Abstract
AbstractSlope stabilities are mainly designed using the conventional design approach (CDA), where the limit equilibrium methods (LEMs) are performed. Fellenius and Bishop’s simplified methods are the two commonly LEMs adopted as recommended in most design codes. In the design process of CDA, the safety factors (FS) of slopes are checked with specified FSs to ensure stability. The CDA has inherent drawbacks because the design process does not account for uncertainties. Moreover, different LEMs using different assumptions to solve the safety factors might include some amount orders of approximations. This study conducts probabilistic analyses, i.e., Monte Carlo simulations (MCSs) and uncertainty quantification, to obtain insights into the two LEMs applied to clay and sand slopes. The results reveal that the reliability indexes (RIs) obtained from the two LEMs-based MCSs are relatively identical for the same slope. Concerning the soil types, however, the RIs of the clay slope are significantly lower than those estimated for the sand slope, regardless of the LEMs used. The uncertainty quantifications for the clay slopes reveal that the two LEMs have relatively similar bias factors regarding FSs. Nevertheless, using the Fellenius method underestimates the probabilistic safety (about 17% in terms of the mean of FSs) for the sand slope compared to Bishop’s simplified method. Moreover, the coefficients of variation of FS obtained from the clay slope are consistently larger than those from the sand slope. These observations imply that the clay slope is more uncertain than the sand slope, and the Fellenius method results in lower FSs for sand slopes. Therefore, the FSs specified in the design codes should be connected to the soil type or the LEMs used to achieve the same probabilistic safety levels. Finally, the equivalent FSs associated with a RI of 1.75 are derived for each slope and each LEM used.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Energy (miscellaneous),Mechanics of Materials,Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology
Reference21 articles.
1. Ministry of Transportation (2000) TCN 262–2000. Specification for surveying and desinging highway embankments on soft ground, vol 22. Hanoi, Vietnam
2. KPHA (2018) Design standard for port and harbor. Korea Port and Harbor Association, Certified Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs in Korea. KPHA, Seoul, Korea
3. Phoon K-K, Ching J (2018) Risk and reliability in geotechnical engineering. CRC Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17970
4. Doan NS, Huh J, Mac VH, Kim D, Kwak K (2020) Probabilistic risk evaluation for overall stability of composite caisson breakwaters in Korea. J Mar Sci Eng 8:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8030148
5. Gayton N, Mohamed A, Sorensen JD, Pendola M, Lemaire M (2004) Calibration methods for reliability-based design codes. Struct Saf 26:91–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4730(03)00024-9
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献