Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium of Continuous Surface Mining, ISCSM2018

Reliability Evaluation During Slopes Progressive Failure

Alexandros V. Deliveris1, Ioannis E. Zevgolis2, Nikolaos C. Koukouzas1

1
Chemical Process & Energy Resources Institute / Centre for Research & Technology Hellas,
Egialias 52, Maroussi, Greece
2
Department of Civil Engineering / Democritus University of Thrace, Kimmeria Campus, Xanthi,
Greece

ABSTRACT

Progressive failure of slopes is a relatively common problem in surface lignite mines. In the
present work, a probabilistic methodology that takes into account the inherent geotechnical
uncertainty is suggested for the evaluation of a homogeneous slopes' reliability during progressive
failure phenomena. The proposed methodology is built upon the reliability index based Point
Estimate Method combined with finite elements computations. Shear strength parameters are
considered non-correlated random variables following normal distribution. Stability for various
safety states, up to the ultimate failure state, is expressed and evaluated in terms of global reliability
indices and global probabilities of failure. For illustrative purposes, a typical case example is solved
following the suggested methodology. It is anticipated that the established reliability model may be
further extended in order to take into consideration slopes’ transition failure probabilities during
progressive failure.

1 INTRODUCTION

Progressive failure of slopes is a relatively common problem encountered in surface lignite

mines [1, 2]. In many instances, working pit slopes experience great deformation levels before
approaching ultimate limit states. The non-uniform stress-strain distributions developing along slip
surfaces, in combination with the presence of brittle – prone to strain-softening – soils, are the main
causes for progressive failure occurrence [3]. Since the progressive failure of slopes is primarily
attributed to the non-uniform stress-strain levels upon potential shearing surfaces, limit equilibrium
methods are not capable of credibly simulating this complicated process. Instead, finite element
models are more applicable for this purpose, due to their ability of capturing the stress-strain
behavior of soil. The capability of finite element models to simulate soil strain-softening behavior,
by the reduction of shear strength parameters with the accumulated shear strains, has been used by
various researchers [4, 5, 6]. In an attempt to incorporate geotechnical uncertainty, other researchers
approached the problem from a reliability point of view, examining the probability of progressive
failure propagation along certain slope slip surfaces [7, 8, 9]. However, in these works, probabilistic
simulation of slopes’ progressive failure was formulated within the framework of limit equilibrium.
In this study, the probabilistic modeling of slopes’ progressive failure was conducted via the finite
element method. In particular, the evaluation of an excavated slope’s reliability during the
development of progressive failure conditions, is performed using a finite element model

1
(developed on program Plaxis 2D [10]), combined with the probabilistic point estimate method. A
detailed description of the proposed reliability model, accompanied by the essential assumptions
and simplifications made, are given in the next sections, followed by an illustrative case example.

2 SLOPES PROGRESSIVE FAILURE RELIABILITY MODEL

In this work, a reliability model able to probabilistically simulate slopes’ progressive failure is
proposed. For this purpose, a finite element slope model is merged with the point estimate method
[11, 12]. For the individual slope’s progressive failure states, stability is evaluated in terms of global
slope failure probability or in terms of the complementary event of global slope reliability.

2.1 Deterministic approach

Figure 1 illustrates the alteration of principal stresses due to the unloading process taking
place during excavation of a typical cut. As a result of the developing shear strains due to the
produced gravity forces, soil shear strength is unevenly mobilized along potential slip surfaces [13].

Figure 1. Principal stresses alteration due to slope excavation [13].

This unloading process during slope excavation may be simulated by finite elements, through
the successive removal of soil element clusters, modeling the actual staged construction procedure
of the slope. The major and minor principal stresses, σ1,i and σ3,i, along a potential slope slip surface,
at i locations upon it, may be employed for the evaluation of normal and shear stresses, σi and τi,
respectively, according to Eq. (1) and Eq. (2).

