Some aspects on uncertainty and reliability

in geotechnical engineering
Z. Mrabet
Geo-Risk Consulting, 305 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201

Abstract
There is growing need within geotechnical engineering for rational ways of
handling uncertainty and taking it into account in decision-making. Many
problems still face geotechnical engineers regarding the reliability analysis and
its applicability for practical problems. The following relevant questions should
be addressed: What factors most strongly influence the level of uncertainties in
earth structure evaluations? Where are the improvements most needed to reduce
uncertainty in these evaluations? And what level of reliability of earth structures
would be achieved under average conditions? Unfortunately, general responses
to these questions are very difficult.

1 Introduction
The demand for risk analyses is growing in all scientific and technical fields.
Increasing attention is being paid to risk and uncertainty in geotechnical and civil
engineering, because of the drive for improved reliability and safety. The
engineer is confronted with uncertainty associated with the random nature,
spatial variability of geotechnical properties, and in the complexity of
engineering projects. The engineer is expected to make dependable and clear
decisions. To do so requires an understanding of both the nature of uncertainty
and appropriate techniques to manage it. Unfortunately, many geotechnical
engineers are still skeptical of the outcomes of reliability methods in
geotechnical engineering. They prefer to use conventional methods that are more
straightforward.
Reliability analyses can be used in routine geotechnical engineering
practice. How should probabilistic methods be introduced to practicing
geotechnical engineers who have no background in the probabilistic theory?

Risk Analysis IV, C. A. Brebbia (Editor)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-736-1
516 Risk Analysis IV

These simple reliability analyses require a little effort more that involved in
conventional geotechnical analyses. They provide a means of evaluating the
combined effects of uncertainties in the parameters involved in the calculations,
and they offer a useful supplement to conventional analyses. The additional
parameters needed for the reliability analyses standard deviations of the
parameters can be evaluated using the same amount of data and types of
correlations that are widely used in geotechnical engineering practice.
During last two decades a significant body of literature has been published
including several methodologies and applications [8]. Probabilistic methods have
been developed to solve geotechnical design problems. The geotechnical
engineering designer has to provide a way to systematically incorporate
uncertainty into the design process in a rational manner and to must take it into
account the soil variability and optimize design.

2 Reliability analysis in geotechnical engineering: principles

and benefits
Geotechnical engineering reliability analysis is concerned with finding the
reliability or probability of failure (or reliability index) of structure or system.
The benefit of reliability analysis in geotechnical engineering can be summarized
in the few following points:
• to optimize investments of earth structures rehabilitations
• to analyze the real behaviour of these structures
• to highlight the uncertainties in design of these structures. Reliability
analysis plays a major role in considering the uncertainties influencing
the design of earth structures. For example, an optimum procedure for
design of an embankment can be discussed where there are uncertainties
with regard to a stability problem.
• to develop rigorous risk management programs.
• allow the geotechnical engineer to quantify the effect of various failure
preventive measures on these structures in order to develop an
inspection and maintenance program.
• to reduce risks provided that the associated cost is reasonable.
The reliability evaluation of most geotechnical structures, in particular
existing compacted earth fills, the capacity-demand model is the most simplest
utilized, as the question of interest is the probability of failure related to a load
event rather than the probability of failure within a time interval.
For rehabilitation studies of geotechnical structures, the reliability index is
used as a relative measure of reliability of confidence in the ability of a structure
to perform its function in a satisfactory manner. In fact, the reliability index
values are not absolute measures of probability.
Reliability assessment methods in geotechnical engineering are being
adopted for use to develop rigorous risk-management programs. Implementing
the programs will ensure that safety is maintained to a robust and acceptable
level. Any simple reliability analysis should include the following steps:

Risk Analysis IV, C. A. Brebbia (Editor)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-736-1
 Risk Analysis IV 517

• Establishing limit states

• Identifying failure modes
• Formulating limit state functions
• Analyzing uncertainty
• Evaluating reliability
• Assessment results
Example application to buried pipes problem illustrates the simplicity and
practical usefulness of simple reliability analysis will be considered.

