Engineering Geology 203 (2016) 3–14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology

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

Response surface methods for slope reliability analysis: Review

and comparison
Dian-Qing Li a, Dong Zheng a, Zi-Jun Cao a,⁎, Xiao-Song Tang a, Kok-Kwang Phoon b
a
State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Key Laboratory of Rock Mechanics in Hydraulic Structural Engineering (Ministry of Education), Wuhan University,
8 Donghu South Road, Wuhan 430072, PR China
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, Blk E1A, #07-03, 1 Engineering Drive 2, Singapore 117576, Singapore

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper reviews previous studies on developments and applications of response surface methods (RSMs) in
Received 1 June 2015 different slope reliability problems. Based on the review, four types of soil slope reliability analysis problems
Received in revised form 9 August 2015 are identified from the literature, including single-layered soil slope reliability problem ignoring spatial variabil-
Accepted 15 September 2015
ity, single-layered soil slope reliability problem considering spatial variability, multiple-layered soil slope reliabil-
Available online 24 September 2015
ity problem ignoring spatial variability, and multiple-layered soil slope reliability problem considering spatial
Keywords:
variability, which are referred to as “Type I–IV problems” in this study. Then, the computational efficiency and
Slope stability accuracy of four commonly-used RSMs (namely single quadratic polynomial-based response surface method
Uncertainty (SQRSM), single stochastic response surface method (SSRSM), multiple quadratic polynomial-based response
Reliability analysis surface method (MQRSM), and multiple stochastic response surface method (MSRSM)) are systematically
Response surface method compared for cohesive and c–ϕ slopes, and their feasibility and validity in the four types of slope reliability
Computational efficiency problems are discussed. Based on the comparison, some suggestions for selecting relatively appropriate RSMs
Accuracy in slope reliability analysis are provided: (1) SQRSM is suggested as a suitable method for the single-layered
soil slope reliability problem ignoring spatial variability (i.e., Type I problem); (2) MQRSM is applicable to
the multiple-layered soil slope reliability problem ignoring spatial variability (i.e., Type III problem); and
(3) MSRSM is suggested to solve slope reliability problems (including single-layered and multiple-layered
slopes) considering spatial variability (i.e., Type II and IV problems).
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In addition to the aforementioned reliability methods, response sur-

Reliability analysis of soil slopes has gained considerable attention in
the geotechnical reliability community over the past few decades
(e.g., Baecher and Christian, 2003; Low and Tang, 2004; Cho, 2007,
2009, 2010, 2013; Fenton and Griffiths, 2008; Ching et al., 2009; Wang
et al., 2010, 2011; Ji and Low, 2012; Ji, 2014; Zhang et al., 2013a,b;
Jiang et al., 2014, 2015; Li et al., 2011, 2014, 2015a). Many reliability
methods have been proposed for slope reliability analysis in literature,
such as the first-order second moment method (FOSM) (e.g., Christian
et al., 1994; Hassan and Wolff, 1999; Duncan, 2000; Xue and Gavin,
2007; Suchomel and Mašin, 2010), first-order reliability method
(FORM) (e.g., Low and Tang, 1997, 2004; Low, 2007; Cho, 2007; Hong
and Roh, 2008; Ji, 2014; Zeng and Jimenez, 2014), second-order reliabil-
ity method (SORM) (e.g., Cho, 2009; Low, 2014), and Monte Carlo Sim-
ulation (MCS) (e.g., El-Ramly et al., 2002, 2005; Griffiths and Fenton,
2004; Hsu and Nelson, 2006; Cho, 2007, 2010; Huang et al., 2010,
2013; Tang et al., 2015; Li et al., 2015c) and its advanced variants
(e.g., Ching et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2010, 2011; Li et al., 2015d).
⁎ Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower
Engineering Science, Wuhan University, 8 Donghu South Road, Wuhan 430072, PR China.
E-mail address: zijuncao@whu.edu.cn (Z.-J. Cao).
face methods (RSMs) have been used for slope reliability problems with
implicit performance functions (e.g. Wong, 1985; Xu and Low, 2006; Ji
and Low, 2012; Zhang et al., 2011b, 2013b; Jiang et al., 2014, 2015; Li
et al., 2015a,b; Li and Chu, 2015). RSMs have been proved to be an effi-
cient method for slope reliability analysis. For instance, Wong (1985)
applied RSM to evaluate the reliability of a homogeneous slope. Xu
and Low (2006) used RSM to approximate the performance function
of slope stability in slope reliability analysis, in which the response sur-
face is taken as a bridge between stand-alone numerical packages and
spreadsheet-based reliability analysis. Recently, several researchers
(e.g., Zhao, 2008; Li et al., 2013; Samui et al., 2013) proposed a support
vector machine (SVM)-based RSM to approximate implicit performance
function using a small set of actual values of the performance function.
Taking the radial basis function neural network (RBFN) as an approxi-
mate response surface function for the actual performance function,
Tan et al. (2011) discussed similarities and differences between RBFN-
based RSMs and SVM-based RSMs, which indicated that there is no sig-
nificant difference between them. To reduce the number of evaluations
of the actual performance function, Tan et al. (2013) proposed two new
sampling methods and a hybrid RSM. Similar to SVM-based RSM, rele-
vance vector machine (RVM)-based FOSM is adopted to build a RVM
model to predict the implicit performance function and evaluate the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.09.003
0013-7952/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
4 D.-Q. Li et al. / Engineering Geology 203 (2016) 3–14

partial derivatives with sufficient accuracy (Samui et al., 2011). In addi-
tion, the artificial neural network (ANN) technique (e.g., Cho, 2009;
Chen et al., 2011), the Gaussian process regression (Kang et al., 2015),
Artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm optimized support vector regres-
sion (SVR) (Kang and Li, 2015), the high dimensional model representa-
tion (HDMR) (Chowdhury and Rao, 2010) and neural networks (NN)-
based RSM (Piliounis and Lagaros, 2014) can be also used to establish
a relationship between the factor of safety and soil parameters. Luo
et al. (2012a,b) and Zhang et al. (2011a) adopted Kriging-based re-
sponse surface to simulate performance functions and demonstrated
its applications in solving several geotechnical reliability problems
(Zhang et al., 2013a). Yi et al. (2015) indicated that the particle swarm
optimization–Kriging model has a good curve fitting performance.
Recently, an important advance in slope reliability analysis using
RSM is that multiple response surface methods were proposed to eval-
uate system reliability of slope stability. For example, Zhang et al.
(2011b) first proposed the multiple response surfaces method for
slope reliability analysis. Ji and Low (2012) constructed a group of strat-
ified response surfaces corresponding to the most probable failure
modes, and slope system reliability is evaluated based on these strati-
fied response surfaces. Using the quadratic polynomial-based response
surface method, Zhang et al. (2013b) extended the Hassan and Wolff
method into a practical tool for system reliability analysis.
The aforementioned studies have not considered the spatial variabil-
ity when the RSMs are used to evaluate slope reliability problems.
Ji et al. (2012) made a first attempt to solve slope reliability with spatial
variability by the RSM with second-order polynomial approximate
function without cross terms. Based on the stochastic response surface
method (SRSM), Jiang et al. (2014) proposed a non-intrusive stochastic
finite element method for slope reliability analysis considering spatial
variability in shear strength parameters, by which the system reliability
of soil slopes considering spatial variability is evaluated by the multiple
stochastic response surface method (e.g., Jiang et al., 2015; Li et al.,
2015a; Li and Chu, 2015).
Based on the above studies, it can be seen that significant advances
have been made in applications of RSMs in soil slope reliability analysis.
Essentially, the RSM uses a computationally efficient model to approxi-
mate the original analysis model (e.g., limit equilibrium analysis or
finite element analysis). Then, slope reliability analysis is carried out
based on the explicit performance function represented by the RSM.
Table 1 summarizes the applications of RSM-based reliability methods
in soil slope reliability analyses. These references are listed in a
chronological order. The soil slope reliability problems concerned in the
previous studies on RSMs can be divided into four categories according
to the probabilistic model of soil properties (e.g., random variable or ran-
dom field models) and slope types (e.g., single-layered or multiple-
layered): (1) single-layered soil slope reliability problem ignoring
spatial variability (i.e., Type I problem); (2) single-layered soil slope reli-
ability problem considering spatial variability (i.e., Type II problem);
(3) multiple-layered soil slope reliability problem ignoring spatial

Table 1
Summary of applications of RSMs in soil slope reliability analyses.

