Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 422–435

www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Reliability analysis in geotechnics with the random set finite

element method
H.F. Schweiger *, G.M. Peschl
Computational Geotechnics Group, Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Graz University of Technology,
Rechbauerstr. 12, 8010 Graz, Austria

Received 10 January 2005; received in revised form 19 July 2005; accepted 29 July 2005
Available online 19 September 2005

Abstract

This paper presents a possible framework for dealing with uncertainties in geotechnical engineering based on more recently intro-
duced mathematical theories. Random sets are employed to describe the variability of material parameters and geometrical data.
After a brief introduction of the basics of the proposed approach application to boundary value problems are presented. First a
simple slope stability analysis is performed where emphasis is put on the comparison with a more rigorous method combining finite
element modelling with stochastic modelling of soil behaviour, namely with random field theory. The purpose of this comparison is
mainly to show that the approximation introduced for taking into account spatial variability is acceptable within certain limits for
use in practical applications. Finally, results obtained for a practical example will be discussed. Here, comparison with in situ mea-
surements are provided for a deep excavation problem and it is shown that the calculated most likely range of displacements com-
pares well with measurements. Furthermore, an assessment of the probability of damage of a building, situated adjacent to the
excavation, is in line with observed behaviour.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Uncertainty; Reliability analysis; Random set theory; Finite element method; Application; Sensitivity analysis

1. Introduction more formal consideration of uncertainties supporting

– but certainly not replacing – engineering judgement.
Uncertainties in determination of the in situ soil pro- It can be expected that theories and models taking
file and material parameters for individual soil layers are uncertainty into account in the design of geotechnical
one of the important problems geotechnical engineers structures, which could form a basis for comprehensive
have to cope with. It is important to realise that different risk analyses, will be more appreciated in near future.
sources of uncertainty exist, material parameters varying Probability theory based on the neo-Bayesian school
in a certain – but known – range may be one of them but has been widely used in the past (see, e.g. [2,30,55]) but
simply the lack of knowledge may be the more pro- more recently fuzzy methods and evidence theory are re-
nounced one. A rigorous mathematical treatment of garded as legitimate extension of classical probability
all aspects of uncertainties is not straightforward and theory (e.g. [49,44]).
thus is commonly replaced in practice by engineering The full scope of uncertainty and its dual nature can be
judgement. Recent theoretical developments and ad- described with the following definitions from Helton [22]:
vances made in computational modelling allow for a
Aleatory Uncertainty – the type of uncertainty which
results from the fact that a parameter can behave in
*
Corresponding author. random ways (stochastic, objective uncertainty also
E-mail address: [email protected] (H.F. Schweiger). known as variability).

0266-352X/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2005.07.002
 H.F. Schweiger, G.M. Peschl / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 422–435 423

Epistemic Uncertainty – the type of uncertainty which and therefore a formal framework is required in order
results from the lack of knowledge about a parameter to encode uncertainty in geotechnical systems. In this
(state of knowledge, subjective uncertainty or paper, random sets are proposed to represent uncer-
ignorance). tainty in finite element reliability analysis.

Aleatory uncertainty is associated with variability in

known (or observable) populations and is irreducible, 2. Random set theory
whereas epistemic uncertainties change with the state
of knowledge and is therefore reducible. Up to now Random set theory provides a general framework for
probability theory has been used to characterise both dealing with set-based information and discrete proba-
types of uncertainty, although it is well recognised that bility distributions. It yields the same result as interval
it is the aleatory uncertainty which is best dealt by clas- analysis, when only range information is available and
sical probability theory but it can be argued that it is not the same result as Monte-Carlo simulations when the
capable of capturing epistemic uncertainty (e.g. [47]). information is abundant.
Recent research on stochastic geotechnical modelling
by means of random fields has provided very valuable 2.1. Basic concepts
theoretical insights (see, e.g. [18,14]) but is rarely applied
in geotechnical practice mainly for two reasons: firstly, Let X be a non-empty set containing all the possible
because the required samples for a given project are usu- values of a variable x. Dubois and Prade [11,12] defined
ally significantly in excess of what is available from a stan- a random set on X as a pair ðI; mÞ, where
dard site investigation programme, perhaps with the I ¼ fAi : i ¼ 1; . . . ; ng and m is a mapping, I ! ½0; 1
,
exception of very large infrastructure projects. Secondly, so that m(B) = 0 and
incorporating probabilistic concepts into numerical anal- X
mðAÞ ¼ 1. ð1Þ
yses of complex geotechnical structures generally leads to
A2I
a computational effort often not feasible from a practical
point of view. Therefore, attempts to combine probabilis- I is called the support of the random set, the sets Ai are
tic concepts and numerical modelling published in the the focal elements (Ai ˝ X) and m is called the basic
literature are very limited. Because of the mathematical probability assignment. Each set, A 2 I, contains some
complexity of stochastic finite element techniques (see, possible values of the variable, x, and m(A) can be
e.g. [3]), e.g. Marinilli and Cerrolaza [34] use point esti- viewed as the probability that A is the range of x. Be-
mate methods, other approaches utilise the First Order cause of the imprecise nature of this formulation it is
Second Moment Method (see, e.g. [31,36,20]). not possible to calculate the precise
probability Pro
In view of the aforementioned problem of having of a generic x 2 X or of a generic subset E  X, but only
insufficient data available for a particular project, re- lower and upper bounds on this probability: Be-
course is often made in practice to alternative sources l(E) 6 Pro(E) 6 Pl(E). Fig. 1 shows possible precise

of information, such as previously published values for probabilities (Pro) bounded by Pl and Bel. In the limit-
uncertain parameters but these alternative information ing case, when I is composed of single values only (sin-
sources often appear in a form not readily suitable for
probabilistic analysis (e.g. [39]). Nevertheless, it is still
1
possible to use probabilistic methods in these circum-
stances by making suitable assumptions on the statistics
of the uncertainties, at least to some extent, by combin-
ing different sources of information via Bayes
theorem.
Because of these assumptions, required in order to con-
struct a precise distribution, the numerical values ob- Pl Pro Bel
tained by probabilistic analysis (e.g., probability of
failure) are quite sensitive to changes in the input distri-
bution parameters (see, e.g. [4,37]), but they can play an
important and useful role in comparative and qualitative
studies (e.g. [45]).
Although some general information on probabilistic
parameters can be found in the literature (e.g. [43]), geo-
0
technical parameters for particular soils, used, e.g., in
the analysis of practical boundary value problems, are X
given as intervals in most cases, with no information Fig. 1. Upper bound (Pl) and lower bound (Bel) on precise