3 Probabilistic modelling and reliability of earth structures

Probabilistic approaches have considered the uncertainty of natural and
compacted material properties as random variables [13]. Early, random variable
model in geotechnical concept has been introduced and discussed in Benjamin
and Cornell [3].
Where random variable of geotechnical property is not available due to, for
example, a lack of site-specific data, uncertainty can be characterized by
assuming that the coefficient of variation of a geotechnical parameter is similar
to that observed at other sites. Harr [9] reported typical values of coefficients of
variation for soil properties. However, caution should be taken when using
typical values, as coefficients of variation solely does not reveal much in
accordance with the correlation structure of soil properties.
Spatial correlation has long been ignored in modeling variability of soil
properties [1]. However, the spatial dependency within the medium should be
considered, particularly in a strongly compacted soil [13, 16]. To take into
account spatial correlation, it is possible to model the spatial variability of soil
properties with a spatial stochastic process also known as random field [22], in
which the variable exhibits autocorrelation, the tendency for values of the
variable at one point to be correlated to values at nearby points.
Recently, special attention has given to the role of spatial correlation. Some
recent papers dealing with the concept include those by DeGroot [5], Fenton [7],
Lacasse and Nadim [11], Mrabet and Giles [20].
Many studies stressed out the effect of existing auto-correlation on the
results of probabilistic models of compacted earth slopes analysis. According to
Chowdhury, ignoring auto-correlation is conservative and considerably more
than desired. The analysis that considers typical auto-correlation distances results
in reduction of probability of failure. Li and White [10] pointed out that the
probability of failure may be reduce by three orders of magnitude if the auto-
correlation function is taken into account. Cherubini [4] stresses that integration
of the fluctuation scale (i.e. auto-correlation distance) in probabilistic models in
the geotechnical context generates failure probabilities consistent with
frequencies of failure observed in practice.
The reliability index of earth fills is commonly taken as the value
corresponding to the failure surface associated with minimum reliability index.
However, embankments are considered as systems composed of several
“infinite” number of possible failure surfaces associated with different reliability

Risk Analysis IV, C. A. Brebbia (Editor)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-736-1
518 Risk Analysis IV

indices. Therefore, the global probability of failure of embankment is however,

at least for the moment, a complicated problem to handle since correlation exists
between different failure surfaces.
In geotechnical engineering, the reliability analysis of earth fills (earth dams,
embankments for example) can be performed using Bayesian Updating
technique in conjunction with conditional random field to evaluate the
uncertainty related to spatial variation of the materials properties within a dam
based on quality control results during construction [14]. Thus, the mathematical
expectation and variance of the average shear strength along failure surface have
been estimated from these results. Standard quality control programs has
incorporated the results of control tests in reliability analysis as soon as they
were available in order to take decision based on actualized evaluation of the
reliability of earth structures [15,16].
Stochastic finite element method (SFEM) is a good alternative for solving
the geotechnical problem associated with material variability. The formulation of
this method is described in Ghanem & Spanos [21]. The following points are
relevant when performing stochastic finite element modeling in a geotechnical
engineering context [20]:
• SFEM is useful in evaluating a range of variation of finite element
modeling in a geotechnical engineering context.
• SFEM is a useful tool in providing a quick insight into the relative
importance of different parameters of soil constitutive laws i.e.
sensitivity analysis.
• SFEM can be used as part of reliability analysis leading to more robust
designs for geotechnical structures.
Recently, Fenton et al. [6] presented an important methodology combining
random field theory with the finite element method (FEM) and Monte Carlo
simulation (MC) to perform a slope stability analyses. They estimated the slope
failure probability and investigated resulting probability as a function of the
soil’s statistical parameters. Mrabet [18] and Mrabet and Bouayed [19] have
used random field theory in conjunction with stochastic finite element method
(SFEM) to describe the uncertainty in both the input material properties of a
geotechnical system and the result of the analysis of a compacted earth dam.

