Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 360–368

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Three-dimensional slope dynamic stability reliability assessment based on T

the probability density evolution method
⁎,1
LaiFu Songa, Bin Xua,b, , XianJing Konga,b, DeGao Zoua,b, Rui Panga, Xiang Yua, Zeyu Zhanga
a
School of Hydraulic Engineering, Faculty of Infrastructure Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The dynamic stability of a slope is an important problem in geotechnical engineering, especially when subjected
Three-dimensional slope to a strong earthquake. In this paper, an efficient calculation method for the time-history analysis of the dynamic
Dynamic stability stability of a 3D slope is developed, which is combined with the probability density evolution method (PDEM) to
Stochastic ground motion establish a reliability evaluation method for the dynamic stability of a 3D slope. A newly developed dimensional-
Probability density evolution
reduction spectrum-random function method combined with the stochastic process of ground motion provides
Reliability evaluation
Reinforcement range
an effective method for the stochastic seismic reliability analysis of complex nonlinear 3D slopes. Finally, the
stochastic dynamic response and reliability analysis of 2D and 3D slopes are performed based on a safety factor,
and then the extreme distribution probability is obtained. The results show that the seismic dynamic response of
the 3D slope is larger than that of a 2D slope because of the three-dimensional effect. In addition, the probability
density of the safety factor has a wider range of distribution in the three-dimensional situation. Therefore, the 3D
slope has a higher risk when subjected to seismic excitation, and it is necessary to study the dynamic stability
and reliability for some important slopes using 3D models in practical engineering. Moreover, the time-history
analysis method of the dynamic stability of a 3D slope established in this paper can directly obtain the range and
specific location of the slope instability failure and can provide a reliable basis for the prevention and re-
inforcement of landslides.

1. Introduction boundary or complicated mountainous regions (e.g., the Rocky Moun-

Accompanied by the rapid development of a global economy and
particularly since the 1950s, the global population is rapidly increasing,
and human activity space is gradually expanded. The quantity and scale
of various construction projects that support technological and eco-
nomic development are also expanded. Therefore, the disturbance of
geological environments is becoming more severe. Affected by factors
such as global natural environment changes (e.g., greenhouse effect, El
Nino), landslide disasters, and particularly large-scale landslide dis-
asters, which are frequent, have caused enormous economic loss and
casualties [1–4]. Currently, landslides have become the most frequent
major geological disaster with the most severe loss [5,6].
With the development of human society and urbanization, the da-
mage caused by earthquake-induced geological disasters and their im-
pact on society have increased [7]. Due to enormous destructive power,
earthquake landslides have attracted a considerable amount of atten-
tion. In global mountainous regions, and particularly tectonic plate
tains and Andes Mountains at the edge of the American tectonic plate;
Western Pacific Ocean archipelagos, including Japan, Taiwan and the
western region; the Alps region in east France; the Swiss region; Austria
and north Italy; and the Scandinavia peninsula region [8–11]), earth-
quake-induced landslides are common. An earthquake landslide has the
following characteristics: wide distribution, frequent, high density,
highly random, large scale, highly destructive and lethal. In the 20th
century, earthquake landslides have caused the loss of thousands of
lives and billions of dollars [12]. In the 21st century, global earthquakes
have been frequent, with a series of super earthquakes: Peru's major
earthquake and the Wenchuan earthquake (magnitude 8.0) in 2007; the
Qinghai Yushu earthquake (magnitude 7.1), Haiti's major earthquake
(magnitude 7.3) and Chile's major earthquake (magnitude 8.8) in 2010;
Fukushima's major earthquake (magnitude 9.0) in 2011; the Sichuan
Lushan mountain earthquake (magnitude 7.0) in 2013; and the Xinjiang
Yutian earthquake (magnitude 7.3) in 2014 [13]. According to the
statistics (source: China Earthquake Networks Centre) in Fig. 1, in the

⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Hydraulic Engineering, Faculty of Infrastructure Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China.
E-mail address: xubin@dlut.edu.cn (B. Xu).
1
The second author has the equal contribution as the first author to this paper.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.02.006
Received 19 July 2018; Received in revised form 3 December 2018; Accepted 6 February 2019
0267-7261/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Song, et al.
30
25 23
22
21
20
20 19
16 16
15
15
10
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Fig. 1. Global earthquake frequency from 2000 to 2015 (magnitude of at least 7.0).
21st century, the occurrence of global earthquakes with a magnitude of
at least seven is 20.4 times/year on average, which has exceeded the
annual average since 1900 (18.3 times/year). The Earth is currently in a
seismic active period, and earthquake magnitudes are increasing.
Therefore, the assessment of slope stability during an earthquake
should be the focus of seismic disaster relief.
Currently, researchers worldwide have analysed and investigated
the seismic stability of two-dimensional slopes and made numerous
achievements. Two-dimensional slope stability has a well-defined con-
cept, mature theory and can be easily calculated. However, compared
with a two-dimensional slope, a three-dimensional slope accurately
reflects the impact of slope width and boundary conditions and can be
directly applied to the investigation of the three-quantity distribution
pattern of a three-dimensional slope. In addition, natural landslides are
always three-dimensional; thus, simplified two-dimensional analysis
results can be inaccurate [14–16]. A three-dimensional slope stability
analysis can be performed to directly obtain the slope instability failure
range and detailed location, which provides a basis for landslide pre-
vention and reinforcement. Numerous engineering practices demon-
strate that the engineering structure safety index is solely based on
engineering experience and a single safety factor cannot quantify the
safety margin or risk. The empirical safety factor cannot be extended
[17]. For rock soil, factors such as geological environment and load
condition are highly uncertain, which causes a highly variable slope.
The reliability method is a perfect solution for this problem.
At present, the dynamic reliability analysis of slopes has become an
important topic in geotechnical engineering. Al-Homouda and
Tahtamonib [18] established a 3D probabilistic stability analysis model
of a soil slope and embankment under a seismic load using a safety
factor and slope failure displacement. Abhijit and Subrata [19] ana-
lysed the reliability of a concrete dam under earthquake action based
on the unconditional probability solved by the Taylor expansion
method. However, the quasi-static method and Newmark finite sliding
displacement algorithm [20,21] are mostly adopted. The quasi-static
force method simplifies the seismic effect to an inertia force and cannot
completely consider the seismic load randomness and variation of
geotechnical material mechanical properties during earthquake. Cur-
rent studies rarely consider the randomness of ground motion. In recent
years, great progress has been made in the study of the dynamic re-
liability combining structural randomness with stochastic excitation. Li
and Chen [22,23] developed a probabilistic density evolution theory of
stochastic dynamic system analysis, and this method provided a new
approach for the nonlinear stochastic dynamic reliability analysis of
large complex engineering structures. Xiong and Huang [24] analysed
the factors that affect the seismic stability of slopes, and the develop-
ment prospect of the stochastic seismic response analysis method was
described in detail by describing the internal factors of this method.
Huang and Xiong [25] analysed the stability of a 2D slope under
361
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 360–368
28
27
25
23
20 20
19
13
stochastic earthquake action on the basis of the probability density
evolution method and accurately calculated the seismic dynamic re-
liability. Therefore, a three-dimensional slope seismic stability analysis
should be performed from the perspective of random vibration.
In this paper, a three-dimensional slope dynamic stability program
is developed and verified via examples. Three-dimensional slope dy-
namic stability is systematically investigated. A generalized probability
density evolution method (GPDEM) is employed to perform the slope
seismic reliability analysis. Random seismic excitation is introduced to
construct a virtual random process and corresponding GPDEM equa-
tion. Based on an equivalent extreme value distribution probability
analysis, random dynamic analysis and deterministic finite element
time-history analysis [26] are effectively integrated. Based on the slope
stability safety factor, the two-dimensional and three-dimensional slope
dynamic stability and reliability are calculated. The feasibility and su-
periority of this method in three-dimensional slope dynamic reliability
analysis are verified via examples. This method provides a new idea for
three-dimensional slope dynamic stability analysis, improves com-
puting efficiency of three-dimensional slope system dynamic reliability
analysis and provides effective technology for further investigation of
three-dimensional slope dynamic stability and reliability.
2. Slope stability analysis
2.1. Three-dimensional slope stability analysis method