Paper Authors Year Types of response surfaces Single Multiple Spatial Slope type Deterministic slope
ID response response variability stability analysis
surface surfaces
No Yes Single-layered Multiple-layered

1 Wong 1985 Quadratic polynomial √ √ √ FEM

2 Xu and Low 2006 Quadratic polynomial without cross terms √ √ √ LEM (Spencer), FEM
3 Zhao 2008 SVM-based response surface √ √ √ √ LEM (Simplified Bishop,
Spencer)
4 Cho 2009 ANN-based response surface √ √ √ FDM
5 Chowdhury 2010 High dimensional model representation √ √ √ LEM (Simplified Bishop,
and Rao Janbu,
Morgenstern–Price,
Spencer, GLE)
6 Chen et al. 2011 SVM-based response surface √ √ √ LEM (Morgenstern–Price)
7 Tan et al. 2011 RBFN and SVM-based response surface √ √ √ FEM
8 Samui et al. 2011 RVM-based response surface √ √ √ LEM (Simplified Bishop)
9 Samui et al. 2013 LSSVM-based response surface √ √ √ LEM (Simplified Bishop)
10 Luo et al. 2012a Kriging-based response surface √ √ √ √ FDM
11 Luo et al. 2012b Kriging-based response surface √ √ √ √ FEM
12 Ji et al. 2012 Quadratic polynomial without cross terms √ √ √ LEM (Spencer)
13 Ji and Low 2012 Quadratic polynomial without cross terms √ √ √ LEM (Ordinary, Spencer)
14 Zhang et al. 2011a Kriging-based response surface √ √ √ FDM
15 Zhang et al. 2011b Quadratic polynomial without cross terms √ √ √ √ LEM (Morgenstern–Price)
16 Zhang et al. 2013a Classical RSM without cross terms, quadratic √ √ √ LEM (Simplified Bishop)
polynomial without cross terms,
Kriging-based response surface
17 Zhang et al. 2013b Quadratic polynomial without cross terms √ √ √ LEM (Simplified Bishop)
18 Li et al. 2013 Updated SVM-based response surface √ √ √ LEM (Simplified Bishop,
Spencer)
19 Tan et al. 2013 Quadratic polynomial √ √ √ LEM (Morgenstern–Price)
20 Piliounis 2014 NN-based response surface √ √ √ LEM (Simplified Bishop)
and Lagaros
21 Jiang et al. 2014 Hermite polynomial chaos expansion √ √ √ LEM (Morgenstern–Price)
22 Jiang et al. 2015 Hermite polynomial chaos expansion √ √ √ LEM (Simplified Bishop)
23 Li et al. 2015a Quadratic polynomial without cross terms √ √ √ √ LEM (Simplified Bishop)
24 Li and Chu 2015 Quadratic polynomial without cross terms √ √ √ LEM (Ordinary)
25 Yi et al. 2015 PSO Kriging based response surface, classical √ √ √ FDM
RSM without cross terms
26 Kang et al. 2015 GPR-based response surface √ √ √ LEM (Simplified Bishop)
27 Kang and Li 2015 ABC-SVR response surface √ √ √ LEM (Simplified Bishop)

Note: SVM = support vector machine; ANN = artificial neural network; RBFN = radial basis function neural network; RVM = relevance vector machine; LSSVM = least square support
vector machine; NN = neural networks; PSO = particle swarm optimization; GPR = Gaussian process regression; LEM = limit equilibrium method; FEM = finite element method; FDM
= finite difference method. ABC-SVR = artificial bee colony algorithm optimized support vector regression.
 D.-Q. Li et al. / Engineering Geology 203 (2016) 3–14 5

Table 2
Four types of soil slope reliability problems and the corresponding adopted RSMs.

Problem Response surfaces Uncertainty Types of response surface Uncertainty

type models methods propagation
methods

I Quadratic polynomial (Wong, 1985) Random Single response surface, multiple MCS, FOSM,
SVM-based response surface (Zhao, 2008) variable response surface FORM
RVM-based response surface (Samui et al., 2011)
Quadratic polynomial without cross terms (Zhang et al., 2011a)
Kriging-based response surface (Luo et al., 2012a, b)
LSSVM-based response surface (Samui et al., 2013)
NN-based response surface (Piliounis and Lagaros, 2014)
II Hermite polynomial chaos expansion (Jiang et al., 2014, 2015) Random Single response surface, multiple MCS, FORM
Quadratic polynomial without cross terms (Ji et al., 2012; Li et al., 2015a) field response surface
III Quadratic polynomial without cross terms (Xu and Low, 2006; Zhang et al., 2011b, 2013a,b; Ji Random Single response surface, multiple MCS, FOSM,
and Low, 2012; Tan et al., 2013) variable response surface FORM
SVM-based response surface (Zhao, 2008; Chen et al., 2011; Tan et al., 2011)
ANN-based response surface (Cho, 2009)
High dimensional model representation (Chowdhury and Rao, 2010)
RBFN-based response surface (Tan et al., 2011)
Kriging-based response surface (Zhang et al., 2011a, 2013a; Luo et al., 2012a,b)
Quadratic polynomial with cross terms (Tan et al., 2013)
Classical RSM without cross terms (Zhang et al., 2013a)
Updated SVM-based response surface (Li et al., 2013)
PSO Kriging based response surface, Classical RSM without cross terms (Yi et al., 2015)
GPR based response surface (Kang et al., 2015)
ABC-SVR response surface (Kang and Li, 2015)
IV Quadratic polynomial without cross terms (Li et al., 2015a; Li and Chu, 2015) Random Multiple response surface MCS
field

Note: MCS = Monte Carlo Simulation; FORM = first-order reliability method; FOSM = first-order second moment.

variability (i.e., Type III problem); and (4) multiple-layered soil slope reli-
ability problem considering spatial variability (i.e., Type IV problem), as
shown in Table 2.
This paper aims to review previous studies on applications of RSMs in
the four types of slope reliability problems and to investigate the capacity
and validity of four commonly-used RSMs in solving different slope reli-
ability problems. The computational accuracy and efficiency of the four
RSMs are systemically compared using cohesive and c–ϕ slope examples.
To achieve such a goal, the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, four
types of soil slope reliability problems are briefly introduced. Then, single
response-surface methods and multiple response-surface methods are
reviewed in Section 3. In Section 4, four benchmark reliability problems
(including two cohesive slopes and two c–ϕ slopes) are investigated to
examine the capacity and validity of the selected RSMs. Finally, several
recommendations for selecting relatively appropriate RSMs for different
slope reliability problems are provided.
2. Major soil slope reliability analysis problems
2.1. Type I problem: single-layered soil slope ignoring spatial variability
Type I problem is a relatively simple case where the reliability anal-
ysis of a homogeneous soil slope is concerned. For such a reliability
problem, Wong (1985) adopted the quadratic polynomial-based RSM
for evaluating the reliability of the single-layered soil slope without con-
sideration of spatial variability. Subsequently, the Type I problem has
been extensively investigated (e.g., Zhao, 2008; Samui et al., 2011,
2013; Zhang et al., 2011a; Luo et al., 2012a,b; Piliounis and Lagaros,
2014) using different RSMs, such as SVM-based RSM, RVM-based
RSM, quadratic polynomial without cross terms, Kriging-based RSM,
and NN-based RSM. For a homogenous soil slope, the slope failure
is dominated by the deterministic critical slip surface because the
factors of safety (FSs) of other slip surfaces are highly correlated
with the FS of the deterministic critical slip surface. Hence, the sys-
tem failure probability of slope stability can be well approximated
by the failure probability of the critical slip surface (Zhang et al.
2011b).

