis has been developed and used
successfully in previous studies (Li et al.2010; Li and
Chu 2011; Li et al.2013a). The software package is
equipped with HS algorithm and particle swarm
optimization algorithm for efficient location of DCSS.
The software package is further extended to incorpo-
rate the random field theory and MCS for the
probabilistic slope stability analysis.
In order to investigate the effect of random field
discretization on the pf of DCSS, 30 combinations of
Dx and Dy values are summarized in Table 1. The
random field discretization corresponding to C1 is
referred to as the baseline for comparative study. That
is to say, the pf and failure mechanism obtained under
C1 are taken as the benchmark values due to the fact
that a further improvement on the random field
discretization will have marginal influence on the
response of slope of interest. After the generation of
random field, seven values of kx (i.e., 10, 20, 30, 40,
50, 100, 1000 m) and 30 values of ky (i.e., taking the
initial value of 1 m and increasing to 11 m with 0.5
equal increment, and taking the discrete values of 15,
20, 30, 40, 50, 100, 150, 200, 1000 m) are assumed for
the anisotropic spatial variability of ln(Su), thereby
resulting in a total of 210 cases for each random field
discretization. For each of 210 cases to be studied, a
preliminary sensitivity study of N in MCS is per-
formed. The coefficient of variation (COV) of pf can
be estimated as (Ang and Tang 2007):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1  pf
COVpf ¼ ð2Þ
Npf
A maximum allowable COVpf ¼ 0:01 is adopted for
calculating the pf of DCSS in Sect. 4.1. N = 100,000
is a good choice based on the trial-and-error proce-
dures. Therefore, N = 100,000 is adopted in all cases
conducted by MCS for the evaluation of pf of DCSS.
Consider, for example, the benchmark pf is referred to
as pbf , and the corresponding pf calculated under each
of C2 to C30 discretization scheme is pef , the
normalized discrepancy between pbf and pef , e (in
percentage, %), is defined as:
pef  pbf
e¼  100 ð3Þ
pbf
4.1 Influence of Random Field Discretization
on pf of DCSS

Table 1 Summary of random field discretization scheme Figure 2 illustrates the DCSS having a FS = 1.02 with
all Su values equal to 35 kPa. By discretizing the
Dx (m) Dy (m)
random field using each of C1 to C30 schemes, the Su
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.67 1.0 values averaged over elements that relate to the
portions of DCSS vary as a consequence that the larger
1.0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
the element sizes, the smaller the variance reduction
1.25 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12
factor imposed on the Su variable averaged over this
1.67 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18
element. Figure 3 summarizes the results in a plot of
2.5 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24
variation of e versus Dy/ky under Dy = 0.1 m. It is
5.0 C25 C26 C27 C28 C29 C30
shown in Fig. 3a that as Dy/ky increases, the

123
Geotech Geol Eng

normalized discrepancy e fluctuates within the range
of -1 to 1 % for Dx = 1.25, and 1.67 m at kx = 10 m.
This variation is within the range of the COVpf , and
therefore, it does not reflect the influence of random
field discretization. The normalized discrepancy tends
to increase as Dy/ky increase from 0 to 0.1 for
Dx = 2.5, and 5.0 m with a maximum e = 2 and 5 %,
respectively. As shown in Fig. 3b, where kx increases
to 20 m, the variation of e for cases at Dx = 1.25, 1.67,
and 2.5 m falls within the range of COVpf . The
variation of e for Dx = 5 m grows insignificant as
compared to Fig. 3a, and the maximum e = 2 % is
noticed. It is demonstrated in Fig. 3c, d that for
kx = 50 m and kx = 1000 m, e varies within the range
of -1 to 1 % for all cases of Dx values. It is noted that
the maximum ratio of Dx/kx in Fig. 3c, d is no greater
than 0.1. This phenomenon implies that as long as both
the ratios of Dx/kx and Dy/ky are no greater than 0.1,
the effect of random field discretization is negligible.
This observation provides a preliminary criterion for
selecting the proper element sizes in random field
discretization.
Figure 4 depicts the variation of e versus Dy/ky
under kx = 10 m for the cases of Dy = 0.2, 0.5, 0.67,
and 1 m in (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively. It is found
in Fig. 4 that as the ratio of Dy/ky increases from 0.001
to 1.0, the normalized discrepancy e increases at an
approximately linear rate. For example, Fig. 4d shows
that the e equals 3, 5, 7, 12, 16, and 18 % under
Dy/ky = 0.001, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 0.67 and 1, respectively,