about the probability distribution across the interval probability (Pro).
424 H.F. Schweiger, G.M. Peschl / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 422–435

gletons), then Bel(E) = Pro(E) = Pl(E) and m is a prob- joint basic probability assignment is the product mea-
ability distribution function. sure given by
Following Dempster [9] and Shafer [48], the lower Y
n
bound Bel and the upper bound Pl of its probability mðA1      An Þ ¼ mi ðAi Þ; A1      An 2 R. ð6Þ
measure are defined, for every subset E 2 X, by [50]: i¼1
X
BelðEÞ ¼ mðAi Þ; ð2Þ If the focal set Ai is a closed interval of real numbers:
Ai :Ai E Ai = {x | x 2 [li,ui]}, then the lower and upper cumula-
X tive probability distribution functions, F*(x ) and
PlðEÞ ¼ mðAi Þ; ð3Þ
Ai :Ai \E6¼£
F*(x), respectively, at some point x can be obtained as
follows:
where the belief function, Bel, of a subset E is a set- X
valued function obtained through summation of basic F  ðxÞ ¼ mðAi Þ ð7Þ
i:xPui
probability assignments of subsets Ai included in E and X

the plausibility function, Pl, of subset E is a set-valued F ðxÞ ¼ mðAi Þ. ð8Þ
function obtained through summation of basic probabil- i:xPli

ity assignments of subsets Ai having a non-zero intersec- Fig. 2 illustrates schematically an example of construct-
tion with E. They are envelopes of all possible cumulative ing a random set from multiple sources of information
distribution functions compatible with the data. given as intervals (focal elements A1, . . . ,A4 and basic
probability assignments m1, . . . ,m4).
2.2. Finding the bounds on the system response
To obtain the left envelope (Fig. 2(a) and (b) each
contain a left and a right envelope), the distribution of
Random set theory provides an appropriate mathe-
the probability mass of each interval in the calculation
matical framework for combining probabilistic as well
matrix is assumed to be concentrated at the lower bound
as set-based information in which the extension of ran-
of each source of information given as interval (the low
dom sets through a functional relation is straightfor-
bounds are sorted from smallest to greatest, and the
ward [50]. Let f be a mapping X1 ·    · XN ! Y and
cumulative distribution curve is stepped upward at each
x1, . . . ,xN be variables whose values are incompletely
value of the horizontal axis representing an interval low
known. The incomplete knowledge about
bound, by the amount of the basic probability assign-
x = (x1, . . . ,xN) can be expressed as a random relation
ment concentrated at that low bound). This envelope
R, which is a random set ðI; mÞ on the Cartesian prod-
is referred to here as the left envelope rather than the
uct X1 ·    · XN. The random set ðR; qÞ, which is the
upper envelope to reduce ambiguity in terminology.
image of ðI; mÞ through f is given by ([51]):
On the other hand, to construct the right envelope, the
R ¼ fRj ¼ f ðAi Þ; Ai 2 Ig; f ðAi Þ ¼ ff ðxÞ; x 2 Ai g; probability mass for each interval is assumed to be con-
ð4Þ centrated at the upper bound of the interval.
X In the absence of any further information, a random
qðRj Þ ¼ mðAi Þ. ð5Þ relation, so-called calculation matrix, can be constructed
Ai :Rj ¼f ðAi Þ
by assuming random set independence between mar-
If A1, . . . ,An are sets on X1 ·    · XN, respectively, and ginal random sets (Eq. (6)). A calculation matrix implies
x1, . . . ,xN are random set independent [15,16], then the bounds on a corresponding discrete cumulative distribu-

m3+m1+m2+m4 m2+m1+m3+m4
1 1
A4,m4

m3+m1+m2 m2+m1+m3 F*(x) upper

0.75 0.75 cumulative
A3,m3

m3+m1 m2+m1
0.50 0.50
A2,m2

m3 m2 F (x) lower
* cumulative
0.25 0.25
A1,m1

0 0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
a x b x

Fig. 2. Random set: (a) construction, (b) upper and lower discrete cumulative distribution function.
 H.F. Schweiger, G.M. Peschl / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 422–435 425