Using a sliding surface stress method to analyse three-dimensional
slope stability, the element stress of each component was calculated
using a finite element method. Then, the stress component of a point on
the sliding surface was calculated, and the surface normal and tan-
gential stresses were determined.
A general space problem contains 15 unknown functions, 6 of which
are stress components, 6 are deformation components and 3 are dis-
placement components, and all are functions of x, y and z coordinate
variables. The six stress components of point P on a rectangular co-
ordinate plane, σx , σy , σz , τxy = τyx , τxz = τzx , and τyz = τzy are known.
Select a plane ABC near an arbitrary point P on the slope passing
through point P, and the three planes parallel to the coordinate plane to
form a tiny tetrahedron PABC, as shown in Fig. 2. When the tetrahedron
PABC decreases indefinitely towards point P, the stress on plane ABC is
the stress of the slope.
The cosine of the normal direction n′ external to plane ABC is:
cos(n, x ) = l , cos(n′, y ) = m , cos(n′, z ) = n.
According to the equilibrium conditions of the tetrahedron,
∑ Fx = 0, ∑ Fy = 0, and ∑ Fz = 0 , the following can be obtained:
L. Song, et al.
Fig. 2. Stress state of tetrahedron PABC.
Px = lσx + mτyx + nτzx
Py = mσy + nτzy + lτxy
Pz = nσz + lτxz + mτyz
The normal stress of plane ABC σn = lPx + mPy + nPz is then
σn = l 2σx + m2σy + n2σz + 2mnτyz + 2nlτzx + 2lmτxy
Because P 2 = Px 2 + Py 2 + Pz 2 = σn2 + τn2 , the shear stress of plane ABC
is
τn2 = Px 2 + Py 2 + Pz 2 − σn2
The normal stress and shear stress of any slope can be obtained from
Eqs. (1) and (2). The safety factor is expressed as [27]:
n
∑i = 1 (ci + σi tan φi ) Si
Fs = n element dynamic shear stress.
∑i = 1 τi Si
where ci and φi are the adhesion angle and internal friction angle, re-
spectively, of the i-th element; Si is the area of the i -th element passed
by a sliding arc; and σi and τi are the normal stresses and tangential
stresses on the sliding arc surface of the i -th element.
The three-dimensional slope stability analysis in this paper employs
an enumeration method to search a sliding surface. The search is based
on a specified sphere centre space range and long/short axial radii of an
ellipsoid. The calculation follows a predefined sequence. At each mo-
ment, the minimum safety factor of all sliding surfaces is selected as the
minimum safety factor of the slope. For the entire ground motion time-
history, this process is repeated to obtain the minimum safety factor of
slope dynamic stability during an entire earthquake.
2.2. Three-dimensional slope stability validation and analysis via example
To verify the three-dimensional slope stability program developed
in this paper, the three-dimensional stability of an ellipsoidal sliding
surface (Example 1) in research paper [28] was analysed. The model
dimensions are shown in Fig. 3 (unit: m).
Fig. 3. 3D computing model and dimension of an ellipsoid sliding surface.
(example source: Zhang Xing).
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 360–368
The slope is a homogeneous soil slope with a slope soil weight of
18.8 kN/m3; its shear strength index φ is 20°, and c is 29 kN/m2.
Table 1 lists the safety factor calculated in this paper and the results
from other studies [28–33]. The Location, three-dimensional elevation
view and neutral surface of the calculated sliding arc are shown in
Figs. 4–6. A comparison of safety factor, sliding arc surface location and
shape indicates that the result in this paper matches the recorded results
via other methods. This finding proves that the program developed in
this paper is reliable.
2.3. Two-dimensional slope stability analysis method
In a two-dimensional slope stability analysis, the safety factor is
represented as follows:
n
∑i = 1 (ci + σi tan φi ) li
Fs = n
∑i = 1 τi li (4)
where ci and φi are the adhesion angle and internal friction angle, re-
spectively, of the i -th element; li is the length of the i -th element passed
by a sliding arc; and σi and τi are the normal stresses and tangential
stresses on the sliding arc surface of the i -th element (Fig. 7).
(1) σx + σy σx − σy
σi = − cos 2α − τxy sin 2α
2 2 (5)
σx − σy
τi = sin 2α − τxy cos 2α
2 (6)
(2)
s d), s d),
where σx = (σx + σx σy = (σy + σy τxy = (τxy + τxy σx is the ele- s d), s
ment static horizontal stress, σx d is the element dynamic horizontal
stress, σy s is the element static vertical stress, σy d is the element dynamic
vertical stress, τxy s is the element static shear stress; and τxy d is the
(3)
3. Generalized probability density evolution method (GPDEM)
In normal conditions, the slope nonlinear dynamic equilibrium
equation in an earthquake is represented as follows [24,26,34,35]:
¯ ̈ (t ) + CU̇ (t ) + KU (t ) = −MIx
¯ g̈ (Θ, t )
MU (7)
where M̄ is the mass matrix; C is the damping matrix; K is the stiffness
matrix; Ü (t ) is the acceleration vector; U̇ (t ) is the velocity vector; U (t )
is the displacement vector; I is the vector with all components being 1;
x g̈ (Θ, t ) is a stochastic process on an earthquake surface generated by a
spectrum expression-random function; and Θ is a random vector.
Considering the randomness of ground motion, assume that
Θ = (Θ1, Θ2 , ..., Θm) are random variables in a ground motion func-
tion and m is the number of ground motion random variables.
To facilitate the calculation, the solution for formula (7) is expressed
as follows:
U (t ) = H (Θ , t ) (8)
The velocity process is represented as follows:
362
L. Song, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 360–368