σ1, i +σ3, i σ1, i - σ3, i

σi = + cos(2θ) (1)
2 2

σ1, i - σ3, i
τi = sin(2θ) (2)
2

Angle θ represents the angle between the direction of the minor principal stress and the
orientation of soil element plane failure, where in most unfavorable conditions, corresponding to the
maximum developing shear stress, it is determined by the soil friction angle φ through Eq. (3).

2
 φ
θ = 45 + (3)
2

The available shear strength si, at slope working conditions, is calculated by the Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion, and the soil shear strength parameters c and φ, according to Eq. (4).

si = σi  tanφ+c (4)

In this manner, for a slope under working stress conditions, local safety factors SFL,i along
potential slip surfaces, are computed as ratios of available to mobilized shear strengths by Eq. (5).

si
SFL, i = (5)
τi
In addition, global safety factors SFG may also be established through the averaging of the
available and mobilized shear strengths at n locations along potential slip surfaces, by Eq. (6).


n
si
n s1 +s2 +...+ sn
n
SFG = i=1
= τ1 + τ2+ ... + τn (6)

n
τi n
n
i=1

For the direct simulation of slope progressive failure, the capability of finite element models
to yield areas of local overstress is utilized. In particular, in the portions of the slip surface where
the shear stress becomes equal to the shear strength and the local safety factor approaches the value
of 1, residual strength parameters are assigned. As a result, stress relaxation produced in the failed
portions of the slip surface, induces overstress in the remaining sections (that do not fail) upon the
shear surface. Assigning, in turn, residual shear strength values in the adjacent portions of the
slope’s slip surface that sequentially fail, the process of progressive failure is simulated throughout
consecutive calculation stages, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Progressive failure simulation along slope’s slip surface failed portions.

3
2.2 Probabilistic treatment

In this work, local and global safety factors, as were defined and formulated in the previous
section, shall be used as critical indicators for the evaluation of slope’s stability. Through their
probabilistic treatment as performance functions of variable nature, statistics associated with
computation of their values will be determined. For this purpose, the probabilistic point estimate
method is merged with the finite element model. For a performance function Y, indicating either a
local or global safety factor, evaluation of Y is performed at certain distances of one standard
deviation σ above and below the mean μ of the random variables. In case that Y depends on two
random variables X1 and X2, its evaluation is performed at locations determined by Eq. (7), Eq. (8),
Eq. (9) and Eq. (10). Then, evaluation of Y is realized by Eq. (11), Eq. (12), Eq. (13) and Eq. (14).

X 1+ = μ  Χ1 + σ  Χ1 (7)

X 1- = μ  Χ1 - σ  Χ1 (8)

X 2+ = μ  Χ2  +σ  Χ2  (9)

X 2- = μ  Χ2  - σ  Χ2  (10)

Y++ = Y  X 1+ , X 2+  (11)

Y+- = Y  X 1+ , X 2-  (12)

Y-+ = Y  X 1- , X 2+  (13)

Y-- = Y  X 1- , X 2-  (14)

Weighting factors P, may be determined by the correlation coefficient between the involved
random variables ρΧ1,X2, according to Eq. (14) and Eq. (15).

  1+ ρΧ1,Χ2 
1
P++ = P-- = (14)
4

  1- ρ Χ1,Χ2 
1
P+- = P-+ = (15)
4

The lower order statistics of Y, and in particular, the mean, variation and standard deviation
are determined by Eq. (16), Eq. (17) and Eq. (18).

μ Υ  = P++  Y++ + P+-  Y+- + P-+  Y-+ + P--  Y-- (16)

Var Υ  = P++  Y++2 + P+-  Y+-2 + P-+  Y-+2 + P--  Y--2 -  μ Υ 

2
(17)

σ Υ  = Var Y  (18)
4
 Assuming that Y follows a normal distribution, the reliability index β is determined by Eq.
(19). Through the integral of the cumulative standard normal distribution function Φ[β], as this is
evaluated by Eq. (20), the probability of failure PF is calculated by Eq. (21).