tion function (CDF). The basic step is the calculation by 2.4. Formulation of the reliability problem
means of Eqs. (4) and (5) of the image of a focal element
through function f. The requirement for optimisation to Basically, reliability analysis calculates pf, the proba-
locate the extreme elements of each set Rj 2 R (Eq. (4)) bility of failure of a system characterised by a vector
can be avoided if it can be shown that the function f(Ai) x = (x1, . . . ,xN) of basic variables on X. The resistance
is continuous in all Ai 2 I and also no extreme points r of the system can be expressed as r = gr(x) and the ac-
exist in this region, except at the vertices, in which case tion s as s = gs(x). The probability of failure pf is the
the Vertex method [10] applies. This is generally the case probability p of (r 6 s) or in general
for the type of problems considered here. Furthermore, Z
the sensitivity analysis discussed later will reveal if this pf ¼ pðgðxÞ 6 0Þ ¼ fX ðxÞ dx; ð13Þ
gðxÞ60
condition does not hold true. Assume each focal element
Ai is a N-dimensional box, whose 2N vertices are indi- where g is called the limit state function
, fX the joint
cated as vk, k = 1, . . . ,2N. If the vertex method applies probability density function over the basic variables
then the lower and upper bounds Rj* and Rj on each ele- and pf is identical to the probability of limit state viola-
ment Rj 2 R will be located at one of the vertices: tion. The resistance r and action s are generally implicit
in x. Utilising random set theory the reliability problem
Rj ¼ minff ðmk Þ : k ¼ 1; . . . ; 2N g; ð9Þ
k is reduced to evaluate the bounds on pf = p(g(x) 6 0)
Rj ¼ maxff ðmk Þ : k ¼ 1; . . . ; 2N g. ð10Þ subject to the available knowledge restricting the al-
k
lowed values of x. If the set of failed states is labelled
Thus function f(Ai) which represents in this framework a F ˝ X, the upper and lower bound on the probability
numerical model has to be evaluated 2N times for each of failure are the Plausibility Pl(F) and Belief Bel(F),
focal element Ai. The number of all calculations, nc, re- respectively: Bel(F) 6 pf 6 Pl(F), where:
quired for finding the bounds on the system response is
X
Y
N
BelðF Þ ¼ mðAi Þ; ð14Þ
N
nc ¼ 2 ni ; ð11Þ Ai :Ai F
i¼1 X
PlðF Þ ¼ mðAi Þ. ð15Þ
where N is the number of basic variables and n the num- Ai :Ai \F 6¼£
ber of information sources available for each variable.
The computational effort involved seems to be very
high, but can be reduced if f(Ai) is continuous and a
strictly monotonic function with respect to each param- 3. Spatial correlation of soil properties
eter x1, . . . ,xN, which is, as mentioned previously, a valid
assumption for all analyses discussed in this paper. In The inherent spatial soil variability is the variation
this case the vertices where the lower and upper bounds of soil properties from one point to another in space.
(Eqs. (9) and (10)) on the random set are located can be Soil properties do not vary randomly in space but such
identified merely by consideration of the direction of in- variation tends to be gradual and follows a pattern
crease of f(Ai) which can be done by means of a sensitiv- that can be quantified using spatial correlation struc-
ity analysis [40]. Thus f(Ai) has to be calculated only tures, where soil properties are treated as random vari-
twice for each focal element Ai [51]. ables. Various researchers, e.g., Cornell [8], Alonso and
Krizek [1], Lumb [33], Vanmarcke [53,54] and Rack-
2.3. Combination of random sets witz [43], have pointed out that soil properties should
be modelled as spatially correlated random variables
An appropriate procedure is required if more than or random fields
, because the use of perfectly corre-
one source of information is available for one particular lated soil properties gives rise to unrealistically large
parameter in order to combine these sources. Suppose values of failure probabilities for geotechnical struc-
there are n alternative random sets describing some var- tures (see, e.g. [27–29,35,18]). The random field model
iable x, each one corresponding to an independent [54] is now widely used to model the correlated struc-
source of information. Then for each focal element ture of soil properties.
A2X The finite element code PLAXIS [6] used in the pro-
posed framework requires the soil profile to be modelled
1X n
using homogeneous layers with constant soil properties.
mðAÞ ¼ mi ðAÞ. ð12Þ
n i¼1 For this reason soil properties have to be defined not
only for a certain point in space, but for the entire soil
Alternative combination procedures have been pro- layer which is used in the calculation. Due to the fact
posed depending on different beliefs about the truth of of spatial averaging of soil properties the inherent
the various information sources (e.g. [47,21]). spatial variability of a parameter, as measured by its
426 H.F. Schweiger, G.M. Peschl / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 422–435

standard deviation, can be reduced significantly if the 1

ratio of H/L is small where H is the spatial correlation
length and L is a characteristic length, e.g., that of a po-
tential failure surface. The variance of these spatial aver- 0.75
ages can be correlated to the point variance using the
F*(x) F (x)
variance reduction factor, C2, as discussed by Van- xi+1* xi+1 *
*
marcke [54] through rC = C Æ r where r is the standard 0.50
deviation of field data (point statistics) and rC is the
standard deviation of the spatial average of the data xi* xi
*
over volume V. The variance reduction factor [54] de- 0.25
pends on the averaging volume and the type of correla- F*(xΓ) F (xΓ)
*
tion structure in the form
(
 0
H H
2 L
1  4L for HL 6 2; xi,Γ* xi,Γ
C ¼ ð16Þ *
1 for HL > 2. x
xi* , xi upper and lower value of field data
This leads to a reduction in inherent spatial variability *
xi,Γ*, xi,Γ upper and lower value of spatial averaged data
as the size of the averaged length or volume increases. *
Above expression for the variance reduction has been F*(x) , F (x) upper and lower function of field data
*
adopted because of its simplicity but other formulations F*(xΓ) , F (xΓ) upper and lower function of spatial averaged data
*
are possible and have been suggested by, e.g., Christian
et al. [7] and Lacasse and Nadim [25]. Fig. 3. Upper and lower discrete cumulative distribution function
considering spatial correlation.
It is obvious that the assumption made for the char-
acteristic length has a significant influence on the ob-
tained variance reduction factor and must be function of the spatial average of the data, F*(xC) and
appropriately chosen for the problem considered. The F*(xC). It follows from Fig. 3 that as a result of consid-
approach followed here is certainly a simplification com- ering spatial correlation the discrete cumulative proba-
pared to real field behaviour. However, a more rigorous bility function becomes steeper. Thus, the proposed
treatment of the spatial correlation requires a computa- method reduces the aleatory type of uncertainty of a
tional effort which is not feasible in practical geotechni- specific parameter in qualitatively the same way as pro-
cal engineering at the present time, at least not in posed by Vanmarcke [54] but does not affect the episte-
combination with high level numerical modelling. In mic uncertainty. To overcome the problem of
addition, the spatial correlation is likely to depend on determining a single value for the spatial correlation
direction, i.e., different correlation distances, Hz and length it would seem logical to model the spatial corre-
Hx = Hy = H in the vertical and horizontal direction, lation length also as a random set correlated to the
should be taken into account [23]. respective soil property. This is of course feasible but
Random set theory allows for the allocation of a has not been pursued in the work presented here.
probability mass to sets or intervals and it does not re-
quire an assumption regarding the probability distribu-
tion of each basic variable. Due to handling discrete 4. Slope stability problem
probability distribution functions and sets of intervals
the variance reduction technique cannot be applied di- In this section a slope stability problem is analysed
rectly. Therefore, an alternative procedure is introduced employing the proposed framework. Due to the fact
in the following. If n sources of information are as- that, in contrary to other approaches dealing with prob-
sumed, the function of the spatial average of the data ability analysis in geotechnics, the suggested methodol-
xi,C can be calculated from the discrete cumulative prob- ogy considers aleatory and epistemic uncertainty and
ability distribution of the field data xi, using the follow- thus is based on fundamentally different assumptions,
ing empirical formulation and C from Eq. (16): it is difficult to find a reference solution against which
comparison is possible. Assuming finite element tech-
1 X
n1
ðxiþ1 þ xi Þ
xi;C ¼ x0  ðx0  xi Þ  C with x0 ¼  . niques based on random field theory being the most rig-
n  1 i¼1 2 orous method for cases where epistemic uncertainty is
ð17Þ not relevant, the example of assessing the reliability of
a slope formed from spatially random soil [38,18] has
Fig. 3 shows schematically upper and lower discrete been chosen here to investigate to what extent results
cumulative probability distribution of field data, F*(x) from both approaches are comparable. Fig. 4 shows
and F*(x), respectively, and the discrete upper and lower the geometry of the slope with height H=10.0 m and
 H.F. Schweiger, G.M. Peschl / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 422–435 427