Table 1
Calculation results for an ellipsoid sliding surface.
(example source: Zhang Xing).
Example (year) Calculation method Sliding arc shape Safety factor

Zhang Xing (1988) Ellipsoid 2.122

Chen Zuyu (2003) 3D limit equilibrium analysis method Ellipsoid 2.187
Fang Jianrui (2007) 3D finite element direct search method 2.386
Zhang Changliang (2008) 3D Sarma method Ellipsoid 2.241
Zheng Yingren (2010) Strength reduction method (M-C) Ellipsoid 2.150
Strength reduction method (inner corner point circumcircle) Ellipsoid 2.217
Strength reduction method (outer corner point circumcircle) Ellipsoid 2.489
Wang Ke (2013) Improved 3D limit equilibrium analysis method Ellipsoid 2.213
This program Sliding surface stress method Ellipsoid 2.214

(1) In the basic random variable space Θ , the typical discrete point
θq (q = 1, 2, ..., nsel ) is selected, where nsel represents the total
number of discrete points [38].
(2) Based on the selected typical point θq , the slope nonlinear dynamic
equilibrium equation for an earthquake in formula (7) is solved. For
the given earthquake, the slope seismic response speed is obtained.
(3) The slope seismic response speed is substituted into the GPDEM
evolution equation to obtain a solution via the total variation di-
minishing (TVD) finite difference method [39].
(4) Based on formula (12), integral accumulation is performed [40] to
Fig. 4. Location of the sliding arc surface in an ellipsoid sliding surface. calculate the sum of results for q = 1, 2, ..., nsel and obtain the
(example source: Zhang Xing). probability density function.

U̇ (t ) = h (Θ , t ) (9) 4. Random ground motion

The seismic response vector H consists of the concerned physical
During the slope dynamic stability analysis and probability analysis,
variables (e.g., slope safety factor) and is represented as
first, random ground motion should be provided. In this paper, an non-
H = (H 1,H2, ..., Hn )T , h = (h1,h2, ..., hn )T , where n is the number of the
stationary earthquake acceleration time-history is generated via a
concerned physical variables.
spectrum expression-random function. The spectrum expression is si-
In the GPDEM evolution equation, any physical parameter Θ can be
mulated via the following formula [35]:
defined as a random variable. Based on the GPDEM evolution equation,
the safety factor in the slope dynamic stability analysis in this paper is N

defined as a random variable to analyse the slope dynamic force re- Ẍg (t ) = ∑ 2S Xg̈ (t , ωk ) △ω [cos(ωk t ) Xk + sin(ωk t ) Yk ]
k=1 (13)
liability. Based on the probability conservation principle [36,37], the
GPDEM evolution equation in the slope dynamic stability analysis is where ωk = kΔω; S Xg̈ is the bilateral evolution power spectrum density
represented as follows: function for an unsteady acceleration time-history of earthquake
ground motion; and {Xk , Yk }(k = 1, 2, ..., N ) are standard orthogonal
∂PFSΘ (FS , θ , t ) ∂PFSΘ (FS , θ , t )
+ FṠ ⎛⎜θ , t ⎞⎟ =0 random variables. Typically, Δω = 0.15 rad/s, and the number of
∂t ⎝ ⎠ ∂FS (10) truncation terms is N = 1600 .
Assume any two sets of standard orthogonal random variables X̄m
Initial condition:
and Ȳm , where (m = 1, 2, ..., N ) are functions of two independent basic
PFSΘ (FS , θ , t )|t = t0 = δ (FS − FS 0 ) PΘ (θ) (11) random variables Θ1 and Θ2 . The corresponding random functions are
expressed as follows [41,42]:
Joint probability density function (PDF) of FS (t ) :
X¯ m = cas (nΘ1), Y¯m = cas (nΘ2) (14)
PFS ⎛⎜FS , t ⎞⎟ = ∫ΩΘ PFSΘ ⎛⎜FS , θ , t ⎞⎟ dθ where cas (x ) = cos(x ) + sin(x ) is the Hartley function; and the basic
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ (12)
random variables Θ1 and Θ2 are independent and follow a uniform
Solution process of the GPDEM evolution equation in the slope distribution in (0, 2π).
dynamic stability analysis is expressed as follows: This paper is based on an acceleration power spectrum model

Fig. 5. 3D elevation view of an ellipsoid sliding surface (example source: Zhang Xing): A-this study, B-reference [29].

363
L. Song, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 360–368

Fig. 6. Neutral surface of an ellipsoid sliding

surface (example source: Zhang Xing): A-this
example, B-reference [29].