(a) (b)
6 6
λx=10m Δy=0.1m λx=20m Δy=0.1m
Δx=1.25m Δx=1.25m
5 Δx=1.67m 5 Δx=1.67m
Δx=2.5m Δx=2.5m
4 4
Δx=5m Δx=5m

3 3
ε (%)
ε (%)

2 2

1 1

0 0

-1 -1
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Δy/λy Δy/λy

(c) 6 (d)
6
λx=50m Δy=0.1m λx=1000m Δy=0.1m

5 5
Δx=1.25m Δx=1.25m

Δx=1.67m Δx=1.67m
4 4
Δx=2.5m Δx=2.5m

3 Δx=5m 3 Δx=5m
ε (%)
ε (%)

2 2

1 1

0 0

-1 -1
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Δy/λy Δy/λy

Fig. 3 Variations of normalized discrepancy e versus the ratio of Dy/ky under Dy = 0.1 m at a kx = 10 m; b kx = 20 m; c kx = 50 m;
and d kx = 1000 m

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

(a) (b)
8 12
λx=10m Δy=0.2m
Δx=1m Δx=1m λx=10m Δy=0.5m
7 Δx=1.25m 10 Δx=1.25m
Δx=1.67m Δx=1.67m
6
Δx=2.5m Δx=2.5m
8
5 Δx=5m Δx=5m
6
ε (%)

ε (%)
4

3 4
2
2
1
0
0

-1 -2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Δy/λy Δy/λy

(c) (d)
18 20
Δx=1m 18 Δx=1m λx=10m Δy=1m
16 λx=10m Δy=0.67m
Δx=1.25m Δx=1.25m
16
14 Δx=1.67m Δx=1.67m
Δx=2.5m 14 Δx=2.5m
12
Δx=5m 12 Δx=5m
10
ε (%)

10
ε (%)

8
8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Δy/λy Δy/λy

Fig. 4 Variations of normalized discrepancy e versus the ratio of Dy/ky under kx = 10 m at a Dy = 0.2 m; b Dy = 0.5 m;
c Dy = 0.67 m; and d Dy = 1 m

under Dx = 5 m case. It is expected that a smaller
Dx will provide lower e values for a given ratio of
Dy/ky. For example, the e turns to be 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 8, 12,
and 15 % at the above five ratios of Dy/ky for
Dx = 2.5 m case. When Dx reduces to 1 m, the e is
0.5, 1, 4, 10, and 13 % at the above five ratios of Dy/ky,
respectively. The increasing rate of e reduces with the
decreasing Dx values. Similar variation trends have
been observed from Fig. 4a–c.
Figure 5 shows the variation of e versus Dx/kx
under ky = 1 m for the cases of Dx = 1.0, 1.67, 2.5,
and 5 m in (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively. It is
observed that the variation of e versus Dx/kx follows a
linear trend. Figure 5d demonstrates that as Dx/kx
increases from 0.005 to 0.5, the normalized discrep-
ancy e increases from 11 to 18 % for the case of
Dy = 1 m. A smaller value of Dy is expected to
present a lower e. Take Dy = 0.5 m for example; the
normalized discrepancy e increases from 4 to 11 % as
Dx/kx increases from 0.005 to 0.5. The comparative
studies indicate that the ratio of Dx/kx contributes in a
similar manner to the variation of e as compared to that
of Dy/ky.
Figure 6 plots the comparison of probability den-
sity function (PDF) of FS under two specific condi-
tions. Figure 6a compares the PDF of FS between
kx = 10 m and kx = 1000 m at ky = 1 m and C1
discretization. For this case, the larger value of