2H 2H 2H

E, ν, γ, cu
H

β
2H

Horizontal fixities
Total fixities

Fig. 4. Geometry used for slope stability analysis.

an inclination of 2:1 resting on a foundation layer, also 2

µcu = 51.4 kN/m , COVcu = 0.25
of depth H. The calculations performed involve the 1
application of gravity loading followed by an automatic
reduction of undrained shear strength (e.g. [17]) until
convergence cannot be achieved in the finite element 0.75
analysis. An elastic–perfectly plastic constitutive law
with a Tresca failure criterion is used. It is pointed out
at this stage that tight convergence criteria, suitable ele- 0.50
ment formulations and a sufficiently fine mesh are re-
quired for these analyses (e.g. [46]). Approximately 390
15-noded triangular elements have been used here for dis- 0.25
Θ = infinite
cretisation of the slope. To simplify the analyses Young
s Θ = 5m
modulus, Poisson
s ratio, and unit weight of the clay are
0
treated as deterministic parameters (E = 1.0E5 kN/m2,
30 40 50 60 70 80
m = 0.3, and c = 20.0 kN/m3) and only the variability of
cu: kN/m2
the undrained shear strength, cu, is assumed as spatially
random material parameter characterised by a log–nor- Fig. 5. Continuous log–normal distribution and discontinuous distri-
mal distribution with mean value lcu, standard deviation bution function for lcu = 51.4 kN/m2, COVcu = 0.25, Hcu = infinite
rcu and isotropic spatial correlation length Hcu. The char- and Hcu = 5 m.
acteristic length of L = 65 m is based on the obtained
failure surface. The mean value of the undrained Fig. 5 shows the given continuous log–normal distri-
shear strength corresponding to a factor of safety of bution function of the undrained cohesion for a coeffi-
FOS = 1.0 obtained from the present finite element anal- cient of variation of 25% for infinite spatial correlation
ysis is equal to lcu = 35 kN/m2. Comparison with con- length (dotted line in Fig. 5) together with the discretised
ventional limit equilibrium analysis for this example as function used in the random set model. The continuous
presented by Paice and Griffiths [38] confirms this value. distribution function for a spatial correlation length of
The main purpose of this study is to introduce ran- 5 m is calculated by means of the variance reduction
dom set theory as a mechanism for handling discrete technique by Vanmarcke [54] and the discrete cumula-
probability distributions. The extension of the theory tive distribution is based on the alternative procedure
to deal with continuous distribution functions is described previously (Eq. (17)). This plot confirms,
straightforward but is not part of this work. Due to and this is one of the main purposes of this exercise, that
the fact that input parameters are given in terms of its the proposed empirical expression for introducing the
continuous probability density function a discretisation spatial correlation length into the random set frame-
into a random set has to be performed for computa- work produces the same tendency as Vanmarcke
s ap-
tional purposes only [52]. Therefore, it is proposed to proach does for continuous distribution functions.
discretise each given continuous log–normal distribution Because of assuming a distribution function as underly-
from the parametric study [18] for infinite spatial corre- ing input the random set is composed of singletons
lation with n = 8 subintervals or focal elements, respec- which means that the epistemic uncertainty disappears,
tively. Internal studies showed that a higher number of i.e., upper and lower cumulative probability function
subintervals does not have a significant influence on superimpose as shown in Fig. 5. Therefore, the results
the results which are of interest in this comparison. from the random set model can be compared to the
428 H.F. Schweiger, G.M. Peschl / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 422–435

results obtained by Griffiths and Fenton [18]. It is As expected the probability of failure increases as the
pointed out here that the main objective for using ran- variability (represented by COVcu = rcu/lcu) increases
dom sets is to take into account epistemic uncertainty. and the probability of failure increases as the factor of
The comparison presented here merely serves the pur- safety decreases. Figs. 6 and 7 have the same meaning
pose to show to what extent results are comparable as in the paper by Griffiths and Fenton [18]. The prob-
when epistemic uncertainty vanishes, which is consid- ability of failure in such a case is simply equal to the
ered here as a limit case for the random set analysis. probability that the factor of safety will be below 1.0.
The results of the parametric studies from Griffiths The deterministic analysis with the mean value
and Fenton [18] are compared for discrete FOS values lcu=35 kN/m2 yields a factor of safety of 1.0, but due
in Fig. 6 for the special case of Hcu = infinite, which im- to the assumed probabilistic distribution function,
plies that the random field behaves as a homogeneous FOS values >1.0 and <1.0 are obtained.
field. In this case the probability of failure compare well, Fig. 7 depicts the effect of the spatial correlation
i.e., there is just a minor difference between the two ap- length Hcu for the case of a factor of safety of 1.47
proaches for all assumed COVcu values. As mentioned (based on the mean strength) for a range of COVcu val-
above this is not a true
random field analysis but can ues. Lee et al. [26], Kulhawy et al. [24], Phoon and Kul-
be seen as a limiting case and serves the purpose to show hawy [42], Duncan [13] and Hicks and Samy [23]
that for this assumption the differences of the two ap- reported that typical COVcu values for the undrained
proaches are not relevant. shear strength are in a range of 0.1–0.5. The results of
the proposed approach agree with those obtained by
Random set random field method for COV-values up to 0.3 with a
Random field Θ=
1. 0 sufficient accuracy for practical applications. For larger
COV-values, the results of the two methods deviate
COVcu = 0.125 from each other, especially for smaller spatial correla-
COVcu = 0.25
COVcu = 0.5
tion lengths H. There are mainly two reasons for this
COVcu = 1 deviation: firstly due to different formulations for con-
sidering spatial correlation because the averaging tech-
0.5
nique applied in the random field method reduces both
the variance and the mean value of the log–normal dis-
tribution (see, e.g. [19]), whereas in the proposed ap-
proach only the variance is reduced. This means, the
smaller the correlation length H the larger the reduction
of the variance and the mean value of the distribution.
Secondly, in the random field method the strength of
0
the slope is dominated by the weaker elements of the
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
random field and therefore the failure mechanism seeks
FOS
the weakest path through the soil. Therefore, the calcu-
Fig. 6. Factor of safety vs. probability of failure for Hcu = infinite. lated probability of failure pf (Fig. 7) is more affected by