μ Υ  - 1
β= (19)
σ Υ 


1 -z
2

Φ[β] = e 2 dz (20)
2π -

PF = 1-Φ  β  (21)

2.3 Case example

In order to examine the risk of a progressive failure from a probabilistic point of view, the
established computational scheme is applied on a typical slope example. The finite element model
representing the construction of an excavated slope of 6 m height and 45° inclination is displayed in
Figure 3.

Figure 3. Finite element model simulating the construction of an excavated slope.

The slope’s potential slip surface is simulated by an elastic-perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb

soil model. Shear strength parameters are simulated as random variables following normal
distributions. Statistical parameters of the random variables are shown in Table 1. Cross-correlation
between random variables was neglected (ρφ,c=0).

Table 1. Soil material parameters’ statistics assigned to the assumed shear band.

Material parameter Mean value μ Coefficient Of Variation COV (%) Standard deviation σ

Friction angle φ (⁰) 20 10 2

Cohesion c (KPa) 25 20 5

5
 The rest of the soil outside the shear band is simulated by a linear elastic material model. The
assigned deterministic properties for the elastic soil material are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2. Deterministic material properties of the linear elastic soil outside the slope shear band.
Parameter Value
Young’s modulus Ε (KPa) 25000
Poisson’s ratio ν (-) 0.3
Unit weight γ (KN/m3) 18

The residual soil properties assigned to the portions of the slope’s shear band that have failed
are shown in Table 3. In this study, it is noted that the residual properties that represent soil strain-
softening behaviour during the simulation of slope progressive failure are treated as deterministic
quantities.

Table 3. Residual material properties assigned to the failed portions of the shear band.
Parameter Value
Residual friction angle φr (°) 10
Residual cohesion cr (KPa) 5
Young’s modulus Er (KPa) 5000

3 RESULTS

The non-uniform shear stress distribution along the slope’s slip surface, after the excavation is
completed, is depicted in Figure 4. The Figure clearly shows the continuous decrease of the applied
shear stresses from the toe to crest. In addition, as may be seen from Figure 5, a respective constant
reduction of the shear strain along the slip surface is also observed. The non-uniform stress-strain
distribution is leading to the uneven distribution of local safety factors, as displayed in Figure 6.
The local safety factor value of 1 in the first portion of the slip surface near the slope’s toe, as
shown in Figure 6, evidences a local slope failure. Through the probabilistic treatment of the slope
stability model, distribution of the respective local failure probabilities along the slope’s slip surface
is shown in Figure 7. Local failure probability at the first portion of the slip surface raises to 28%.
The continuous decrease of the local probability of failure from the toe to the crest indicates a
potential mode of slope progressive failure. The high local failure probability at the second portion
of the slip surface is rather attributed to the quite large coefficient of variation of the respective
local safety factor, as this is depicted in Figure 8. The mean global slope safety factor reduction, for
the various safety states during progressive failure is displayed in Figure 9. For the initial state 0,
where all portions of slip surface are operating under peak shear strength conditions, the global
safety factor mean raises to 2.10, whereas for the final state 6, where six portions of the slip surface
have been failed, the mean global safety factor is equal to 1.07.
The uncertainty associated with the evaluation of the global slope safety factor, for the various
states of progressive failure, expressed in terms of the coefficient of variation is shown in Figure 10.
A slight fluctuation of the variability (between 12% and 14%) corresponding to the evaluation of
the global safety factor is observed. On the other hand, Figure 11 illustrates a significant decrease of
the global slope reliability index, which is rather dominated by the large drop of the global mean
safety factor during the development of slope progressive failure. The significant increase of global
slope probability of failure, for the various states of slope progressive failure is exhibited in Figure
12. Very close to the slope’s ultimate limit states, in particular at state 6, global slope probability of
failure raises to 18%.

6
 40

35

30

Shear stress τ (KPa)

25

20

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Length upon slip surface from toe to crest l (m)
Figure 4. Shear stress distribution along slope’s slip surface.

0.6

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4
Shear strain γ (%)

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Length upon slip surface from toe to crest l (m)
Figure 5. Shear strain distribution along slope’s slip surface.