123
Geotech Geol Eng

(a) (b)
20 20
Δy=0.2m Δy=0.4m Δy=0.5m Δy=0.67m Δy=1m Δy=0.1m Δy=0.2m Δy=0.4m Δy=0.5m Δy=0.67m Δy=1m

15 15

10 10

ε (%)
ε (%)

5 5

0 0

-5 -5
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Δx /λx Δx /λx

(c) (d)
20 20
Δy=0.1m Δy=0.2m Δy=0.4m Δy=0.5m Δy=0.67m Δy=1m Δy=0.1m Δy=0.2m Δy=0.4m Δy=0.5m Δy=0.67m Δy=1m

15 15

10 10
ε (%)
ε (%)

5 5

0 0

-5 -5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Δx /λx Δx /λx

Fig. 5 Variations of normalized discrepancy e versus the ratio of Dx/kx under ky = 1 m at a Dx = 1 m; b Dx = 1.67 m; c Dx = 2.5 m;
and d Dx = 5 m

1000 m will lead to the overestimation of the variance
of FS considering the fact that the larger value of
1000 m will result in a greater correlation coefficient
qij. This overestimation of variance of FS results in a
slightly increase in pf. The pf corresponding to the real
line is 0.42, while the dashed line is 0.44. Figure 6b
demonstrates the difference in PDF between C1 and
C30 discretization at kx = 10 m and ky = 1 m. The
coarse discretization (C30) will lead to the underes-
timation of variance of FS due to the combinatorial
factors like variance reduction in Su and increment in
correlation coefficient as compared to the fine dis-
cretization (C1). This underestimation of variance of
FS leads to a significant increase in pf. The one
corresponding to C1 (real line) is 0.42 and that to C30
(dashed line) is 0.49. The illustration implies that
either the overestimation or the underestimation of the
variance of FS may lead to overestimation of pf.
4.2 Influence of Random Field Discretization
on Response of Slope System
The previous studies have demonstrated that several
representative slip surfaces instead of mere DCSS
contribute to the slope system response (Wang et al.
2011; Li et al. 2013b, 2014b; Zeng et al. 2015),
especially for the case where the spatial variability of
soil property is significant. It is, therefore, of great
necessity to conduct the sensitivity study of the
influence of random field discretization on the pf of
slope system and on the distribution of volume of
sliding mass under slope failure. The harmony search
algorithm implemented in the in-house Fortran soft-
ware package is used to locate the minimum FS and
the corresponding volume of sliding mass for each of
N samples in MCS. The parameters used in harmony
search algorithm are dynamically modified in order to

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

(a) 1
λx=10m λx=20m
0.06 λx=30m λx=40m
0.9 λx=50m λx=100m
λx=10
System-λx=10m System-λx=100m
λx=1000m
0.04
Probability

λy=1m C1 0.8

pf
0.7
0.02

0.6
Fs =1
0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.5
Fs
0.4
(b) 1 10 100
0.06 λy (m)
C1
C30 Fig. 7 Variation of pf versus kx and ky
Probability