Random set Random set

µcu = 51.4 kN/m , FOS = 1.47 µcu = 51.4 kN/m , FOS = 1.47
2 2
Random field Random field
1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

Θ = 5m
Θ = 10m Θ = 40m
Θ = 20m Θ = 80m
0 0
-1 5 0 5 1 -1 5 0 5 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
a COVcu b COVcu

Fig. 7. Influence of spatial correlation on a slope with FOS = 1.47 for (a) H = 5, 10 and 20 m and (b) H = 40 and 80 m.
 H.F. Schweiger, G.M. Peschl / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 422–435 429

the reduction of the mean value which in turn is more to be kept in mind that results from random field anal-
pronounced for larger COV-values and smaller correla- ysis are approximations too and their accuracy with re-
tion lengths H. spect to the true
absolute value is not easily assessed.
It is emphasised again that the strength of the pro- Additional comparison with the random field finite ele-
posed method is the consideration of epistemic uncer- ment analysis for a bearing capacity problem is pre-
tainty and therefore it is not suggested to replace sented in Peschl and Schweiger [41] and shows similar
classical probability theory in cases where sufficient tendencies.
information is available. In addition, it is pointed out
that considering spatial correlation in the way proposed
by Vanmarcke [54] is not a feature of the random set 5. Application to deep excavation problem
model but has been introduced here in a similar way
in order to make the method attractive for application Finally, some results from a back analysis of a prac-
in engineering practice. It is argued that the number of tical example, namely a deep excavation [5] on a thick
calculations required for random field analyses prohibits layer of post-glacial soft lacustrine deposit (clayey silt)
its application in practice at least for the near future. are presented to demonstrate the applicability of the
Therefore, the simplifications introduced in modelling proposed method. An underground car park has been
spatial correlation are considered to be acceptable for constructed as open pit excavation with a 24 m deep an-
the sake of practical applicability. As this section shows, chored concrete diaphragm wall as retaining construc-
for certain cases the differences are not significant from a tion. Fig. 8 plots the cross-section of the system and
practical point of view. For others they are, in particular the soil profile. In this analysis particular attention is gi-
for small spatial correlation lengths, and for these cases ven to the risk of damage to the existing structures and
engineering judgement will be required in order to assess the reliability of the system by assessing the angular dis-
whether these simplifications are still justified. It has also tortion of the building, respectively.

+429.0

11.00 11.00 4.25 0.6

+425.0

5 kN/m2 5 kN/m2
+421.0 +421.0 CL
w = 30 kN/m2

15˚ +417.5
GW +416.5 w = 40 kN/m2 +417.0

+416.5
sandy, silty gravel
15˚ +413.0
+412.0

+410.0 foundation slab

1.0

4.00 4.50

clayey silt 1

+399.0

+397.0

clayey silt 2

[units in m]

Fig. 8. Geometry and subsoil conditions.

430 H.F. Schweiger, G.M. Peschl / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 422–435

Table 1 conditions (expert knowledge). The table highlights the

Basic variables for material parameters (input values) wide range of certain parameters which in itself to some
Soil, Information source c, kN/m2 u0,  Es, MN/m2 degree contain engineering judgement of people involved,
Sandy, silty gravel e.g., a significant capillary cohesion has been assigned to
Geotechnical report 0–50.0 35.0–37.0 20.0-35.0 the sandy, silty gravel in the geotechnical report. Due to
Expert knowledge 0–5.0 34.0–36.0 30.0–50.0 the fact that the expert knowledge is based on a number
Clayey silt 1 of similar projects, the geotechnical report however
Geotechnical report 0–20.0 22.0–30.0 5.0–25.0 forms the basis for design, both source have been equally
Expert knowledge 10.0–30.0 24.0–28.0 20.0–40.0
weighted in this particular case.
Clayey silt 2 Two published sources of information were available
Geotechnical report 0–20.0 22.0–29.0 20.0–30.0 and these interval estimates were combined using the
Expert knowledge 10.0–30.0 24.0–28.0 30.0–40.0
averaging procedure in Eq. (12). As an example, the ran-
dom sets for the effective friction angle u 0 and the stiff-
5.1. Subsoil conditions and material parameters ness Eoed of the gravel layer are depicted in Fig. 9.
Most values for the vertical spatial correlation length
The behaviour of the subsoil is characterised by soil H for sandy gravel materials and clayey silt deposits re-
parameters established from a number of laboratory corded in the literature are in the range of about 0.5–
and in situ tests. In order to assess the applicability of 5.0 m. Generally speaking the uncertainty of the spatial
the proposed approach in practical design situations correlation length should also be modelled as a random
only data available before the excavation started has set but this has not been done here for the sake of sim-
been used. Of particular significance for the deformation plicity and a value of 2.5 m has been assumed. The char-
behaviour of the soft-plastic clayey silt is the deforma- acteristic length, L, has been taken as 55 m, which is
tion modulus Es (denoted as Eoed in the following), based on analyses investigating potential failure mecha-
gained from one-dimensional compression tests on nisms for this problem.
undisturbed soil samples after pre-loading with the
in situ stress of the relevant depth. Due to space limita- 5.3. Construction steps modelled
tions the full set of parameters used in the analysis per-
formed with the finite element code PLAXIS V8 [6] and The analyses performed were calculated as 2D plane
the so-called Hardening-Soil model (HS) is not given strain problems and do not consider 3D-effects. It could
here (see [40]), only the basic variables used in the ran- be reasonably assumed that consolidation effects do not
dom set model are presented in the following. play a significant role for the excavation-induced move-
ments and therefore an undrained analysis in terms of
5.2. Basic variables for the random set model effective stresses was performed for the clayey silt layers.
The computational steps have been defined as follows
The material parameters for the soil layers which were (according to the real construction process):
treated as basic variables are summarised in Table 1. The
parameters were established not only from laboratory 1. initial stresses,
and in situ tests (geotechnical report) but also from pre- 2. activation of buildings, reset displacements after
vious experience of finite element analyses under similar this step,

spatial correlated Θ = infinite

1 1

0.75 0.75

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0 0
33 34 35 36 37 38 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
a ϕ: ˚ b Eoed : MN/m2

Fig. 9. Random sets of input parameters of the gravel layer: (a) friction angle; (b) stiffness parameter for HS model.
 H.F. Schweiger, G.M. Peschl / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 422–435 431