4 Example of simple reliability analysis: buried pipes

The analysis of buried pipe behaviour constitutes one of the most challenging
problems encountered by the geotechnical engineer. The cause of failure, and the
subsequent cracking of the pipe, is closely related to geotechnical conditions.
Design factors that influence pipe performance include pipe material, soil
characteristics, age, depth of burial, trench geometry and loading. Some of the
basic design factors, parameters for specific cases of loading, geometry and
material variables are presented. Some uncertainties remain associated with some
of these design factors and need to be taken into account in any modelling or
assessment procedure (Benmansour & Mrabet [2]).

Risk Analysis IV, C. A. Brebbia (Editor)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-736-1
 Risk Analysis IV 519

The reliability analysis (figure 1) was performed to provide a more rational

approach to the engineering design of buried pipes and to update the present
knowledge about the safety and behaviour of these structures. This work
incorporates the variability of soil properties in terms of their coefficients of
variation, while still allowing the design engineer to exercise professional
judgment. In the classic deterministic approach, traditionally adopted in buried
pipe designs, the variability of these geotechnical properties is not taken into
account.

Establish limit
states

Identify failure
modes

Identify limit
state functions

Uncertainty in Uncertainty in material Uncertainty in

pipe materials properties of backfill load parameters

Calculate reliability
index

Figure 1: Simple reliability analysis procedure for buried pipes [2].

On the other hand, the reliability analysis has provided an indirect method
for identifying the most important parameters for these infrastructures,
particularly those are considered as robustness factors within the soil-pipe
system. It has been shown that the reliability of buried pipes can be improved if
parameters such as depth of the trench and dimensions of the pipe are selected
judiciously.
Program calculates the reliability index of buried pipes has been developed
as separate operations for numerical tasks. Derivatives of the performance

Risk Analysis IV, C. A. Brebbia (Editor)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-736-1
520 Risk Analysis IV

function required to compute reliability index can be obtained numerically using

the rational polynomial technique (RPT). And this is in frame of a first-order
second-moment (FOSM) reliability analysis. The very significant advantage of
this technique is that it can be implemented as a complement to any available
finite element method (FEM) software without modifying the computer program.

5 Conclusion
Reliability analyses provide a means of evaluating the combined effects of all
sources of uncertainty, in the parameters involved in the calculations, and they
offer a useful supplement to conventional analyses. The geotechnical engineer
has to provide a way to systematically incorporate uncertainty into the design
process in a rational manner and to must take it into account the soil variability
and optimize design.

References
[1] Auvinet, G., Bouayed, A & Mrabet, Z., 1995. Geostatistics and reliability
analysis of earthfills. Proceedings, Panamerican Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Guadalajara, Mexico, SMMS,
Vol.3. pp. 1405-1414.
[2] Benmansour, A. & Mrabet, Z. 2002. Reliability of buried pipes. First
International ASRANet Colloquium, Integrating Structural Reliability
Analysis with advanced Structural Analysis, Glasgow, Scotland, 8-10 July
2002.
[3] Benjamin, J., and Cornell, C.A. 1970. Probability, Statistics and Decision
for Civil Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[4] Cherubini, C.1997. Data and consideration on the variability of
geotechnical properties of soils. Proceedings of the Conference on
advances in Safety and Reliability: ESREL 1997. pp. 1583-1591.
[5] DeGroot, D. J. 1996. Analysing Spatial Variability of In-situ Soil
Properties. Proceedings of Uncertainty ’96. Uncertainty in the Geologic
Environment: From Theory to Practice, ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 58, C.D. Shackelford, P.P Nelson, and M.J.S. Roth, eds.,
pp.49-75.
[6] Fenton, G.A, Griffiths. D. V. & Urquhart, A.2003, A Slope stability
model for spatially random soils. Proceeding of the Ninth International
Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil
Engineering, ICASP9, July 6-9, 2003, San Francisco, California pp. 1263-
1269.
[7] Fenton, G.A 1996. Data Analysis/Geostatistics, Chapter 4 Probabilistic
Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, notes from workshop presented at
ASCE Uncertainty’ 96, Madison, WI, July, 31, 1996, sponsored by ASCE
Geotechnical Safety and Reliability Committee, G. A. Fenton, ed.
[8] Griffiths, D.V., Fenton, G.A. and Tveten, D.E. 2002. Probabilistic
geotechnical analysis: How difficult does it need to be? In Probabilistics