Soils are natural materials and their properties are affected by several
factors during formation process, such as parent materials, weathering
and erosion processes, transportation agents, and sedimentation condi-
tions. Thus, soils exhibit a large degree of uncertainty (e.g. Cao and
Wang, 2013, 2014a; Ching and Phoon, 2014; Le, 2014; Li et al., 2014;
Lloret-Cabot et al., 2014; Jamshidi Chenari and Alaie, 2015). To effectively
characterize the uncertainty in soil properties, probabilistic models are
often applied to represent soil properties in slope reliability analyses
(e.g., Christian et al., 1994; Griffiths and Fenton, 2004; Srivastava and
Babu, 2009; Srivastava et al., 2010; Suchomel and Mašin, 2010; Cao and
Wang, 2014b). Probabilistic models mainly include random variables
model and random fields (e.g., Chowdhury and Xu, 1995; Phoon and
Kulhawy, 1999; El-Ramly et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2011a,b, 2013a,b;
Jiang et al., 2014, 2015; Li et al., 2011, 2014, 2015a; Li and Chu, 2015).
As shown in Table 2, the problems involved in soil slope reliability analy-
ses using RSMs are divided into four categories, which are briefly de-
scribed in the following four subsections, respectively.
2.2. Type II problem: single-layered soil slope considering spatial
variability
Inherent spatial variability (ISV) is one of the primary sources of
geotechnical uncertainties, which significantly affects the slope sta-
bility (e.g., Phoon and Kulhawy, 1999; Griffiths and Fenton, 2004;
Cho, 2007, 2010; Srivastava and Babu, 2009; Srivastava et al., 2010;
Huang et al., 2010; Hicks and Spencer, 2010; Wang et al., 2011; Ji
et al., 2012, Ji and Low, 2012; Jiang et al., 2014, 2015; Li et al.,
2015a; Li and Chu, 2015). When the spatial variability of soil proper-
ties is considered, there exist multiple failure modes, which will sig-
nificantly influence the failure probability of slope stability (Wang
et al., 2011). Estimating the reliability of slope stability considering
spatial variability is, hence, more difficult than that for a single-
layered soil slope ignoring spatial variability. Jiang et al. (2014,
2015) made use of the Hermite polynomial chaos expansion-based
RSM to solve the reliability of a single-layered soil slope considering
6 D.-Q. Li et al. / Engineering Geology 203 (2016) 3–14
spatial variability (i.e., Type II problem). Similarly, Li et al. (2015a)
used the quadratic polynomial without cross terms-based RSM to
analyze the Type II problem.
2.3. Type III problem: multiple-layered soil slope ignoring spatial
variability
Unlike the aforementioned two types of problems, the Type III prob-
lem focuses on the reliability of a multiple-layered soil slope ignoring
the spatial variability in each soil layer. Such a reliability problem has
been extensively investigated in literature, as shown in Table 2. Unlike
the single-layered soil slope, multiple failure modes often exist in the
multiple-layered soil slope (e.g., Zhang et al., 2011b, 2013b; Low et al.,
2011; Ji and Low, 2012; Cho, 2013; Zeng and Jimenez, 2014; Kang
et al., 2015; Kang and Li, 2015). Only using the deterministic critical
slip surface to estimate slope failure probability leads to underestima-
tion of the slope failure rate because the system effects of all the possible
failure modes are not taken into account (e.g., Oka and Wu, 1990;
Chowdhury and Xu, 1994, 1995; Zhang et al., 2011b). Therefore, all
the representative failure modes of a multi-layered soil slope shall be
taken into account to achieve a more realistic evaluation of system reli-
ability of a multi-layered soil slope.
2.4. Type IV problem: multiple-layered soil slope considering spatial
variability
Type IV problem is the most complicated case among the four
major problems of soil slope reliability analyses. Such a problem con-
cerns with the reliability of a multiple-layered soil slope considering
spatial variability. Li et al. (2015a) and Li and Chu (2015) applied
quadratic polynomial without cross terms to deal with this problem.
Li and Chu (2015) found that when the spatial variability is ignored,
the number of representative slip surfaces is equal to the number of
soil layers. The number of multiple response surfaces also highly de-
pends on the spatial variability of soil properties. Li et al. (2015a)
proposed a multiple response surface method in which the extended
Cholesky-decomposition technique is used for discretizing the cross-
correlated non-Gaussian random fields. For a multiple-layered soil
slope considering spatial variability, the number of potential failure
modes and the locations of representative slip surfaces depend on
the spatial variability and the stratification of the slope. Multiple po-
tential failure modes resulted from spatial variability and stratifica-
tion in the Type IV problem render the slope reliability analysis a
more challenging task.
3. Response surface methods (RSMs)
The aforementioned four types of slope reliability problems and the
corresponding RSMs used in literature are summarized in Table 2. It is
shown that only the quadratic polynomial without cross terms-based
RSM (e.g., Xu and Low, 2006; Zhang et al., 2011a,b, 2013a,b; Ji and
Low, 2012; Tan et al., 2013; Li et al., 2015a; Li and Chu, 2015) is used
to solve all the four types of slope reliability analysis problems in litera-
ture. In addition, the Hermite polynomial chaos expansion-based RSM is
used to analyze the Type II problem by Jiang et al. (2014, 2015) though it
can also be applied to the other three types of problems in theory. The
remaining part of this paper hence focuses on comparing the feasibility
and validity of the two polynomial-based response surfaces (i.e., the
quadratic polynomial without cross terms and the Hermite polyno-
mial chaos expansion, as shown by bold font in Table 2) in solving
the Type I–IV problems.
3.1. Single response surface method (SQRSM & SSRSM)
For a potential slip surface of a soil slope, the relationship between
the FS and the input parameters can be approximated by a quadratic
polynomial function (e.g., Bucher and Bourgund, 1990; Zhang et al.,
2011b, 2013b):
X
n X
n
FSQ ðX Þ ¼ a0 þ bi xi þ ci x2i ð1Þ
i¼1 i¼1
where FSQ(X) is the FS for the given slip surface estimated from the
quadratic polynomial response surface; X = (x 1 ,⋯, x i ,⋯, x n ) is the
vector of input random variables, in which n is the number of
input random variables or the number of random field elements;
a = (a 0, b 1 ,⋯, bn , c 1,⋯, c n ) T is the vector of unknown coefficients.
To determine the unknown coefficients, the FS of a slip surface is
evaluated at (2n + 1) points: {μ x1, μ x2,⋯, μ xn}, {μ x1 ± kσx1, μ x2,⋯, μ xn},
{μ x1, μ x2 ± kσx2,⋯, μ xn},⋯, and {μ x1, μx2,⋯, μ xn ± kσxn}, where k is set
as 2 in this study. A regression-based approach is used to compute the
unknown coefficients a (e.g., Li et al., 2015a).
Under the Hermite polynomial chaos expansion, the FS for a given
slip surface is calculated by (e.g. Huang et al., 2009; Li et al., 2011;
Al-Bittar and Soubra, 2013; Jiang et al., 2014, 2015):
X
n   X n X
i1
 
FSH ðξ Þ ¼ a0 Γ 0 þ ai1 Γ 1 ξi1 þ ai1 i2 Γ 2 ξi1 ; ξi2
i1 ¼1 i1 ¼1 i2 ¼1
n X
X i1 X
i2
 
þ ai1 i2 i3 Γ 3 ξi1 ; ξi2 ; ξi3 þ ⋯
i1 ¼1 i2 ¼1 i3 ¼1
X n X i1 X i2 X
in−1
 
þ ⋯ ai1 i2 ;⋯; in Γ n ξi1 ; ξi2 ; ⋯; ξin ð2Þ
i1 ¼1 i2 ¼1 i3 ¼1 in ¼1
where n is the total number of random variables, a= (a0, ai1, ⋯ ,ai1i2 , ⋯,in)
is the unknown coefficients to be evaluated; ξ = (ξi1, ξi2, ⋯ , ξin) is the
vector of independent standard normal variables representing the un-
certainties in the input parameters; and Γn(⋅) is the multi-dimensional
Hermite polynomials of order p, in which p is taken as 2 in this study.
Eq. (2) is often referred to as the stochastic response surface that
approximates the FS.
For a single quadratic response surface method (SQRSM), the surro-
gate performance function given by Eq. (1) is constructed between the
minimum factor of safety (FSmin) among all potential slip surfaces and
the original random variables. The single stochastic response surface
method (SSRSM) shown in Eq. (2) is also a surrogate model for slope
stability analysis that provides an explicit and approximate perfor-
mance function to predict the FS of slope stability (e.g., Huang et al.,
2009; Li et al., 2011; Jiang et al., 2014, 2015). In the SSRSM, the surrogate
performance function is constructed between the FSmin among all
potential slip surfaces and the independent standard normal random
variables ξ.
3.2. Multiple response surface methods (MQRSM & MSRSM)
Unlike the single response surface method, the multiple response
surface methods are often used to solve the slope reliability problem
with multiple failure modes. The multiple response surface methods
consist of the multiple quadratic response surface method (MQRSM)
and multiple stochastic response surface method (MSRSM), which are
briefly introduced as below.
MQRSM makes use of multiple quadratic response surfaces to ap-
proximate the relationship between FSs of all the potential slip surfaces
and random variables in their original space, each of which corresponds
to the original performance function of one potential slip surface. After
obtaining multiple quadratic response surfaces, NMC realizations of
random fields XNG,F are generated using the extended-Cholesky
decomposition technique (e.g., Li et al. 2015a). If spatial variability of
soil properties is not considered, NMC random variable samples XNG,V
are obtained using the Nataf transformation (e.g., Lebrun and Dutfoy,
2009; Li et al., 2011; Tang et al., 2013). Substituting NMC realizations of
 D.-Q. Li et al. / Engineering Geology 203 (2016) 3–14
random fields or random variables into multiple quadratic response
surfaces yields NMC estimates (i.e., min FSQj ðX NG Þ) of FSmin, where
j¼1;2;⋯;N s
Ns is the number of potential slip surfaces. Then, the number of FSmin
values less than 1.0 is determined and is denoted as NF. The system
failure probability of slope stability is calculated by Pf = NF ∕ NMC.
Unlike the MQRSM, the MSRSM is constructed between FS values of
all potential slip surfaces and the input parameters ξ in independent
normal space. To construct Ns surrogate performance functions between
FS values of all the potential slip surfaces and the input parameters ξ
when spatial variability of soil properties is considered, Np realizations
of independent or cross-correlated random fields are generated using
the Karhunen–Loève expansion technique (e.g., Ghiocel and Ghanem,
2002; Phoon et al., 2002; Ghanem and Spanos, 2003; Vořechovský,
2008; Cho, 2010). Note that the correlation function is needed in gener-
ating random field. For example, the squared exponential (SQX) auto-
correlation function (ACF) (e.g., Cao and Wang, 2014a; Li et al., 2015a)
is adopted to model spatial variability in this study. Then the limit equi-
librium methods (e.g., simplified Bishop method) of slope stability with
the Np realizations of random fields are applied to calculate the FS values
of each potential slip surface. The unknown coefficients a in Eq. (2) are
determined based on the Np random samples ξ and the corresponding
FS values. The above procedure is repeated for Ns potential slip surfaces.
Then, the surrogate performance function is constructed between the FS
values and the input parameters ξ for each potential slip surface. If the
spatial variability of soil properties is not considered, the input soil pa-
rameters used for limit equilibrium analysis are obtained via the Nataf
transformation. After obtaining MSRSM, MCS is carried out to generate
NMC realizations of independent standard normal samples ξ. Substitut-
ing each realization of input samples ξk, k = 1, 2,⋯, NMC, into multiple
stochastic response surfaces leads to NMC values of FS min ¼ min
j¼1;2;⋯;N s
ðξ k Þ. Similar to MQRSM, the number (i.e., NF) of FSmin values less than 1.0
is determined, and Pf is then calculated as NF ∕ NMC.
4. Soil slope reliability analysis using RSMs
This section will examine the capacity of the aforementioned four
RSMs (i.e., SQRSM, SSRSM, MQRSM, and MSRSM) in solving different
slope reliability problems (i.e., Type I–IV problems). The computational
accuracy and efficiency of the RSMs are compared and discussed using
four soil slope examples, namely Examples #1, #2, #3 and #4. For
each soil slope example, the mean value P ̅ f of slope failure probability
for each RSM is taken as the average value of Pf obtained from 20
independent runs of the method. The mean value of P f is an important
index in evaluating the accuracy of a given RSM and indicates whether
the method is biased or not. The coefficient of variation of Pf, COV[Pf],
is also obtained using the results from 20 independent runs. The Unit
COV (i.e., Δ) is used to quantify the efficiency of RSMs in this study,
Fig. 1. The geometry of the slope (Example #1).
7
and it is calculated as (e.g., Schuëller and Pradlwarter, 2007; Au et al.,
2007):
  pffiffiffiffiffiffi
Δ ¼ COV P f  Ne ð3Þ
where Ne is the equivalent number of evaluations of the original perfor-
mance function (e.g., limit equilibrium analysis) in each run, which is
calculated by.
Ne ¼ Npe þ t0∕t ð4Þ
in which Npe is the number of evaluations of the original perfor-
mance functions needed to construct single or multiple response sur-
faces; t is the computational time needed to perform one evaluation of
the original performance function; and t′ is the computational time of
subsequent MCS based on response surfaces that have been construct-
ed. A relatively small value of Unit COV indicates a relatively high
computational efficiency.
For the soil slope reliability analysis, the limit state function (LSF) is
usually defined as g(X) = FS(X) − 1 = 0. The FS(X) is the factor of safety
calculated by a deterministic slope stability analysis method, e.g., limit
equilibrium method (LEM), which is used to calculate FS values for con-
struction of response surfaces in the four examples. In other words, the
response surfaces in the four examples are calibrated using the limit
equilibrium analysis of slope stability.
4.1. Applications of RSMs to reliability analysis of two cohesive slopes
4.1.1. Type I problem: a single-layered cohesive slope (Example #1, no ISV)
The profile of the undrained slope (Example #1) in a uniform layer is
FSHj shown in Fig. 1, which has been studied by Cho (2010) and Jiang et al.
(2015). The cohesive slope has a height of 5 m, a slope angle of 26.6°
and a total unit weight of 20 kN/m3. The undrained shear strength cu
is assumed to be lognormally distributed with a mean cu of 23 kPa and
a COV of 0.3. Based on the mean value of the undrained shear strength
cu, the FSmin is obtained as 1.356 using simplified Bishop method,
which is consistent with the value reported by Cho (2010) and Jiang
et al. (2015). In the calculation, a total number of 4851 potential slip
surfaces at different locations are generated using the “Entry and Exit”
method in SLOPE/W (GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., 2012), as shown
in Fig. 1.
Table 3 summarizes the results of Example #1 for the Type I
problem. It can be seen that the average values P ̅ f of the slope failure
probability are 0.173, 0.173, 0.172 and 0.172 for SQRSM, MQRSM,
SSRSM and MSRSM, respectively. These values agree well with 0.173
obtained from direct MCS in this study and are slightly lower than the
value 0.186 reported by Cho using FORM (2010). Since the values of
P ̅ f obtained from the four RSMs are in good agreement with that obtain-
ed using direct MCS and simplified Bishop method, all of the four RSMs
8 D.-Q. Li et al. / Engineering Geology 203 (2016) 3–14