3. construction of the diaphragm wall, be treated as deterministic values as their influence on

4. first excavation step to level 417.5 m (level of the result is not significant. The defined threshold value
ground surface is 421.0 m), has been chosen in this case as approximately 5%. Based
5. pre-stress of first anchor row with 300 kN/m, on the results of the sensitivity analysis the following
6. lowering of the groundwater table to level 413.0 m, parameters were considered in the random set model:
7. second excavation step to level 413.0 m, cohesion for the sandy, silty gravel layer and the stiffness
8. pre-stress of second anchor row with 300 kN/m, parameters Eoed, E50 and Eur (but these are correlated)
9. lowering of the groundwater table to level 410.0 m, for the sandy, silty gravel and the upper clayey silt
10. centre excavation to level 410.0 m, leaving berm in layer, i.e., 64 calculations are required (Eq. (11)). These
front of the wall and replace material of the berm, stiffness parameters are required as input for the Hard-
11. final excavation removing berm and construction ening-Soil model. Eoed is a tangent modulus from one-
of the foundation slab, dimensional compression tests, E50 a secant modulus
12. u/c-reduction in order to obtain a factor of safety from triaxial compression and Eur is the unloading
for the final excavation. modulus.

5.4.2. Serviceability limit state

5.4. Calculation results The angular distortion d/l of a structure, with d being
the differential settlement and l the corresponding
5.4.1. Sensitivity analysis length, is often used as measure to assess the likelihood
Before the random set analysis as described previ- of damage. The value tolerated depends on a number of
ously is performed a sensitivity analysis quantifying factors such as the structure of the building, the mode of
the influence of each variable on certain results can be deformation and of course the purpose the building has
made [40]. For the 9 variables shown in Table 1, 37 cal- to serve. A ratio of about 1:600 is used here as a limiting
culations are required to obtain a sensitivity score for value for the evaluation of the limit state function in or-
each variable. In this case the horizontal displacement der to obtain the reliability in terms of serviceability.
of the top of the diaphragm wall, ux, the angular distor- Fig. 11 depicts the calculated cumulative distribution
tion, d/l, of the adjacent building at each construction functions (CDF) of the angular distortion d/l after pres-
step and the safety factor, determined by means of the tressing of the first anchor row (Fig. 11(a)) and after the
so-called u/c-reduction technique (e.g. [17]), at the final second excavation step (Fig. 11(b)). These discrete
construction step is evaluated. CDF
s were fitted using best-fit methods in order to
Fig. 10 shows the total relative sensitivity and it can achieve a continuous function (dotted line in Fig. 11).
be seen that just three of the variables (c and Es of the It is acknowledged that this fitting procedure can be
gravel layer and Es of the upper clayey silt layer) have questioned but it is required for the evaluation of the
a significant influence on the evaluated results. At this limit state function by means of Monte-Carlo simula-
point a decision can be made as to which variables tions. However, if results are used qualitatively rather
should be used in further calculations and which can than quantitatively valuable information can be

total relative sensitivity

ϕ 1.6%
Sandy,
silty c 35.5%
gravel
Eoedref 9.2%
ϕ 3.2%
Clayey
c 3.4%
silt 1
Eoedref 42.0%
ϕ 0.5%
Clayey
c 1.3%
silt 2
Eoedref 3.3%

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45

Fig. 10. Total relative sensitivity for the deep excavation problem.
432 H.F. Schweiger, G.M. Peschl / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 422–435

Anchor 1 Excavation 2
1 1

0.75 0.75

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0 0
0 -1.0E-4 -2.0E-4 -3.0E-4 -4.0E-4 0 -4.0E-4 -8.0E-4 -1.2E-3 -1.6E-3 -2.0E-3
a δ/l b δ/l

Fig. 11. Range of angular distortion d/l after: (a) first anchor row; (b) second excavation step.

Table 2 second excavation step by showing a significant jump

Range of probability that d/l P 1/600 in the probability of failure (the accuracy of the actual
Construction step Fitted distribution Max pf Min pf value is of no relevance) and continues to be critical
Upper bound Lower bound throughout the following construction steps. This is well
in line with the observed behaviour where indeed cracks
Excavation 1 Beta Gamma 0 0
Anchor 1 Gamma Beta 3.0E5 0 occurred during the second excavation phase.
Excavation 2 Triangular Beta 1.3E1 0 In order to see how the calculated range of results fit
Anchor 2 Gamma Beta 2.2E1 0 into data published in the literature, maximum horizon-
Excavation 3 Exponential Beta 7.2E1 0 tal wall displacements are evaluated and compared to
Excavation 4 Beta Beta 9.7E1 0
the database of some 300 case histories of wall and
ground movements due to deep excavations world wide
extracted despite the simplifications involved. For exam- presented by Long [32]. Fig. 12 depicts normalised max-
ple, the probabilities of exceeding a limiting value of imum lateral wall movement vs. excavation depth
angular distortion are obtained as given in Table 2 for (dh max/H vs. H). Long [32] reported that cases with a va-
all construction steps. In this particular case, the calcu- lue of dh max/H > 0.3% are likely to experience problems.
lated probabilities clearly indicate that damages of the The values of the most likely range of the normalised
adjacent building can be expected already during the maximum lateral wall movement for the final excavation

Fig. 12. Normalised maximum lateral wall movement vs. excavation depth after Long [32].
 H.F. Schweiger, G.M. Peschl / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 422–435 433

spread of of 50% as shown in Fig. 13, but of course other defini-

distribution tions are possible.
1 In situ measurements have been performed in order
to control the displacements of the top of the wall.
Fig. 14 plots these measurements together with calcu-
lated values for all construction steps and it can be seen,
range of F*
that measured values compare well to the results of the
F* most likely numerical prediction presented as most likely values
values
including the spread of distributions as defined above.
CDF
At this stage two conclusions can be made: firstly, it
follows very clearly from Fig. 14 that an analysis with
0 very cautious
estimates for soil parameters, represented
x by the upper limit in Fig. 14, grossly overestimates
deformations under working load conditions. Secondly,
range of such an analysis can be used to determine the level of
most likely soil investigations required in order to arrive at a band-
values width of results which is acceptable. Additional infor-
F*
PDF mation will usually change the random set, i.e., the Bel
and Pl functions move closer together and therefore
F* the most likely range of results also becomes more
narrow.
~50%

x
6. Conclusions

Fig. 13. Range of most likely values and spread of distribution. Reliability analysis in engineering conventionally rep-
resents the uncertainty of the system state variables as
precise probability distributions and applies probability
step for the analysis presented here are included in the theory to generate precise estimates of, e.g., the proba-
diagram and it can be seen, that the upper value exceeds bility of failure or the reliability. However, it has been
the threshold
value of 0.3% which is in line with the recognised that traditional probability theory may not
probabilities of failure shown in Table 2. capture the full scope of uncertainty (inherent variability
In general, the most likely values are defined as values and lack of knowledge). Random set theory offers an
with the highest probability of occurrence, i.e., where alternative to traditional probabilistic theory to over-
the slope of the corresponding cumulative distribution come these shortcomings. The significant innovation of
function is steepest. For the purpose of illustration, it the proposed framework is that it allows for the allo-
is assumed that the most likely values have a probability cation of a probability mass to sets or intervals and