Risk Analysis IV, C. A. Brebbia (Editor)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-736-1
 Risk Analysis IV 521

in Geotechnics: Technical and Economic Risk Estimation, pages 3--20.

Essen, Germany.
[9] Harr, M. E. 1987. Reliability –Based Design in civil Engineering,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
[10] Li, K. S. & White, W. 1987a. Reliability index of slopes. Proceedings of
the 5th International Conference On Applications of Statistics and
Probability in soil and Structural Engineering, 2:755-762.
[11] Lacasse, S. and Nadim, F. 1996.Uncertainties in Characterizing Soil
Properties. Proceedings of Uncertainty ’96. Uncertainty in the Geologic
Environment: From Theory to Practice, ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 58, C.D. Shackelford, P.P Nelson, and M.J.S. Roth, eds.,
pp.210-238.
[12] Magnan, J. P. 1982. Les methodes statistiques et probabilistes en
mecanique des sols. Presse de l’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees,
France.
[13] Mrabet, Z. 1993. Controle geostatistique du compactage des ouvrages en
terre, Memoire de dEA, ENSG, INPL, Nancy, France.
[14] Mrabet, Z., 1997. Fiabilite des remblais homogenes compactes. Doctorate
Thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, France, 250 pp.
[15] Mrabet, Z., 1998. Geostatistics and short-term reliability analysis of
homogeneous compacted earth fills. Journees Gestatistique, ENSMP,
Fontainebleau, France, Cahiers de Gesstatistique, (6): pp 91-104.
[16] Mrabet, Z., Reliability analysis of homogeneous earth fills, A new
approach. Proceeding of the eight International Conference on
Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, ICASP8,
12-15 December 1999, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia pp 499 –
507.
[17] Mrabet, Z. and Bouayed, A. Reducing Uncertainty on the Results of
Reliability Analysis of Earth Fills Using Stochastic Estimations. Second
International Conference on Computer simulation in Risk Analysis and
Hazard Mitigation, Risk Analysis 2000, Bologna, Italy, 13 October
2000.pp 203-214.
[18] Mrabet, Z. Reliability analysis of earth fills using stochastic estimation
methods. Third International Conference on Mathematical Methods in
Reliability, MMR 2002, Trondheim, Norway, 17 - 20 June 2002.
[19] Mrabet, Z. & A. Bouayed. 2003. Probabilistic Risk Assessment of
Homogeneous Earth Dams. Proceeding of the Ninth International
Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil
Engineering, ICASP9, July 6-9, 2003, San Francisco, California pp. 367 –
372.
[20] Mrabet, Z. & D. Giles. 2002. Probabilistic risk assessment: a key tool for
reducing uncertainty in geotechnical engineering. Third International
Conference on Computer Simulation In Risk Analysis and Hazard
Mitigation, RISK 2002, Sintra, Portugal, 19 - 21 June 2002, pp. 3-14.

Risk Analysis IV, C. A. Brebbia (Editor)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-736-1
522 Risk Analysis IV

[21] Spanos, P.D. & Ghanem, R. 1989. Stochastic Finite Element Expansion
For Random Media. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 115, No. 5,
pp. 1035-1053.
[22] Vanmarcke. E.H. Random fields: Analysis and synthesis. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 1983.

Risk Analysis IV, C. A. Brebbia (Editor)

© 2004 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-736-1