Fig. 2. A typical realization of random field (Example #1).

Fig. 3. The geometry of three-layered slope and 14,896 potential slip surfaces (Example #2).

provide reasonably accurate estimates of P f of the Type I problem in this
example. The SQRSM has the smallest value of Unit COV = 0.003 among
the four RSMs. Compared with the SQRSM, the computational efficiency
of the MCS is low, which produces a relatively high value of Unit COV =
0.26. Though the four RSMs have comparable accuracy, the SQRSM has
the highest calculation efficiency among the four RSMs. Therefore, it is
recommended to be used for the Type I problem with a single-layered
cohesive slope ignoring spatial variability.
4.1.2. Type II problem: a single-layered cohesive slope (Example #1,
consider ISV)
In this section, the slope profile of the undrained slope shown in
Fig. 1 is used again. Unlike the Type I problem in Example #1, the spatial
variability of undrained shear strength cu is considered in the Type II
problem. In other words, the Type II problem in Example #1 focuses
on evaluating the reliability of the undrained slope considering the spa-
tial variability of undrained shear strength. The statistical properties of
the other soil parameters remain the same as those in Type I problem.
The spatial variability of cu is modeled using a 2D lognormal stationary
random field with a horizontal autocorrelation distance θln,h of 20 m,
and a vertical autocorrelation distance θln,v of 2.0 m. The random field
can be simulated using the mid-point method (e.g., Srivastava et al.,
2010; Suchomel and Mašin, 2010; Wang et al., 2011), in which the
cohesive soil layer is discretized into 910 elements with a side length
of 0.5 m. Fig. 2 shows a typical realization of the random field of cu.
Table 4 presents the results of the Type II problem in Example #1.
When the four types of RSMs are used as surrogate models for the
implicit LSF for slope reliability analysis, the mean values of slope failure
probability P f are 0.276, 0.082, 0.081 and 0.079 for the SQRSM, MQRSM,
SSRSM and MSRSM, respectively. The values of P ̅ f obtained from
MQRSM, SSRSM and MSRSM generally agree well with 0.076 reported
by Cho (2010) (see Table 5), 0.083 from reported by Jiang et al. (2015)
(see Table 5), and 0.078 obtained from direct MCS and simplified Bishop
method. On the other hand, using SQRSM leads to significant overestima-
tion of slope failure probability in the Type II problem of this example.
This indicates that the SQRSM cannot capture the feature of LSF for a
soil slope when the spatial variability of undrained shear strength
cu is considered, which subsequently results in a misleading
estimate of slope failure probability. Note that both the MQRSM
and MSRSM produce relatively small values of Unit COV of 0.446
and 0.327, which are significantly smaller than 2.860 by direct
MCS. Compared with the MQRSM and MSRSM, the SSRSM leads to
a slightly higher Unit COV of 0.694. Based on these results, the
MQRSM and MSRSM are more efficient than SSRSM and direct MCS.
Thus, both the MQRSM and MSRSM are recommended to be used
for dealing with the Type II problem.

Fig. 4. A typical realization of random field (Example #2).

 D.-Q. Li et al. / Engineering Geology 203 (2016) 3–14
Fig. 5. The geometry of the slope and 5491 potential slip surfaces (Example #3).
Fig. 6. A typical realization of random field (Example #3).
4.1.3. Type III problem: a three-layered cohesive slope (Example #2, no ISV)
The first example, namely Example #1, focuses on the single-layered
cohesive slope. It is well-known that multiple failure modes may be in-
volved in a multiple-layered slope. For this reason, a three-layered cohe-
sive slope (Example #2) is used as the second example to investigate
the capacity of the four RSMs in solving the Type III problem. Example
#2 is adopted from Feng and Fredlund (2011), Zhang et al. (2013b), Li
and Chu (2015) and Kang et al. (2015). The geometry of the slope is
shown in Fig. 3 and the soil parameters are summarized in Table 6.
The undrained shear strength Su1, Su2 and Su3 of three clayed layers
are modeled as independent random variables. Based on mean values
of the undrained shear strength, the FSmin is obtained as 1.282 using
simplified Bishop method, which is the same as that reported by Kang
et al. (2015). As shown in Fig. 3, a total number of 14,896 potential
slip surfaces are randomly generated to cover the whole potential
failure area using the “Entry and Exit” method in SLOPE/W.
Fig. 7. The geometry of the slope and 25,947 potential slip surfaces (Example #4).
9
Table 7 presents the results of the Type III problem in Example #2.
For comparison, Table 8 also summarizes the reliability results reported
in literature. The mean estimates of slope failure probability P f are
0.216, 0.184, 0.219 and 0.240 for the SQRSM, MQRSM, SSRSM, and
MSRSM, respectively. In general, they compare favorably with results
(around 0.19) obtained by Zhang et al. (2013b) and Kang et al.
(2015), and 0.197 using direct MCS in this study though the estimates
of P f from SQRSM, SSRSM, and MSRSM are slightly higher. It seems
that all the four RSMs can provide reasonably accurate estimates of
slope failure probability for the Type III problem. Further examination
on the Unit COV in Table 7 for the four RSMs shows that the SQRSM
and MQRSM have higher computational efficiency than SSRSM and
MSRSM. Therefore, the SQRSM and MQRSM are suggested to be used
to solve the Type III problem in cohesive soils.
4.1.4. Type IV problem: a three-layered cohesive slope (Example #2,
consider ISV)
In the Type IV problem, the undrained shear strength Su1, Su2 and Su3
of three clay layers of Example #2 is modeled by three two-dimensional
lognormal stationary random fields, respectively. The horizontal auto-
correlation distance θln,h and vertical autocorrelation distance θln,v are
taken as 20 m and 2.0 m, respectively. The three random fields of Su1,
Su2 and Su3 are assumed to be mutually independent, and are discretized
into 495, 939 and 1080 elements, respectively, with a side length of
0.5 m as shown in Fig. 4.
Table 9 summarizes the reliability results of the Type IV problem in
Example #2. The mean estimates of slope failure probability P f are
0.027, 0.057, 0.088 and 0.031 for the SQRSM, MQRSM, SSRSM, and
MSRSM, respectively. Taking the slope failure probability 0.057 obtain-
ed from direct MCS and simplified Bishop method as an “exact” solution,
the four RSMs provide estimates of slope failure probability that are
generally comparable with that obtained from direct MCS. The SQRSM
and MSRSM may slightly underestimate the slope failure probability,
while the SSRSM may slightly overestimate the probability of failure.
The slight differences in estimates of slope failure probability between
the four RSMs and direct MCS may be attributed to two aspects. First,
the potential failure modes for the multiple-layered slopes consider-
ing spatial variability become more complicated. Second, the SQRSM,
SSRSM and MSRSM may not completely capture the feature of LSFs
for the potential slip surfaces. It is noted that the MSRSM has the
lowest value of Unit COV (i.e., 0.69) among the four RSMs, which
indicates that the MSRSM is more efficient than the other three
RSMs. It is, therefore, recommended that the MSRSM is used for the
Type IV problem.
4.1.5. Suggested RSMs for reliability analysis of cohesive slope
Taking two cohesive soil slopes as examples (i.e., Examples #1 and
#2), four types of slope reliability problems (i.e., Type I–IV problems)
10 D.-Q. Li et al. / Engineering Geology 203 (2016) 3–14