4.5

4.0 1 Excavation 1 most likely range

2 Anchor 1 spread of distribution
3.5
3 Excavation 2 measurements
3.0 4 Anchor 2
5 Excavation 3
2.5
6 Excavation 4
2.0

1.5 15mm
11mm
1.0 9mm
7mm
0.5 4mm

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Construction step

Fig. 14. Horizontal displacements of the top of the diaphragm wall (most likely values and spread of distributions).
434 H.F. Schweiger, G.M. Peschl / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 422–435

provides a consistent framework for dealing with uncer- [2] Ang AH-S, Tang WH. Probability concepts in engineering
tainties throughout the design and construction of a planning and design. Basic principles, vol. I. New York: Wiley;
1975.
project, because the model can be refined by adding [3] Auvinet G, Mellah R, Marrouri F. Stochastic finite element
more information when available depending on the pro- analysis in geomechanics. In: Proceedings of the international
ject status (feasibility stage, preliminary design, detailed conference on applications of statistics and probability (ICASP8),
design, construction) without changing the underlying Sydney, Australia; 1999. p. 79–85.
concept of analysis. It can be used for defining the level [4] Ben-Haim Y, Elishakoff I. Convex models of uncertainty in
applied mechanics. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1990.
of information required on model parameters by speci- [5] Breymann H, Moser M, Premstaller M. Die Gründung des
fying acceptable ranges of key results. Kongresshauses Salzburg – Konsequenzen aus dem Verformungs-
As a side effect worst case assumptions in terms of verhalten des Salzburger Seetons. Felsbau 21 (No. 5). Essen:
unfavourable parameter combinations have not to be VGE; 2003. p. 10–7.
estimated from experience but are automatically gener- [6] Brinkgreve RBJ. PLAXIS, Finite element code for soil and rock
analyses. Users manual. Rotterdam: Balkema; 2000.
ated. The argument that engineering judgement will do [7] Christian JT, Ladd CC, Baecher GB. Reliability applied to slope
the same much faster is not entirely true because in com- stability analysis. Geotech Eng 1994;120(12):2180–207.
plex non-linear analyses, which become more and more [8] Cornell CA. First-order uncertainty analysis of soils deformation
common in practical geotechnical engineering, the and stability. In: Proceedings of the international conference on
parameter set for a highly advanced constitutive model applications of statistics and probability (ICASP1); 1971. p. 129–
44.
leading to the most unfavourable result in terms of ser- [9] Dempster AP. Upper and lower probabilities induced by a
viceability and ultimate limit state for all construction multivalued mapping. Ann Math Stat 1967;38:325–39.
stages is not easy to define. From a practical point of [10] Dong W, Shah HC. Vertex method for computing functions of
view, the concept of dealing with ranges
seems to be fuzzy variables. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1987;24:65–78.
more appealing for engineers than working in density [11] Dubois D, Prade H. Consonant approximation of belief func-
tions. Int J Approx Reason 1990;4:419–49.
distribution functions. [12] Dubois D, Prade H. Random sets and fuzzy interval analysis.
The developed methodology has been compared with Fuzzy Sets Syst 1991;42:87–101.
random field finite element analysis by means of assess- [13] Duncan JM. Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical
ing the probability of failure of a simple slope. It has engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2000;126(4):307–16.
been shown that in some cases both methods give very [14] Fenton GA, Griffiths DV. Bearing capacity of spatially random
c–u soils. In: Proceedings of the international conference on
similar results but in others larger differences are ob- computer methods and advances in geomechanics. Rotter-
served, in particular for small spatial correlation lengths dam: Balkema; 2001. p. 1411–5.
where the averaging procedure adopted is less accurate. [15] Ferson S, Hajagos JG, Berleant D, Zhang J, Tucker WT,
This applies, however, not only to the random set model Ginzburg L, et al. Dependence in Dempster–Shafer theory and
as presented here but also to other approaches which are probability bounds analysis. Sandia Report SAND2004-3072.
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM; 2004.
often used in practice. A disadvantage of the random [16] Fetz T, Oberguggenberger M. Propagation of uncertainty
field analysis is the relatively high number of realisations through multivariate functions in the framework of sets of
required, which limits its application for solving com- probability measures. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 2004;85(1–3):73–88.
plex geotechnical problems in practice. On the other [17] Griffiths DV. Finite element analyses of walls, footings and
hand, it has the advantage that spatial correlation is ta- slopes. In: Proc Symp Comp Appl Geotech Probs Highway Eng.
Cambridge, UK: Pub. PM Geotechnical Analysts Ltd.; 1980. p.
ken into account in a more rigorous way. The proposed 122–46.
approach offers an alternative way of analysis when [18] Griffiths DV, Fenton GA. Influence of soil strength spatial
insufficient information is available for treating the variability on the stability of an undrained clay slope by finite
problem by classical probabilistic methods. It requires elements. Slope Stability 2000, ASCE 2000:184–93.
less computational effort but has the disadvantage that [19] Griffiths DV, Fenton GA. Probabilistic slope stability analysis by
finite elements. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2004;130(5):507–18.
spatial correlation can be taken into account only in ASCE.
an approximate way similar to the variance reduction [20] Guan XL, Melchers RE. A comparison of some FOSM and
technique. The applicability of the proposed method Monte Carlo results. In: Proceedings of the international confer-
for solving practical boundary value problems has been ence on applications of statistics and probability (ICASP8),
shown by analysing the excavation sequence for a deep Sydney, Australia; 1999. p. 65–71.
[21] Hall JW, Lawry J. Generation, combination and extension of
excavation in soft soil presenting comparison with field random set approximations to coherent lower and upper prob-
measurements. abilities. Reliab Eng System Safety 2004;85(1–3):89–101.
[22] Helton JC. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in the presence of
stochastic and subjective uncertainty. J Stat Comput Simulat
1997;57:3–76.
References [23] Hicks MA, Samy K. Influence of heterogeneity on undrained
clay slope stability. Quart J Eng Geol Hydrogeol
[1] Alonso EE, Krizek, RJ. Stochastic formulation of soil profiles. In: 2002;35:41–9.
Proceedings of the international conference on applications of [24] Kulhawy FH, Roth MJS, Grigoriu MD. Some statistical evalu-
statistics and probability (ICASP2), Aachen, Germany; 1975. p. 9–32. ations of geotechnical properties. In: Proceedings of the interna-
 H.F. Schweiger, G.M. Peschl / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 422–435 435