7
 9

Local safety factor SFL 6

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Length upon slip surface from toe to crest l (m)
Figure 6. Local safety factor distribution along slope’s slip surface.

100

10
Local probability of failure PF,L (%)

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Length upon slip surface from toe to crest l (m)
Figure 7. Local failure probability distribution along slope’s slip surface.

8
 22

Local safety factor coefficient of variation COV[SFL] (%)

20

18

16

14

12

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Length upon slip surface from toe to crest l (m)
Figure 8. Local coefficient of variation distribution along slope’s slip surface.

2.2

2.1

1.9
Global safety factor mean μ[SFG]

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
State of progressive failure S
Figure 9. Global mean safety factor at the states of progressive failure.

9
 20
19

Global safety factor coefficient of variation COV[SFG] (%)

18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
State of progressive failure S
Figure 10. Global coefficient of variation safety factor at the states of progressive failure.

4.5

3.5
Global reliability index β

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
State of progressive failure S
Figure 11. Global reliability index at the states of progressive failure.

10
 100

10

Global probability of failure PF,G (%) 1

0.1

0.01

0.001
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
State of progressive failure S
Figure 12. Global reliability index at the states of progressive failure.

4 CONCLUSIONS

In this work, a practical reliability model for the probabilistic simulation of slopes'
progressive failure was developed. A finite element slope stability model was combined with the
probabilistic point estimate method. The risk associated with the global stability of slopes, during
development of progressive failure was investigated. The significant increase of global slope failure
probability at the various states of progressive failure was evidenced, and it was principally
attributed to the remarkable reduction of the mean value of the global safety factor. Regarding the
uncertainty associated with the calculated global safety factors at the states of progressive failure,
only slight changes were observed. Even if the stability of brittle soil slopes seems to be assured by
large global safety factors and respective probabilities of failure, the probability for progressive
failure initiation is noteworthy and should not be ignored. The proposed methodology for the
assessment of slope stability risk may be proved useful to surface mine owners, in the case where
slopes undergo progressive failure problems.

REFERENCES

[1] Leonardos, M. (2004). Methods and procedures for monitoring, assessment and improvement of
slope stability in deep excavated Greek lignite exploitations. PhD dissertation, National Technical
University of Athens, Greece.
[2] Kavvadas, M., Agioutantis, Z., Schilizzi, P., & Steiakakis, C. (2013). Stability and movements
of open-pit lignite mines in Northern Greece. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris.
[3] Lo, K. Y. (1972). An approach to the problem of progressive failure. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 9(4), 407-429.

11
[4] Lo, K. Y., & Lee, C. F. (1973). Stress analysis and slope stability in strain-softening materials.
Geotechnique, 23(1), 1-11.
[5] Dounias, G. T., Potts, D. M., & Vaughan, P. R. (1996). Analysis of progressive failure and
cracking in old British dams. Geotechnique, 46(4), 621-640.
[6] Potts, D. M., Kovacevic, N., & Vaughan, P. R. (1997). Delayed collapse of cut slopes in stiff
clay. Geotechnique, 47(5), 953-982.
[7] Chowdhury, R. N., & A-Grivas, D. (1982). Probabilistic model of progressive failure of slopes.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 108(6), 803-819.
[8] Bourdeau, P. L. (2004). Probabilistic modelling of landslide reactivation by embankment load.
9th ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, New Mexico.
[9] Metya, S., Bhattacharya, G., & Chowdhury, R. N. (2016). Reliability analysis of slopes in
strain-softening soils considering critical slip surfaces. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 1(1).
[10] Plaxis, B.V. (2018). Plaxis 2D AE. 2D finite element geotechnical analysis software, Delft,
Netherlands.
[11] Rosenblueth, E. (1975). Point estimates for probability moments. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 72(10), 3812-3814.

[12] Rosenblueth, E. (1981). Two-point estimates in probabilities. Applied Mathematical Modeling,

5, 329-335.

[13] Abramson, L. W., Lee, T. S., Sharma, S., & Boyce, G. M. (2002). Slope stability and
stabilization methods, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

12