Fig. 8. A typical realization of random field (Example #4).

are investigated using the SQRSM, MQRSM, SSRSM and MSRSM. The
recommendations for selecting the relatively appropriate RSMs for
each type of problem are summarized in Table 10. Note that the RSMs
marked with “√” indicate that they can provide reasonably accurate es-
timates of slope failure probability in the corresponding slope reliability
problems. As mentioned previously, the Unit COV is an important indi-
cator for evaluating computational efficiency. The computational effi-
ciency associated with the four RSMs is ranked from 1 to 4. As the
rank number increases from 1 to 4, the corresponding RSM becomes
less efficient. Based on the trade-off between computational accuracy
and efficiency, the appropriate RSMs are recommended for different
slope reliability problems, as shown in Table 10. For the single-layered
cohesive soil slope reliability problem ignoring spatial variability,
the SQRSM is recommended. For the single-layered cohesive soil slope
reliability problem considering spatial variability, both the MQRSM
and MSRSM can be applied. In addition, both the SQRSM and MQRSM
are applicable to the Type III problem in cohesive soils, i.e., multiple-
layered cohesive soil slope reliability problem ignoring spatial variabil-
ity. For multiple-layered cohesive slope reliability analysis considering
spatial variability, the MSRSM can be adopted.
4.2. Applications of RSMs to reliability analysis of two c–ϕ slopes
4.2.1. Type I problem: a single-layered c–ϕ slope (Example #3, no ISV)
The above two examples (e.g., Examples #1, #2) are under
undrained condition, where ϕ is taken as 0. Hence, simplified Bishop
method is identical to the ordinary slice method for Examples #1 and
#2. In such a case, the performance function G for a potential slip surface
is linear (Chowdhury and Xu, 1994). For further illustration, a single-
layered c–ϕ slope (Example #3) shown in Fig. 5 with a height of 10 m
and a slope angle of 45° is explored, which has been analyzed by Cho
(2010) and Jiang et al. (2015). Statistics of soil parameters are shown
in Table 11. Based on the mean values of soil parameters, the FSmin is
calculated using simplified Bishop method, and it is equal to 1.206,
which agrees well with those (i.e., 1.206 and 1.204, respectively)
reported by Jiang et al. (2015) and Cho (2010).
Table 12 summarizes the results of the Type I problem in Example
#3 illustrated by a single-layered c–ϕ slope ignoring spatial variability
Table 5
Results for Type II problem obtained from the references (Example #1, ISV).

Method Pf Source

MCS (100,000 samples) 0.076 Cho (2010)

Table 3 MSRSM 0.079 Jiang et al. (2015)
Results for Type I problem: a single-layered cohesive slope (Example #1, No ISV). MCS (1000 samples) 0.083 Jiang et al. (2015)
Methods Equivalent number of Mean COV[Pf] Unit Source
performance function value of P f COV
evaluations of each run Table 6
Statistical properties of soil parameters in Example #2.
SQRSM 3.02 0.173 0.002 0.003 This study
MQRSM 4.47 0.173 0.003 0.006 Slope layers Variable Unit weight, γ (kN/m3) Undrained strength, Su (kPa)
SSRSM 3.01 0.172 0.022 0.038 Mean COV Distribution
MSRSM 3.57 0.172 0.022 0.042
MCS 100.00 0.173 0.03 0.26 Clay 1 Su1 18 18 0.3 Lognormal
Clay 2 Su2 18 20 0.2 Lognormal
Note: The method marked by bold font is the recommended RSM. This usage is also valid Clay 3 Su3 18 25 0.3 Lognormal
for the results shown in Tables 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 17.

Table 4 Table 7
Results for Type II problem: a single-layered cohesive slope (Example #1, ISV). Results for Type III problem: a three-layered cohesive slope (Example #2, No ISV).

Methods Equivalent number of Mean COV[Pf] Unit Source Methods Equivalent number of Mean COV[Pf] Unit Source
performance function value of P f COV performance function value of P f COV
evaluations of each run evaluations of each run

SQRSM 1821.30 0.276 0.008 0.337 This study SQRSM 7.05 0.216 0.002 0.005 This study
MQRSM 1823.75 0.082 0.010 0.446 MQRSM 15.61 0.184 0.002 0.009
SSRSM 1000.04 0.081 0.022 0.694 SSRSM 10.04 0.219 0.534 1.694
MSRSM 1001.47 0.079 0.010 0.327 MSRSM 15.37 0.240 0.522 2.047
MCS 1000.00 0.078 0.090 2.860 MCS 100.00 0.197 0.095 0.952
 D.-Q. Li et al. / Engineering Geology 203 (2016) 3–14 11

Table 8 Table 11
Results for Type III problem obtained from the references (Example #2, No ISV). Statistical properties of soil parameters in Example #3.

Methods Pf Source Parameter Mean COV Distribution Correlation coefficient

MCS with 10,000 samplings 0.187 Zhang et al. (2013b) Cohesion, c (kPa) 10 0.3 Lognormal
r = −0.7
Extended Hassan and Wolff method with 10,000 0.184 Zhang et al. (2013b) Friction angle, ϕ (°) 30 0.2 Lognormal
samples Unit weight, γ (kN/m3) 20 ― ― ―
MCS using GPR-based RSM with 10,000 samples 0.186 Kang et al. (2015)
Note: The symbol “―” denotes the result is not applicable.
MCS using GPR-based RSM with 20,000 samples 0.185 Kang et al. (2015)
MCS using GPR-based RSM with 100,000 samples 0.186 Kang et al. (2015)