tional conference on applications of statistics and probability symposium on imprecise probabilities and their applications
(ICASP6), Mexico City, Mexico; 1991. p. 705–12. (ISIPTA
03). Canada: Carleton Scientific; 2003. p. 437–51.
[25] Lacasse S, Nadim F. Uncertainties in characterizing soil proper- [40] Peschl GM. Reliability analyses in geotechnics with the random
ties. In: Proceedings of conference on uncertainty in the geologic set finite element method. Institute for Soil Mechanics and
environment: from theory to practice (Uncertainty 96), Madison, Foundation Engineering, Graz University of Technology, Dis-
WI; 1996. p. 49–75. sertation; 2004.
[26] Lee IK, White W, Ingles OG. Geotechnical engineering. Lon- [41] Peschl GM, Schweiger HF. Application of the random set finite
don: Pitman; 1983. element method (RS-FEM) in geotechnics. In: Proceedings of the
[27] Li KS, Lumb P. Probabilistic design of slopes. Can Geotech J 9th symposium on numerical models in geomechanics – NUMOG
1987;24(4):520–35. IX, Ottawa; 2004. p. 249–55.
[28] Li KS, White W. Reliability index of slopes. In: Proceedings of the [42] Phoon K-K, Kulhawy FH. Characterization of geotechnical
5th international conference on application of statistics and variability. Can Geotech J 1999;36:612–24.
probability in soil and structural engineering; 1987. p. 755–62. [43] Rackwitz R. Reviewing probabilistic soils modelling. Comp
[29] Li KS. Some common mistakes in probabilistic analysis of slopes. Geotech 2000;26:199–223.
In: Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on landslides, [44] Rubio E, Hall JW, Anderson MG. Uncertainty analysis in a slope
Christchurch; 1991. p. 475–80. hydrology and stability model using probabilistic and imprecise
[30] Lindley DV. The probability approach to treatment of uncer- information. Comp Geotech 2004;31:529–36.
tainty in artificial intelligence and expert systems. Stat Sci [45] Schweiger HF, Thurner R, Pöttler R. Reliability analysis in
1987;2(1):3–44. geotechnics with deterministic finite elements – theoretical con-
[31] Liu PL, Der Kiureghian A. Finite element reliability of geomet- cepts and practical application. Int J Geomech 2001;1(4):389–413.
rically nonlinear uncertain structures. Eng Mech [46] Schweiger HF. Standsicherheitsnachweise fuer Boeschungen und
1991;117(8):1806–24. Baugruben mittels FE-Methode durch Abminderung der Scher-
[32] Long M. Database for retaining wall and ground movements due festigkeit. Workshop AK 1.6, Schriftenreihe Geotechnik, 11,
to deep excavations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng Bauhaus-Universitaet Weimar; 2003. p. 19–36.
2001;127(3):203–24. [47] Sentz K, Ferson S. Combination of evidence in Dempster–Shafer
[33] Lumb P. Spatial variability of soil properties. In: Proceedings of theory. Report SAND2002-0835, Sandia National Laboratories,
the 2nd international conference on the application of statistics Albuquerque, New Mexico; 2002.
and probability to soil and structural engineering; 1975. p. 397– [48] Shafer G. A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton: Prince-
421. ton University Press; 1976.
[34] Marinilli A, Cerrolaza M. Computational stochastic analysis [49] Tonon F, Mammino A. A random set approach to the
of earth structure settlements. Comp Geotech 1999;25(2): uncertainties in rock engineering and tunnel lining design. In:
107–21. Proceedings of the ISRM international symposium on prediction
[35] Mostyn GR, Soo S. The effect of autocorrelation on the and performance in rock mechanics and rock engineering
probability of failure of slopes. In: Proceedings of the 6th ANZ (EUROCK 96), Torino, Italy. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema;
conference on geomechanics; 1992. p. 542–6. 1996. p. 861–8.
[36] Mostyn GR, Li KS. Probabilistic slope analysis – State-of-play. [50] Tonon F, Bernardini A, Mammino A. Determination of param-
In: Proceedings of conference on probabilistic methods in eters range in rock engineering by means of Random Ret Theory.
geotechnical engineering, Canberra; 1993. p. 89–109. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 2000;70(3):241–61.
[37] Oberguggenberger M, Fellin W. From probability to fuzzy sets: [51] Tonon F, Bernardini A, Mammino A. Reliability analysis of rock
the struggle for meaning in geotechnical risk assessment. In: mass response by means of Random Set Theory. Reliab Eng Syst
Proceedings of the international conference on probabilistics in Safety 2000;70(3):263–82.
geotechnics – technical and economical risk estima- [52] Tonon F. Using random set theory to propagate epistemic
tion. Essen: VGE; 2002. p. 29–38. uncertainty through a mechanical system. Reliab Eng Syst Safety
[38] Paice GM, Griffiths DV. Reliability of an undrained clay slope 2004;85(1–3):169–81.
formed from spatially random soil. In: Proceedings of the 9th [53] Vanmarcke EH. Probabilistic modelling of soil profiles. J Geotech
international conference on computer methods and advances in Eng Div 1977;103(11):1227–46.
geomechanics, Wuhan; 1997. p. 543–8. [54] Vanmarcke EH. Random fields – analysis and synthesis. Cam-
[39] Peschl GM, Schweiger HF. Reliability analysis in geotechnics bridge, MA: MIT-Press; 1983.
with finite elements – comparison of probabilistic, stochastic and [55] Wright G, Ayton P. Subjective probability. New York: Wiley;
fuzzy set methods. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international 1994.