2
a¯ max
S0 (t ) =
1
r¯2πωg (t ) ⎡2ξg (t ) + 2ξg (t )
⎤
⎣ ⎦ (19)

where ā max is the average ground acceleration peak, and γ = 2.6 is the
effective peak factor determined via seismic response spectrum optimal
fitting.
This paper is based on the spectrum in the latest hydraulic anti-
seismic specification and number theory. A series of non-stationary
ground motion are generated by modifying the evolution power spec-
Fig. 7. Safety factor calculation.
trum [44,45]. Finally, 144 acceleration time-history samples are ob-
tained discretely (the comparison between the mean values of the
samples and the target spectra before and after the correction is shown
proposed by Clough and Penzien [43]: in Fig. 8). The average acceleration peak is ā max = 200cm/s2 . The
ωg4 (t ) + 4ξg2 (t ) ωg2 (t ) ω2 combination of two statistical values (mean and standard deviation)
⎛ ⎞
S Xg̈ ⎜t , ω⎟ = A2 (t ) and the seismic response spectrum between the sampling and the target
[ω2 − ωg2 (t )]2 + 4ξg2 (t ) ωg2 (t ) ω2 determine the effectiveness and accuracy of the optical spectrum ex-
⎝ ⎠
ω4 pression-random function (Fig. 9).
⋅ 2
⋅S0 (t )
[ω − ωf (t )] + 4ξ f2 (t ) ωf2 (t ) ω2
2 2
(15)
5. Numerical example
where A (t ) is an intensity modulation function; the recommended
formula is expressed as follows: 5.1. Finite element analysis model
d
⎡t t ⎤
A (t ) = ⎢ exp ⎜⎛1 − ⎟⎞ ⎥ The geometric models of 2D and 3D slopes are shown in Fig. 10
⎣c ⎝ c ⎠⎦ (16) (unit: m). The slope model mesh dimension parameters and rock soil
parameters are listed in Tables 2, 3.
where c = 4 s is the mean arrival time of the peak acceleration; and
d = 2 is control index of A (t ) .
The parameters that reflect the unsteady characteristics of the 5.2. Slope random ground motion response analysis
evolution power spectrum are expressed as follows:
A deterministic dynamic time-history analysis is performed for a
t t
ωg (t ) = ω0 − a , ξg (t ) = ξ0 − b series of events with the average peak acceleration ā max = 200cm/s2 to
T T (17)
obtain the seismic safety factor time-history of 2D and 3D slopes. The
ωf (t ) = 0.1ωg (t ), ξf (t ) = ξg (t ) safety factor time-history is substituted into the GPDEM equation, and
(18)
the TVD finite difference is employed to obtain a solution. The random
where ωg (t ) is the circular frequency; and ξg (t ) is the rock soil damping response and dynamic reliability of the safety factor for various seismic
ratio. Initially, the circular frequency is ω0 = 25s−1, and the rock soil effects are also obtained.
damping ratio is ξ0 = 0.45. Based on the field classification and seismic Under static force, the minimum safety factor of the 2D slope is
environment category, the parameters are determined as follows: 1.1347, and that of the 3D slope is 1.2749. As shown in Fig. 11, under
a = 3.5 and b = 0.3. T = 15 s is the accumulated period of unsteady identical ground motions, the minimum dynamic safety factor for a 2D
acceleration processes. ωf (t ) and ξf (t ) are the corresponding filtering slope is 0.9603, and the value for a 3D slope is 0.8456. The stable safety
parameters. factor peak time and fluctuation distribution of 2D and 3D slopes are
The time evolution power spectrum also includes the earthquake not synchronized. Compared with a 2D slope, the 3D slope safety factor
intensity frequency spectrum parameter S0 (t ) , whose expression is ex- has a wider fluctuation range, more frequent fluctuations and is more
pressed as follows: susceptible to ground motion. In an earthquake, the slope instability

Fig. 8. Seismic acceleration response spectrum comparison: A- before iteration, B- after iteration.

364
L. Song, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 360–368

Table 2
Slope model mesh dimension parameters.
Dimensionality Size (m) Elements Nodes

2D 2×2 846 900

3D 2 × 2 × 10 13,410 15,190

Table 3
Statistical characteristics of Example 1 soil parameters.