Table 12
Results for Type I problem: a single-layered c–ϕ slope (Example #3, No ISV).
Table 9 Equivalent number of
Results for Type IV problem: a three-layered cohesive slope (Example #2, ISV). Mean
Methods performance function COV[Pf] Unit COV Source
value of P f
evaluations of each run
Methods Equivalent number of Mean COV[Pf] Unit Source
performance function value of P f COV SQRSM 5.04 0.043 0.005 0.011
evaluations of each run MQRSM 8.25 0.042 0.005 0.014
SSRSM 6.01 0.040 0.752 1.843 This study
SQRSM 5029.43 0.027 0.03 2.34 This study
MSRSM 7.91 0.079 1.824 5.129
MQRSM 5033.10 0.057 0.02 1.43
MCS 250.00 0.039 0.131 2.067
SSRSM 800.08 0.088 0.08 2.19
MSRSM 801.50 0.031 0.02 0.69
MCS 1000.00 0.057 0.08 2.54
takes precedence over computational efficiency in choosing suitable
RSMs among the four ones. Although the values of Unit COV of SSRSM
of c and ϕ. The average values of failure probability P f obtained from and MSRSM are 2.56 and 3.57, respectively, which are higher than
SQRSM, MQRSM and SSRSM are 0.043, 0.042 and 0.040, respectively, those of SQRSM and MSRSM, they still have distinct superiority over
which agree well with 0.039 obtained using direct MCS and simplified direct MCS in the view of computational efficiency. Based on the
Bishop method. However, the probability of failure (i.e., 0.079) obtained computational accuracy and efficiency, both of SSRSM and MSRSM are
from MSRSM is obviously higher than that of direct MCS (e.g., 0.039). In suggested methods for dealing with the Type II problem in c–ϕ soils.
addition, it is shown that SQRSM has the smallest Unit COV among the
four RSMs (see column 5 of Table 12). It is recommended to be used
4.2.3. Type III problem: a multiple-layered c–ϕ slope (Example #4, no ISV)
for the Type I problem in c–ϕ soil (i.e., single-layered c–ϕ slope ignoring
Fig. 7 shows the geometry of the last slope example (Example #4),
soil variability) though MQRSM and SSRSM also provide reasonably
i.e., the Congress Street Cut, which has been analyzed by Oka and
accurate slope failure probabilities for this type of problem.
Wu (1990), Chowdhury and Xu (1994, 1995), Ching et al. (2009),
Chowdhury and Rao (2010), and Ji and Low (2012). The cross section
4.2.2. Type II problem: a single-layered c–ϕ slope (Example #3, consider of the slope consists of an upper layer of sand at the top and three clay
ISV) layers, each of which has its corresponding c and ϕ. Table 15 presents
In the Type I problem of Example #3, the ISV of c and ϕ is not taken the statistics of shear strength parameters (i.e., c and ϕ) and unit weight
into account. In the Type II problem, their ISV is characterized by two (γ), which are adopted from Oka and Wu (1990) and Chowdhury and
cross-correlated 2D lognormal stationary random fields c and ϕ. θln,h Xu (1994). Based on the mean values of soil properties, the FSmin is
and θln,v of both c and ϕ are taken as 20 m and 2.0 m, respectively. As calculated using simplified Bishop method, and it is 1.392.
shown in Fig. 6, the random fields are discretized into 1210 elements Table 16 shows the results of the Type III problem in Example #4.
with a side length of 0.5 m. Compared with the result (i.e., 0.010) obtained from direct MCS and
Table 13 summarizes the results of the Type II problem in Example simplified Bishop method, MQRSM provides an un-biased estimate of
#3. Table 14 also summarizes the reliability results obtained from the Pf in the sense that the P ̅ f from MQRSM is equal to 0.010. As shown in
other references for comparison. Compared with results (i.e., 0.0041) Table 16, MQRSM provides the most accurate estimate of slope failure
obtained from direct MCS in this study and those (around 0.004) report- probability among the four RSMs. From the perspective of computation-
ed by Cho (2010) and Jiang et al. (2015), SSRSM and MSRSM provide al accuracy, the estimates of slope failure probability from SQRSM,
reasonably accurate estimates (i.e., 0.0052 and 0.0051, respectively) of SSRSM and MSRSM are somewhat biased. Note that the value of Unit
slope failure probability. By contrast, both SQRSM and MQRSM overes- COV of MQRSM (i.e., 0.04) is much smaller than those of SRSM,
timate the failure probability for the Type II problem in Example #3. MSRSM, and direct MCS (i.e., 4.20, 5.57, 9.98, respectively). This indi-
This is mainly attributed to the fact that SQRSM and MQRSM cannot rea- cates that MQRSM can efficiently evaluate the slope failure probability
sonably approximate the LSF of slope stability for a soil slope system for the Type III problem in c–ϕ soils compared with SRSM, MSRSM,
when the spatial variability of c and ϕ is considered. In the view of com- and direct MCS. Based on both computational accuracy and efficiency,
putational accuracy, SSRSM and MSRSM are appropriate methods for MQRSM is recommended to be used to solve the Type III problem in
the Type II problem in c–ϕ soils. Note that computational accuracy c–ϕ soils.

Table 10
Recommendations of selecting appropriate RSMs for four types of reliability problems of a cohesive slope.

Problem type Indicator SQRSM MQRSM SSRSM MSRSM Recommended method

Accuracy √ √ √ √
Single-layered slope ignoring spatial variability (I) SQRSM
Efficiency 1 2 3 4
Accuracy √ √ √
Single-layered slope considering spatial variability (II) MQRSM, MSRSM
Efficiency 2 3 4 1
Accuracy √ √ √ √
Multiple-layered slope ignoring spatial variability (III) SQRSM, MQRSM
Efficiency 1 2 3 4
Accuracy √ √ √ √
Multiple-layered slope considering spatial variability (IV) MSRSM
Efficiency 4 2 3 1
12 D.-Q. Li et al. / Engineering Geology 203 (2016) 3–14

Table 13 Table 17
Results for Type II problem: a single-layered c–ϕ slope (Example #3, ISV). Results for Type IV problem: a three-layered c–ϕ slope (Example #4, ISV).

Equivalent number of Equivalent number of

Mean Unit Mean Unit
Methods performance function COV[Pf] Source Methods performance function COV[Pf] Source
value of P f COV value of P f COV
evaluations of each run evaluations of each run

SQRSM 4541.61 0.0828 0.01 0.96 SQRSM 6918.84 0.0543 0.02 1.93
MQRSM 4547.58 0.0112 0.06 3.71 MQRSM 7064.21 0.0021 0.11 9.31
SSRSM 1000.23 0.0052 0.08 2.56 This study SSRSM 1000.07 0.0072 2.16 68.42 This study
MSRSM 1020.06 0.0051 0.11 3.57 MSRSM 1013.77 0.0015 0.07 2.15
MCS 2500.00 0.0041 0.22 10.99 MCSa 70,000 0.0027 0.07 19.40

Note:
a
A single MCS with 70,000 samples.
Table 14
Results for Type II problem obtained from the references (Example #3, ISV).

Methods Pf Source 4.2.5. Suggested RSMs for reliability analysis of c–ϕ slope
MCS (50,000 samples) 0.0039 Cho (2010)
Similar to the recommendations shown in Section 4.1.5, the recom-
MSRSM 0.0049 Jiang et al. (2015) mendations for selecting the relatively appropriate RSMs for slope reli-
MCS (10,000 samples) 0.0044 Jiang et al. (2015) ability problems in c–ϕ soils are summarized in Table 18. The SQRSM is
MCS (50,000 samples) 0.0039 Jiang et al. (2015) recommended for the single-layered c–ϕ soil slope reliability problem
ignoring spatial variability. For the single-layered c–ϕ soil slope reliabil-
ity problem considering spatial variability, both SSRSM and MSRSM can
4.2.4. Type IV problem: a multiple-layered c–ϕ slope (Example #4, consider be applied. The MQRSM is applicable to the multiple-layered c–ϕ soil
ISV) slope reliability problem ignoring spatial variability. For the multiple-
This subsection focuses on the multiple-layered c–ϕ soil slope con- layered c–ϕ soil slope reliability problem considering spatial variability,
sidering spatial variability (Type IV problem in Example #4). The the MSRSM is recommended.
example of Congress Street Cut is, again, used while the spatial variabil-
ity of c and ϕ in each soil layer is explicitly modeled using a 2D lognor-
5. Summary and conclusions
mal stationary random field with a horizontal autocorrelation distance
θln,h of 20 m and a vertical autocorrelation distance θln,v of 6.0 m. As
This paper reviewed previous studies on applications of RSMs in the
shown in Fig. 8, the random fields in three soil layers are discretized
different slope reliability problems and systematically investigated the
into 434, 773 and 522 elements with a side length of 0.5 m, respectively.
capacity and validity of four response surface methods (i.e., SQRSM,
Table 17 shows results of the Type IV problem in Example #4. As
SSRSM, MQRSM, and MSRSM) to solve the reliability of slope stability.
shown in Table 17, the values (i.e., 0.0543 and 0.0072, respectively) of
Based on the review, four types of soil slope reliability analysis problems
slope failure probability obtained using SQRSM and SSRSM are higher
were identified from the literature, including single-layered soil slope
than that (i.e., 0.0027) from direct MCS and simplified Bishop method
reliability problem ignoring spatial variability, single-layered soil slope
in this study. On the other hand, MQRSM and MSRSM provide estimates
reliability problem considering spatial variability, multiple-layered soil
(i.e., 0.0021 and 0.0015, respectively) of slope failure probability that
slope reliability problem ignoring spatial variability, and multiple-
are generally comparable with that from direct MCS. In addition, the
layered soil slope reliability problem considering spatial variability.
Unit COV (i.e., 2.15) of MSRSM is much smaller than that (i.e., 9.31) of
These problems are referred to as “Type I–IV problems” in this study, re-
MQRSM. Hence, it has a higher computational efficiency. Based on the
spectively. For each type of the problem, the computational accuracy
trade-off between the computational accuracy and efficiency, MSRSM
and efficiency of SQRSM, SSRSM, MQRSM, and MSRSM are systematical-
is suggested to solve the reliability of slope stability for the Type IV prob-
ly explored and compared for cohesive and c–ϕ soil slopes, respectively.
lem in c–ϕ soils.
Based on the comparison, some recommendations for selecting relative-
ly appropriate RSMs for different slope reliability analysis problems in
slope engineering practice are provided, as shown in Table 19.
Table 15
In summary, for a single-layered homogenous soil slope ignoring
Statistical properties of soil parameters in Example #4.
spatial variability (i.e., Type I problem), the critical deterministic slip
Angle of internal friction, surface is the dominating slope failure mode. Thus, the SQRSM provides
Slope Unit weight, γ Cohesion, c (kPa)
ϕ (°)
layers (kN/m3) reasonably accurate estimate of slope failure probability and has a high
Mean COV Distribution Mean COV Distribution computational efficiency. When the spatial variability of soil properties
Sand 21 0 ― ― 30 ― ― is taken into account in reliability analysis of a single-layered soil slope
Clay 1 19.5 55 0.37 Lognormal 5 0.2 Lognormal (i.e., Type II problem), the number of potential failure modes increases
Clay 2 19.5 43 0.19 Lognormal 7 0.21 Lognormal compared with those of the homogenous soil slopes. In such a case,
Clay 3 20 56 0.2 Lognormal 15 0.24 Lognormal
the MSRSM can be applied to solve the slope failure probability. In addi-
tion, stratification of soils also affects the potential failure modes of a soil
Table 16 slope and usually leads to multiple failure modes in the Type III prob-
Results for Type III problem: a three-layered c–ϕ slope (Example #4, No ISV). lem, for which the MQRSM is recommended. When both stratification
Equivalent no. of and spatial variability are involved in soil slope reliability analysis
Mean Unit
Methods performance function COV[Pf] Source (i.e., Type IV problem), the MSRSM is the suggested method that can
value of P f COV
evaluations of each run capture the performance functions well and has a good computational
SQRSM 13.04 0.057 0.005 0.02 efficiency.
MQRSM 23.19 0.010 0.009 0.04
SSRSM 28.03 0.086 0.793 4.20 This study
MSRSM 37.82 0.106 0.743 4.57 Acknowledgments
MCSa 20,000 0.010 0.071 9.98

Note: This work was supported by the National Science Fund for Distin-
a
A single MCS with 20, 000 samples. guished Young Scholars (Project No. 51225903), the National Basic
 D.-Q. Li et al. / Engineering Geology 203 (2016) 3–14 13

Table 18
Recommendations of selecting appropriate RSMs for four types of reliability problems of a c–ϕ slope.