0.04
0.02
Fs =1
0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Fs
Fig. 6 Comparisons of PDFs at two specific conditions. a PDF
comparison between kx = 10 m and kx = 1000 m for ky = 1 m
under C1 discretization. b PDF comparison between C1 and C30
discretization under kx = 10 m; ky = 1 m
find the minimum FS, and the number of iteration
steps is taken as 10,000. The parametric studies have
shown that more iteration steps have insignificant
influence on the minimum FS and the volume of
sliding mass. Alternative search algorithm such as
genetic algorithm (Jurado-Piña and Jimenez 2015) can
also be used for the location minimum FS and the
corresponding volume of sliding mass for each of
random samples in MCS. It is noted that N = 1000 is
adopted in MCS because the search for minimum FS
under each of random samples is quite computation-
ally demanding.
When the limit state function is defined on DCSS,
the variation of pf versus ky for kx = 10, 20, 30, 40, 50,
and 100 m under C1 discretization is plotted in Fig. 7
indicated by open square, triangle, cross, asterisk,
circle, and Greek cross, respectively. It is noted that as
ky increases from 1 to 100 m, the pf of DCSS increases
slightly from 0.42 to 0.47 for kx = 10 m, and it
λ
λ
increases from 0.43 to 0.51 for kx = 100 m. If the
slope system response is considered, the variation of pf
versus ky for kx = 10 and 100 m is also depicted in
Fig. 7 by solid square and triangle, respectively. As ky
increases from 1 to 10 m, the system pf decreases
1.4 1.6 considerably from 0.825 to 0.59, and then it varies
slightly to 0.53 as ky increases from 10 to 100 m for
kx = 10 m. The system pf decreases significantly from
0.74 to 0.51 as ky increases from 1 to 10 m and it varies
marginally to 0.5 as ky increases from 10 to 100 m for
kx = 100 m .The opposite variation trends in pf versus
ky and kx have been found for the limit state function
defined on DCSS and that defined on the slope system
response. It is demonstrated that the variation trend in
pf versus ky and kx obtained from DCSS may not be
suitable for predicting the variation trend in pf of slope
system.
The influence of random field discretization on pf of
slope system is studied at different values of kx and ky
by using C1 and C30. Table 2 summarizes the
calculation results. Nf = 812 and 825 are obtained at
kx = 10 m and ky = 1 m at C30 and C1 and therefore,
the pf is equal to 0.812 and 0.825, respectively. The
normalized discrepancy between 0.812 and 0.825 is
equivalent to the COVpf computed using Eq. (2),
which indicates a marginally difference in pf between
C1 and C30. As compared with the results in Sect. 4.1
(refer to upper right point in asterisk in Fig. 4d), the
normalized discrepancy e between C30 and C1 at
kx = 10 m and ky = 1 m is about 18 % if DCSS is
selected to represent the slope response. However, e is

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Table 2 Summary of pf at Discretization kx, ky values
different kx, ky values for
C1 and C30 kx = 10 m
ky = 1 m
C1 0.825
C30 0.812
e (%) -1.6
COVpf (%) 1.5
negligible if the slope system response is taken into
account. The trivial difference in pf of slope system
between C30 and C1 has also been noted for other
combinations of kx and ky values. It is therefore
demonstrated that the random field discretization
tends to have more considerable influence on the pf
of DCSS than on that of the slope system when the
spatial variability of soil property is considered.
Figure 8 compares the histogram of volume of
sliding mass for Nf samples between C1 and C30
discretization. The maximum volume of sliding mass
is no more than 150 m3/m, and the minimum volume
of sling mass is zero. The possible range of volume of
sliding mass is divided into 15 equal intervals. The
midpoint value of each interval is plotted in horizontal
axis. The vertical axis denotes the number of failure
samples whose corresponding volume of sliding mass
falls within the interval. The histograms of volume of
sliding mass at kx = 10 m and ky = 1 m under C1 and
C30 discretization are summarized in Fig. 8a. The
mean and standard deviation of the volume of sliding
mass at C1 are 90.5 and 46.1 m3/m, and they are 90.9
and 48.5 m3/m, respectively at C30. This indicates
that the coarse random field discretization leads to an
overestimation of the mean and volume of sliding
mass as compared to the fine random field discretiza-
tion. The similar overestimation of the mean and
volume of sliding mass is also observed for the case of
kx = 100 m and ky = 100 m. It is interesting to note
that although the pf of DCSS and that of slope system
show slight difference at kx = 100 m and ky = 100 m
(refer to Fig. 7), significant difference in the distribu-
tion of volume of sliding mass is noticed as shown in
Fig. 8b. The volume of sliding mass related to DCSS
is 107 m3/m, which lies in the interval denoted by 105
in horizontal axis. It can be seen from Fig. 8b that
apart from the interval of 105, there are other six
intervals, within each of which the equivalent number
of failure samples to that in interval of 105 falls. This
kx = 10 m kx = 100 m kx = 100 m
ky = 100 m ky = 1 m ky = 100 m
0.556 0.741 0.518
0.562 0.716 0.521
1.1 -3.3 0.6
2.8 1.9 3.1
means that DCSS is only one of seven failure
mechanisms even for the cases where spatial variabil-
ity grows insignificant (kx = 100 m and ky = 100 m).
As the spatial variability of soil property turns to be
marginal (kx = 5000 m and ky = 5000 m), the his-
togram of volume of sliding mass is shown in Fig. 8c.
It is found that the number of failure samples in the
interval of 105 contributes approximately 80 % to
Nf = 507 total failure samples. It is therefore con-
cluded that as the spatial variability of soil property
grows less significant, the pf simplifies into that of
DCSS in a more rapid way than the failure mechanism
of slope system converges to DCSS. Besides pf, the
distribution of volume of sliding mass of slope failure
should receive much attention in slope stability
analysis and slope rehabilitation.
5 Conclusions
The spatial variability of undrained shear strength of
cohesive soil slope was modeled by a 2-D lognormal
random field, and the effect of random field dis-
cretization on pf of DCSS and that of the slope system
was investigated. For a given random field discretiza-
tion, seven discrete values for kx and 30 values for ky
were assumed to model the anisotropic spatial vari-
ability. The parametric studies have demonstrated that
the effect of random field discretization on pf of DCSS
is negligible when both the ratios of Dx/kx and Dy/ky
are no greater than 0.1. The variation of Dy/ky
contributes in a similar manner to that of Dx/kx to
the variation of the normalized discrepancy. The
random field discretization has marginal influence on
the pf of the slope system for the current study.
However, it is interesting to point out that the variation
of pf versus kx and ky may exhibit opposite trends for
the cases where limit state function is defined on
DCSS and on the slope system as well. The coarse
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