ρ/(kg / m3) c /(kPa) φ/(°) μ E /(MPa)

1800 20 25 0.3 20

2
1.8
1.6
1.4 2D
1.2 3D
1
0.8
0.6
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15

Fig. 11. 2D and 3D slope safety factor time-history curves under identical
ground motion.

of the whole sliding surface increases from 2730.25 m2 to 3585.78 m2,

an increase of approximately 31.33%. The volume of the whole sliding
body increases from 11,824.63 m3 to 15,702.74 m3, an increase of
Fig. 9. Mean, standard deviation and response spectrum of the sample versus approximately 24.7%. The results reveal that the 3D slope dynamic
the target. stability is more susceptible to ground motion than the 2D slope dy-
namic stability and a simplified 2D analysis may produce inaccurate
analysis results. The sliding arc range for 3D slope dynamic stability,
processes of the two types of slopes significantly differ.
which provides important information for landslide prevention and
Figs. 12 and 13 show the corresponding sliding arc depths, locations
reinforcement, is calculated.
and sliding ranges for the minimum safety factors of 2D and 3D slopes
Fig. 14 shows safety factor mean and standard deviation time-his-
under a static force and dynamic force. Compared with the static force
tory curves of 2D and 3D slopes during an earthquake. Compared with
calculation results, the 2D slope dynamic calculation has a slightly
the 2D slope, the 3D slope safety factor mean value exhibits a sig-
deeper sliding arc, a slightly upward shift of the sliding surface location
nificant fluctuation. As the soil dynamic nonlinearity increases, the
and an insignificant total change. As the 3D slope is magnified by a
standard deviation gradually increases with time, the safety factor
seismic wave, the rock soil dynamic nonlinearity increases. Compared
variation range gradually expands, and the difference becomes more
with the static force calculation result, the position of the sliding arc in
notable. During the period from 3 to 8 s, this phenomenon is especially
the dynamic calculation moves up significantly, approximately H/6 (H
notable. After the standard deviation reaches the peak (after 5 s), the
is the slope height), and the upward displacement reaches 16.7%. At
standard deviation decreases with time as the safety factor decreases
the same time, the range of the sliding arc increases significantly, the
with the attenuation of seismic time-history.
length of the slip arc increases from L/3–3/7L (where L is the length of
Fig. 15 shows the probability density functions of 2D and 3D slopes
the slope), and the peak width of the maximum slip arc increases from
at 4 s, 9 s and 10 s. As shown in the diagram, at 4 s, the ground motion
B/6 to B/4 (where B is the width of the slope top). The total surface area

Fig. 10. Computing models and dimensions of 2D and 3D slopes.

365
L. Song, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 360–368

Fig. 12. 2D and 3D slope sliding arc depths

under static and dynamic force.

Fig. 13. Sliding arc depth and range of 3D slope under static and dynamic force.

Fig. 14. 2D and 3D slope safety factor mean and standard deviation time-history curves.

Fig. 15. 2D and 3D slope safety factor probability density functions at 4 s, 9 s and 10 s.

has a significant impact on the safety factor probability density func-
tion, and the safety factor fluctuates within an extensive range. As time
elapses, the impact of ground motion on the safety factor decreases and
the safety factor distribution increasingly concentrates around the mean
value.
Figs. 16 and 17 directly represent the evolution of 2D slope prob-
ability density function and the 3D slope probability density function,
respectively, with time from 9 to 10 s and the corresponding isoline
distributions. Fig. 16 shows the peak and trough of the safety factor
probability density function evolution with time; the peak reflects the
probability density under a higher probability. Fig. 17 shows the sur-
face profile of the probability density function evolution with time, i.e.,
isoline distribution. The 2D slope safety factor is primarily distributed
in the range of 0.9–1.3. The 3D slope safety factor is primarily dis-
tributed in the range of 1.0–1.7.
These results indicate that random ground motion is sensitive to the
slope stability safety factor. Compared with the 2D slope, the 3D slope
is more susceptible to ground motion. Rock soil under ground motion
exhibits a significant dynamic nonlinearity. Safety factor probability
density has a wider distribution. Around the mean value, the variation
range is wider, and the difference is more significant. This finding
further proves the importance of analysing the dynamic stability of a 3D
slope during an earthquake from the perspective of random ground
motion.

366
L. Song, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 360–368

Fig. 16. Slope safety factor probability density evolution: A-3D, B-2D.

Fig. 17. Slope safety factor probability density evolution isoline: A-3D, B-2D.

Fig. 18. PDF and CDF curves of 2D and 3D slope safety factor equivalent extreme values.