Problem type Indicator SQRSM MQRSM SSRSM MSRSM Recommended method

Accuracy √ √ √
Single-layered slope ignoring spatial variability (I) SQRSM
Efficiency 1 2 3 4
Accuracy √ √
Single-layered slope considering spatial variability (II) SSRSM, MSRSM
Efficiency 1 4 2 3
Accuracy √
Multiple-layered slope ignoring spatial variability (III) MQRSM
Efficiency 1 2 3 4
Accuracy √ √
Multiple-layered slope considering spatial variability (IV) MSRSM
Efficiency 1 3 4 2

Table 19 References
Selected RSMs for soil slope reliability problems.
Al-Bittar, T., Soubra, A.H., 2013. Bearing capacity of strip footings on spatially random soils
Recommended
Problem type using sparse polynomial chaos expansion. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods 37 (13),
method 2039–2060.
Single-layered slope ignoring spatial variability (I) SQRSM Au, S.K., Ching, J., Beck, J.L., 2007. Application of subset simulation methods to reliability
Single-layered slope considering spatial variability (II) MSRSM benchmark problems. Struct. Saf. 29 (3), 183–193.
Multiple-layered slope ignoring spatial variability (III) MQRSM Baecher, G.B., Christian, J.T., 2003. Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical Engineering.
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Multiple-layered slope considering spatial variability (IV) MSRSM
Bucher, C.G., Bourgund, U., 1990. A fast and efficient response surface approach for struc-
tural reliability problems. Struct. Saf. 7 (1), 57–66.
Cao, Z.J., Wang, Y., 2013. Bayesian approach for probabilistic site characterization using
cone penetration tests. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 139 (2), 267–276.
Research Program of China (973 Program) (Project No. 2011CB013506), Cao, Z.J., Wang, Y., 2014a. Bayesian model comparison and selection of spatial correlation
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. functions for soil parameters. Struct. Saf. 49, 10–17.
Cao, Z.J., Wang, Y., 2014b. Bayesian model comparison and characterization of undrained
51329901, 51409196) and the Natural Science Foundation of Hubei
shear strength. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 140 (6), 04014018.
Province of China (Project No. 2014CFA001). Chen, C.F., Xiao, Z.Y., Zhang, G.B., 2011. Time-variant reliability analysis of three-
dimensional slopes based on Support Vector Machine method. J. Cent. South Univ.
18, 2108–2114.
Ching, J.Y., Phoon, K.K., 2014. Transformations and correlations among some clay
Appendix A. List of symbols parameters—the global database. Can. Geotech. J. 51 (6), 663–685.
Ching, J.Y., Phoon, K.K., Hu, Y.G., 2009. Efficient evaluation of reliability for slopes with circu-
lar slip surfaces using importance sampling. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 135 (6), 768–777.
Cho, S.E., 2007. Effects of spatial variability of soil properties on slope stability. Eng. Geol.
Symbol Description 92 (3), 97–109.
Cho, S.E., 2009. Probabilistic stability analyses of slopes using the ANN-based response
RSM response surface method
surface. Comput. Geotech. 36 (5), 787–797.
FOSM first-order second moment method
Cho, S.E., 2010. Probabilistic assessment of slope stability that considers the spatial
FORM first-order reliability method
variability of soil properties. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 136 (7), 975–984.
SORM second-order reliability method Cho, S.E., 2013. First-order reliability analysis of slope considering multiple failure modes.
MCS Monte Carlo Simulation Eng. Geol. 154, 98–105.
SQRSM single quadratic response surface method Chowdhury, R., Rao, B.N., 2010. Probabilistic stability assessment of slopes using high
MQRSM multiple quadratic response surface method dimensional model representation. Comput. Geotech. 37 (7), 876–884.
SSRSM single stochastic response surface method Chowdhury, R.N., Xu, D.W., 1994. Slope system reliability with general slip surfaces. Soils
MSRSM multiple stochastic response surface method Found. 34 (3), 99–105.
SVM support vector machine Chowdhury, R.N., Xu, D.W., 1995. Geotechnical system reliability of slopes. Reliab. Eng.
RBFN radial basis function neural network Syst. Saf. 47 (3), 141–151.
RVM relevance vector machine Christian, J.T., Ladd, C.C., Baecher, G.B., 1994. Reliability applied to slope stability analysis.
ANN artificial neural network J. Geotech. Eng. 120 (12), 2180–2207.
HDMR high dimensional model representation Duncan, J.M., 2000. Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical engineering. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. 126 (4), 307–316.
NN neural networks
El-Ramly, H., Morgenstern, N.R., Cruden, D.M., 2002. Probabilistic slope stability analysis
FS factor of safety
for practice. Can. Geotech. J. 39 (3), 665–683.
FSmin minimum FS among Ns potential slip surfaces El-Ramly, H., Morgenstern, N.R., Cruden, D.M., 2005. Probabilistic assessment of stability
ISV inherent spatial variability of a cut slope in residual soil. Geotechnique 55 (1), 77–84.
XNG,F non-Gaussian random field in original space Feng, T., Fredlund, M., 2011. SVSLOPE: Verification Manual. SoilVision Systems Ltd.,
XNG,V non-Gaussian random variable in original space Saskatoon.
NMC number of Monte Carlo Simulation Fenton, G.A., Griffiths, D.V., 2008. Risk Assessment in Geotechnical Engineering. John
Ns number of potential slip surfaces Wiley and Sons, New York.
Np number of realizations of random fields GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., 2012. Stability modeling With SLOPE/W: An Engineering
Ne equivalent number of evaluations of the original performance function Methodology, May 2012 Edition. GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., Calgary, Alberta,
Npe number of original performance function evaluations in a run Canada.
NF number of FSmin values less than 1.0 Ghanem, R.G., Spanos, P.D., 2003. Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach. 2nd ed.
Pf probability of failure Dover Publications, New York.
Ghiocel, D.M., Ghanem, R.G., 2002. Stochastic finite-element analysis of seismic soil–
Pf average value of failure probability obtained from 20 independent runs
structure interaction. J. Eng. Mech. 128 (1), 66–77.
I{·} indicator function
Griffiths, D.V., Fenton, G.A., 2004. Probabilistic slope stability analysis by finite elements.
ξ vector of independent standard normal variables J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 130 (5), 507–518.
COV coefficient of variation Hassan, A.M., Wolff, T.F., 1999. Search algorithm for minimum reliability index of earth
Δ Unit COV slopes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 125 (4), 301–308.
t′ computational time of MCS procedure Hicks, M.A., Spencer, W.A., 2010. Influence of heterogeneity on the reliability and failure
t computational time of one original performance function evaluation of a long 3D slope. Comput. Geotech. 37 (7), 948–955.
LEM limit equilibrium method Hong, H.P., Roh, G., 2008. Reliability evaluation of earth slopes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
SRM strength reduction method 134 (12), 1700–1705.
LSF limit state function Hsu, S.C., Nelson, P.P., 2006. Material spatial variability and slope stability for weak rock
θln,h horizontal autocorrelation distance masses. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 132 (2), 183–193.
θln,v vertical autocorrelation distance Huang, J.S., Griffiths, D.V., Fenton, G.A., 2010. System reliability of slopes by RFEM. Soils
Found. 50 (3), 343–353.
14 D.-Q. Li et al. / Engineering Geology 203 (2016) 3–14
Huang, J.S., Lyamin, A.V., Griffiths, D.V., Krabbenhoft, K., Sloan, S.W., 2013. Quantitative
risk assessment of landslide by limit analysis and random fields. Comput. Geotech.
53, 60–67.
Huang, S.P., Liang, B., Phoon, K.K., 2009. Geotechnical probabilistic analysis by collocation-
based stochastic response surface method: an Excel add-in implementation. Georisk
3 (2), 75–86.
Jamshidi Chenari, R., Alaie, R., 2015. Effects of anisotropy in correlation structure on the
stability of an undrained clay slope. Georisk 9 (2), 109–123.
Ji, J., 2014. A simplified approach for modeling spatial variability of undrained shear
strength in out-plane failure mode of earth embankment. Eng. Geol. 183, 315–323.
Ji, J., Low, B.K., 2012. Stratified response surfaces for system probabilistic evaluation of
slopes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 138 (11), 1398–1406.