(a) random field discretization tends to overestimate the

160 mean and standard deviation of the volume of sliding
C30
140 mass. Finally, the pf of slope system simplifies into
C1
that of DCSS in a more rapid way than the failure
120
mechanism converges to DCSS as the spatial vari-
100 ability grows insignificant. Based on the previous
Frequency

80 research conducted by Jimenez and Sitar (2009), it is

worthwhile to note that this study is limited to a given
60
distribution type (lognormal distribution), a given
40 correlation structure (single exponential), and a given
20
soil property, and there is still scope for further study.

0 Acknowledgments The present work was supported by

5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145
3 National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos.
Volume of sliding mass(m /m)
51274126, 51008167, and 51179080), China Scholarship
Council (CSC), and National Program on Key Basic Research
(b) Project (973 Program, Grant No. 2013CB036403). The financial
160 supports are gratefully acknowledged.
C30
140 C1
120
References
Frequency

100
Ang AH-S, Tang WH (2007) Probability concepts in engi-
80 neering: emphasis on applications to civil and environ-
60
mental engineering, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
Hoboken
40 Ching J, Phoon KK (2013) Effect of element sizes in random
field finite element simulations of soil shear strength.
20 Comput Struct 126:120–134
Cho SE (2007) Effects of spatial variability of soil properties on
0
5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 slope stability. Eng Geol 92:97–109
Volume of sliding mass(m 3/m) Cho SE (2010) Probabilistic assessment of slope stability that
considers the spatial variability of soil properties.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 136(7):975–984
(c) Chu XS, Li L, Wang YJ (2015) Slope reliability analysis using
500
C30
length-based representative slip surfaces. Arabian J Geosci
8(11):9065–9078
400 Duncan JM, Wright SG (2005) Soil strength and slope stability.
John Wiley & Sons. Inc., Upper Saddle River
El-Ramly H, Morgenstern NR, Cruden DM (2002) Probabilistic
Frequency

300 slope stability analysis for practice. Can Geotech J

200
100
0 Jha SK, Ching J (2013) Simulating spatial averages of stationary
5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145
3
Volume of sliding mass(m /m)
Fig. 8 Comparison of histogram of volume of sliding mass.
a Comparison of histogram of volume of sliding mass at
kx = 10 m, ky = 1 m. b Comparison of histogram of volume of
sliding mass at kx = 100 m, ky = 100 m. c kx = 5000 m,
ky = 5000 m
39(3):665–683
Fenton GA, Vanmarcke EH (1990) Simulation of random fields
via local average subdivision. J Eng Mech ASCE
116(8):1733–1749
Hicks MA, Spencer WA (2010) Influence of heterogeneity on
the reliability and failure of a long 3D slope. Comput
Geotech 37(7–8):948–955
random field using the Fourier series method. J Eng
Mechanics 139(5):594–605
Ji J (2014) A simplified approach for modeling spatial vari-
ability of undrained shear strength in out-plane failure
mode of earth embankment. Eng Geol 183:315–323
Ji J, Chan CL (2014) Long embankment failure accounting for
longitudinal spatial variation: a probabilistic study. Com-
put Geotech 61:50–56