5.3. Slope dynamic reliability analysis
To obtain the slope safety factor dynamic reliability, the equivalent
extreme values of the minimal safety factors for various ground motion
events are simulated [34,36] to construct the “virtual” random process.
Based on the GPDEM evolution process, the reliability of the slope
dynamic stability analysis is obtained, i.e., PDF and CDF curves of the
equivalent extreme safety factor (Fig. 18). Fig. 18 shows the equivalent
extreme-based PDF curve, which differs from Fig. 15, which shows the
safety factor time-history PDF curve, which evolves with time. In
Fig. 15, the PDF curve at different time points has a corresponding
extensibility distribution, and the equivalent extreme events of the
slope dynamic stability safety factor do not always follow a Gaussian
distribution.
As shown in Fig. 18, under identical random ground motion, the 2D
slope dynamic stability analysis results are risky to some extent. Using
the same safety factor determination criterion, the 3D slope dynamic
stability failure probability is higher than the 2D slope dynamic stabi-
lity failure probability.
6. Conclusions
Slope dynamic stability is a complex issue. In an earthquake, slope
rock soil magnifies the seismic waves and demonstrates intense dy-
namic nonlinearity, which has a significant impact on the slope dy-
namic stability. From the perspective of random ground motion and
based on the equivalent extreme value distribution and GPDEM evo-
lution, a slope dynamic reliability analysis method is proposed in this
paper. Numerical examples are used to analyse the dynamic stability of
2D and 3D slopes and obtain the reliability of the slope dynamic sta-
bility. The following conclusions are obtained:

367
L. Song, et al.
(1) Based on the slope dynamic response extreme value, a dynamic
random process with “virtual time parameters” is constructed in
this paper to obtain the extreme value distribution probability of
the slope dynamic response and corresponding reliability in tandem
with the GPDEM evolution process. This method is highly practical
for the random probability analysis of a complex structure and can
determine the slope dynamic reliability with high precision.
(2) Compared with the 3D slope stability analysis, the 2D slope stability
analysis has numerous limitations. A 2D slope cannot accurately
reflect the influence of slope width and boundary conditions. The
2D slope stability static force calculation result is conservative,
while the dynamic calculation result tends to provide more safety.
Therefore, the simplified 2D dynamic analysis result may be ha-
zardous. Furthermore, the 3D slope stability analysis can be per-
formed to directly obtain the slope instability failure range and
detailed location and provides a basis for landslide prevention and
reinforcement.
(3) The random ground motion response analysis and reliability result
reveals the sensitivity of random ground motion to the slope sta-
bility safety factor. Compared with the 2D slope factor, the 3D slope
safety factor has a wider probability density distribution during an
earthquake; around the mean value, the variation range is wider,
the difference is more significant, and rock soil under ground mo-
tion has a more significant dynamic nonlinearity. These results
prove the importance of analysing the 3D slope dynamic stability
from the perspective of random ground motion.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Key R&D Program of China
(2017YFC0404904) and the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant nos. 51679029, 51508071 and 51779034). These fi-
nancial supports are gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Huang RQ. Large-scale landslides and their sliding mechanisms in china since the
20th century. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 2007;26(3):433–54. [in Chinese].
[2] Au SWC. Rain-induced slope instability in Hong Kong. Eng Geol 1998;51(1):1–36.
[3] Yin KL, Han ZS, Li ZZ. Progress of landslide researches in the world. Hydrogeol Eng
Geol 2000;27(5):1–4. [in Chinese].
[4] Schuster RL, Lynn MH. Socioeconomic impacts of landslides in the Western
Hemisphere. Reston VA, USA: United States Geological Survey; 2001.
[5] United States Geological Survey. Landslide hazards. Reston, VA, USA: United States
GS Fact Sheet (FS-071-00); 2000.
[6] Parise M, Wasowski J. Landslide activity maps for landslide hazard evaluation:
three case studies from southern italy. Nat Hazards 1999;20(2/3):159–83.
[7] Zhang D, Wu ZH, Li JC, Jiang Y. An overview on earthquake-induced landslide
research. J Geomech 2013;19(3):225–41. [in Chinese].
[8] RadbruchHall DH, Colton RB, Davis WE. et al. Preliminary landslide overview map
of the conterminous United States. Reston, VA, USA: United States Geological
Survey; 1983.
[9] Yamagishi H. Recent landslides in Western Hokkaido, Japan. Pure Appl Geophys
2000;157(6/8):1115–34.
[10] Lin PS, Lin JY, Hung JC, et al. Assessing debris-flow hazard in a watershed in
Taiwan. Eng Geol 2002;66(3/4):295–313.
[11] Bhasin R, Grimstad E, Larsen JO, et al. Landslide hazards and mitigation measures
at Gangtok, Sikkim Himalaya. Eng Geol 2002;64(4):351–68.
[12] Li ZS. The state of the art of the research on seismic landslide hazard at home and
abroad. J Catastro 2003;18(4):65–71. [in Chinese].
[13] Wang GH. Dynamic response and damage mechanism of concrete gravity dams
368
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 360–368
under extreme loadings; 2014.
[14] Dai FC, Lee CF, Deng JH, et al. The 1786 earthquake-triggered landslide dam and
subsequent dam-break flood on the Dadu River, Southwestern China-Reply.
Geomorphology 2005;65(3/4):205–21.
[15] Huang RQ. et al. Geohazard assessment of the wenchuan earthquake; 2009.
[16] Lin ML, Wang KL. Seismic Slope Behavior in a Large Scale Shaking Table Model test.
Eng Geol 2006;86(2):118–33.
[17] Li L, Wang Y, Cao ZJ, et al. Risk de-aggregation and system reliability analysis of
slope stability using representative slip surfaces. Comput Geotech
2013;53(3):95–105.
[18] Al-Homoud AS, Tahtamoni WW. Reliability analysis of three-dimensional dynamic
slope stability and earthquake-induced permanent displacement. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 2000;19(2):91–114.
[19] Abhijit C, Subrata C. Reliability of linear structures with parameter uncertainty
under non-stationary earthquake. Struct Saf 2006;28(3):231–46.
[20] Gazetas G. Seismic response of earth dams: some recent developments. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 1987;6(1):2–47.
[21] U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Federal guidelines for dam safety.
Earthquake analyses and design of dams; 2005.
[22] Li J, Chen JB, Fan WL. The equivalent extreme-value event and evaluation of the
structural system reliability. Struct Saf 2007;29(2):112–31.
[23] Li J, Peng YB, Chen JB. A physical approach to structural stochastic optimal con-
trols. Probab Eng Mech 2010;25(1):127–41.
[24] Huang Y, Xiong M. Dynamic reliability analysis of slopes based on the probability
density evolution method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;94:1–6.
[25] Xiong M, Huang Y. Stochastic seismic response and dynamic reliability analysis of
slopes: a review. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;100:458–64.
[26] Li J, Liu ZJ, Chen JB. Orthogonal expansion of ground motion and PDEM-based
seismic response analysis of nonlinear structures. Earthq Eng Eng Vib
2009;8(3):313–28.
[27] Zhang ZY. Three-dimensional aseismic stability analysis of high concrete face
rockfill dam based on finite element sliding-surface stress method; 2018. [in
Chinese]; 2018.
[28] Xing Z. Three-dimensional stability analysis of concave slopes in plan view. J
Geotech Eng 1988;114(6):658–71.
[29] Wang K. Improvement and application of slope three-dimensional limit equilibrium
method; 2013. [in Chinese].
[30] Fang JR. Slope stability analysis using direct search method based on 3D FEM and
its application in tunnel excavation; 2007. [in Chinese].
[31] Zhang CL. Study on the three-dimensional limit equilibrium of slope stability; 2008.
[in Chinese].
[32] Zheng YR, Chen ZY. et al. Engineering treatment of slope & landslide; 2010.
[33] Chen ZY. Stability analysis of soil slope: principle-method-procedure; 2003.
[34] Chen JY, Jia QB, Xu Q. Study on probability density evolution method for time-
dependent dynamic reliability of concrete dams subjected to earthquake. J Hydraul
Eng 2017;48(11):1–7. [in Chinese].
[35] Pang R, Xu B, Kong XJ, et al. Seismic reliability assessment of earth-rockfill dam
slopes considering strain-softening of rockfill based on generalized probability
density evolution method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2018;107:96–107.
[36] Pang R, Xu B, Zou DG, Kong XJ. Stochastic seismic performance assessment of high
CFRDs based on generalized probability density evolution method. Comput Geotech
2018;97:233–45.
[37] Li J, Chen JB. Stochastic dynamics of structures. Structural safety; 2009.
[38] Li J, Chen JB, Fan WL. The equivalent extreme-value event and evaluation of the
structural system reliability. Struct Saf 2007;29(2):112–31.
[39] Hua LK, Wang Y. Applications of number theory to numerical analysis. Berlin:
Springer; 1981.
[40] Li J, Chen JB. Dynamic response and reliability analysis of structures with uncertain
parameters. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2005;62(2):289–315.
[41] Liu ZJ, Liu W, Peng YB. Random function based spectral representation of sta-
tionary and non-stationary stochastic processes. Probab Eng Mech 2016;45:115–26.
[42] Liu ZJ, Liu ZH, Peng YB. Simulation of multivariate stationary stochastic processes
using dimension-reduction representation methods. J Sound Vib 2018;418:144–62.
[43] Deodatis G. Non-stationary stochastic vector processes: seismic ground motion
applications. Probab Eng Mech 1996;11(3):149–67.
[44] Tian JY, Liu HL, Wu XY. Evaluation perspectives and criteria of maximum aseismic
capability for high earth-rock dam. J Disaster Prev Mitig Eng 2013;33(S1):128–31.
[in Chinese].
[45] Liu ZJ, Liu ZH, Liu W. Probability model of fully non-stationary ground motion with
the target response spectrum compatible. J Vib Shock 2017;36(2):32–8. [in
Chinese].