Ji, J., Liao, H.J., Low, B.K., 2012. Modeling 2-D spatial variation in slope reliability analysis
using interpolated autocorrelations. Comput. Geotech. 40, 135–146.
Jiang, S.H., Li, D.Q., Cao, Z.J., Zhou, C.B., Phoon, K.K., 2015. Efficient system reliability
analysis of slope stability in spatially variable soils using Monte Carlo simulation.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 141 (2), 04014096.
Jiang, S.H., Li, D.Q., Zhang, L.M., Zhou, C.B., 2014. Slope reliability analysis considering
spatially variable shear strength parameters using a non-intrusive stochastic finite
element method. Eng. Geol. 168, 120–128.
Kang, F., Li, J.J., 2015. Artificial bee colony algorithm optimized support vector regression
for system reliability analysis of slopes. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CP.1943–5487.0000514.
Kang, F., Han, S.X., Salgado, R., Li, J.J., 2015. System probabilistic stability analysis of soil
slopes using Gaussian process regression with Latin hypercube sampling. Comput.
Geotech. 63, 13–25.
Le, T.M.H., 2014. Reliability of heterogeneous slopes with cross-correlated shear strength
parameters. Georisk 8 (4), 250–257.
Lebrun, R., Dutfoy, A., 2009. A generalization of the Nataf transformation to distributions
with elliptical copula. Probab. Eng. Mech. 24 (2), 172–178.
Li, D.Q., Jiang, S.H., Cao, Z.J., Zhou, C.B., Li, X.Y., Zhang, L.M., 2015a. Efficient 3-D reliability
analysis of the 530 m high abutment slope at Jinping I Hydropower Station during
construction. Eng. Geol. 195, 269–281.
Li, D.Q., Jiang, S.H., Cao, Z.J., Zhou, W., Zhou, C.B., Zhang, L.M., 2015b. A multiple response-
surface method for slope reliability analysis considering spatial variability of soil
properties. Eng. Geol. 187, 60–72.
Li, D.Q., Tang, X.S., Phoon, K.K., 2015c. Bootstrap method for characterizing the effect of
uncertainty in shear strength parameters on slope reliability. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
140, 99–106.
Li, D.Q., Xiao, T., Cao, Z.J., Zhou, C.B., Zhang, L.M., 2015d. Enhancement of random finite
element method in reliability analysis and risk assessment of soil slopes using Subset
Simulation. Landslides http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10346-015-0569-2.
Li, D.Q., Chen, Y.F., Lu, W.B., Zhou, C.B., 2011. Stochastic response surface method for
reliability analysis of rock slopes involving correlated non-normal variables. Comput.
Geotech. 38 (1), 58–68.
Li, D.Q., Qi, X.H., Phoon, K.K., Zhang, L.M., Zhou, C.B., 2014. Effect of spatially variable shear
strength parameters with linearly increasing mean trend on reliability of infinite
slopes. Struct. Saf. 49, 45–55.
Li, L., Chu, X.S., 2015. Multiple response surfaces for slope reliability analysis. Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Methods 39 (2), 175–192.
Li, S.J., Zhao, H.B., Ru, Z.L., 2013. Slope reliability analysis by updated support vector
machine and Monte Carlo simulation. Nat. Hazards 65 (1), 707–722.
Lloret-Cabot, M., Fenton, G.A., Hicks, M.A., 2014. On the estimation of scale of fluctuation
in geostatistics. Georisk 8 (2), 129–140.
Low, B.K., 2007. Reliability analysis of rock slopes involving correlated nonnormals. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. 44 (6), 922–935.
Low, B.K., 2014. FORM, SORM, and spatial modeling in geotechnical engineering. Struct.
Saf. 49, 56–64.
Low, B.K., Tang, W.H., 1997. Probabilistic slope analysis using Janbu's generalized
procedure of slices. Comput. Geotech. 21 (2), 121–142.
Low, B.K., Tang, W.H., 2004. Reliability analysis using object-oriented constrained
optimization. Struct. Saf. 26 (1), 69–89.
Low, B.K., Zhang, J., Tang, W.H., 2011. Efficient system reliability analysis illustrated for a
retaining wall and a soil slope. Comput. Geotech. 38 (2), 196–204.
Luo, X.F., Cheng, T., Li, X., Zhou, J., 2012b. Slope safety factor search strategy for multiple
sample points for reliability analysis. Eng. Geol. 129, 27–37.
Luo, X.F., Li, X., Zhou, J., Cheng, T., 2012a. A Kriging-based hybrid optimization algorithm
for slope reliability analysis. Struct. Saf. 34 (1), 401–406.
Oka, Y., Wu, T.H., 1990. System reliability of slope stability. J. Geotech. Eng. 116 (8),
1185–1189.
Phoon, K.K., Kulhawy, F.H., 1999. Characterization of geotechnical variability. Can.
Geotech. J. 36 (4), 612–624.
Phoon, K.K., Huang, S.P., Quek, S.T., 2002. Implementation of Karhunen–Loeve expan-
sion for simulation using a wavelet-Galerkin scheme. Probab. Eng. Mech. 17 (3),
293–303.
Piliounis, G., Lagaros, N.D., 2014. Reliability analysis of geostructures based on
metaheuristic optimization. Appl. Soft Comput. 22, 544–565.
Samui, P., Lansivaara, T., Bhatt, M.R., 2013. Least square support vector machine applied to
slope reliability analysis. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 31 (4), 1329–1334.
Samui, P., Lansivaara, T., Kim, D., 2011. Utilization relevance vector machine for slope
reliability analysis. Appl. Soft Comput. 11 (5), 4036–4040.
Schuëller, G.I., Pradlwarter, H.J., 2007. Benchmark study on reliability estimation in higher
dimensions of structural systems—an overview. Struct. Saf. 29 (3), 167–182.
Srivastava, A., Babu, G.S., 2009. Effect of soil variability on the bearing capacity of clay and
in slope stability problems. Eng. Geol. 108 (1), 142–152.
Srivastava, A., Babu, G.S., Haldar, S., 2010. Influence of spatial variability of permeability
property on steady state seepage flow and slope stability analysis. Eng. Geol. 110
(3–4), 93–101.
Suchomel, R., Mašin, D., 2010. Comparison of different probabilistic methods for predicting
stability of a slope in spatially variable c–φ soil. Comput. Geotech. 37 (1–2), 132–140.
Tan, X.H., Bi, W.H., Hou, X.L., Wang, W., 2011. Reliability analysis using radial basis
function networks and support vector machines. Comput. Geotech. 38 (2),
178–186.
Tan, X.H., Shen, M.F., Hou, X.L., Li, D., Hu, N., 2013. Response surface method of reliability
analysis and its application in slope stability analysis. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 31 (4),
1011–1025.
Tang, X.S., Li, D.Q., Zhou, C.B., Phoon, K.K., 2015. Copula-based approaches for evalu-
ating slope reliability under incomplete probability information. Struct. Saf. 52,
90–99.
Tang, X.S., Li, D.Q., Zhou, C.B., Phoon, K.K., Zhang, L.M., 2013. Impact of copulas for model-
ing bivariate distributions on system reliability. Struct. Saf. 44, 80–90.
Vořechovský, M., 2008. Simulation of simply cross correlated random fields by series
expansion methods. Struct. Saf. 30 (4), 337–363.
Wang, Y., Cao, Z.J., Au, S.K., 2010. Efficient Monte Carlo simulation of parameter sensitivity
in probabilistic slope stability analysis. Comput. Geotech. 37 (7), 1015–1022.
Wang, Y., Cao, Z.J., Au, S.K., 2011. Practical reliability analysis of slope stability by ad-
vanced Monte Carlo simulations in a spreadsheet. Can. Geotech. J. 48 (1), 162–172.
Wong, F.S., 1985. Slope reliability and response surface method. J. Geotech. Eng. 111 (1),
32–53.
Xu, B., Low, B.K., 2006. Probabilistic stability analyses of embankments based on finite-
element method. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 132 (11), 1444–1454.
Xue, J.F., Gavin, K., 2007. Simultaneous determination of critical slip surface and reliability
index for slopes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 133 (7), 878–886.
Yi, P., Wei, K.T., Kong, X.J., Zhu, Z., 2015. Cumulative PSO-Kriging model for slope reliabil-
ity analysis. Probab. Eng. Mech. 39, 39–45.
Zeng, P., Jimenez, R., 2014. An approximation to the reliability of series geotechnical
systems using a linearization approach. Comput. Geotech. 62, 304–309.
Zhang, J., Huang, H.W., Phoon, K.K., 2013a. Application of the Kriging-based response sur-
face method to the system reliability of soil slopes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 139 (4),
651–655.
Zhang, J., Huang, H.W., Juang, C.H., Li, D.Q., 2013b. Extension of Hassan and Wolff method
for system reliability analysis of soil slopes. Eng. Geol. 160, 81–88.
Zhang, J., Zhang, L.M., Tang, W.H., 2011a. Kriging numerical models for geotechnical
reliability analysis. Soils Found. 51 (6), 1169–1177.
Zhang, J., Zhang, L.M., Tang, W.H., 2011b. New methods for system reliability analysis of
soil slopes. Can. Geotech. J. 48 (7), 1138–1148.
Zhao, H.B., 2008. Slope reliability analysis using a support vector machine. Comput.
Geotech. 35 (3), 459–467.