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Ji J, Liao HJ, Low BK (2012) Modeling 2-D spatial variation in
slope reliability analysis using interpolated autocorrela-
tions. Comput Geotech 40:135–146
Jiang SH, Li DQ, Zhang LM, Zhou CB (2014) Slope reliability
analysis considering spatially variable shear strength
parameters using a non-intrusive stochastic finite element
method. Eng Geol 168:120–128
Jiang SH, Li DQ, Cao ZJ, Zhou CB, Phoon KK (2015) Efficient
system reliability analysis of slope stability in spatially
variable soils using Monte Carlo simulation. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 141(2):04014096(13)
Jimenez R, Sitar N (2009) The importance of distribution types
on finite element analyses of foundation settlement.
Comput Geotech 36(3):474–483
Jurado-Piña R, Jimenez R (2015) A genetic algorithm for slope
stability analyses with concave slip surfaces using custom
operators. Eng Optim 47(4):453–472
Li L, Chu XS (2011) An improved particle swarm optimization
algorithm with harmony strategy for the location of critical
slip surface of slopes. China Ocean Eng 25(2):357–364
Li L, Chu XS (2015a) Multiple response surfaces for slope
reliability analysis. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
39(2):175–192
Li L, Chu XS (2015b) Comparative study on response surfaces
for reliability analysis of spatially variable soil slope.
China Ocean Eng 29(1):81–90
Li L, Chu XS (2015c) Risk assessment of slope failure by rep-
resentative slip surfaces and response surface function.
KSCE J Civ Eng. doi:10.1007/s12205-015-2243-6
Li L, Yu GM, Chen Z, Chu XS (2010) Discontinuous flying
particle swarm optimization algorithm and its application
to slope stability analysis. J Cent South Univ Technol
17(4):852–856
Li L, Wang Y, Cao ZJ, Chu XS (2013a) Risk de-aggregation and
system reliability analysis of slope stability using repre-
sentative slip surfaces. Comput Geotech 53:95–105
Li L, Cheng YM, Chu XS (2013b) A new approach to the
determination of the critical slip surfaces of slopes. China
Ocean Eng 27(1):51–64
Li DQ, Qi XH, Zhou CB, Phoon KK (2014a) Effect of spatial
variability of shear strength parameters that increase lin-
early with depth on reliability of infinite slopes. Struct Saf
49:45–55
Li L, Wang Y, Cao ZJ (2014b) Probabilistic slope stability
analysis by risk aggregation. Eng Geol 176:57–65
Li DQ, Jiang SH, Cao ZJ, Zhou W, Zhou CB, Zhang LM (2015)
A multiple response-surface method for slope reliability
analysis considering spatial variability of soil properties.
Eng Geol 187:60–72
Low BK, Lacasse S, Nadim F (2007) Slope reliability analysis
accounting for spatial variation. Georisk 1(4):177–189
Vanmarcke EH (1977) Probabilistic modeling of soil profiles.
J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 103(11):1227–1246
Vanmarcke E, Shinozuka M, Nakagiri S, Schuëller G, Grigoriu
M (1986) Random fields and stochastic finite elements.
Struct Saf 3(3–4):143–166
Wang Y, Cao Z, Au S-K (2011) Practical reliability analysis of
slope stability by advanced Monte Carlo simulations in a
spreadsheet. Can Geotech J 48(1):162–172
Zeng P, Jimenez R, Jurado-Piña R (2015) System reliability
analysis of layered soil slopes using fully specified slip
surfaces and genetic algorithms. Eng Geol 193:106–117
123