A Reliability Analysis Approach for Embankment Stability Considering Spatial Variability of Soil Properties
Source abstract
Abstract
ABSTRACT Embankment stability analysis is a complex coupled problem influenced by multiple sources of uncertainty. Due to diverse deposition histories and environmental conditions, geotechnical parameters within the soil body exhibit significant spatial variability, which leads to uncertainty in the location and geometry of the critical failure surface. To investigate the impact of this spatial variability on embankment stability reliability, this study proposes a comprehensive simulation framework that integrates the non‐intrusive stochastic finite element method, neural network modeling, and Monte Carlo simulation. Based on random field theory, a spatially variable soil model is established to simulate the mechanical heterogeneity of embankment materials. The proposed approach allows for the efficient estimation of the probability of failure and provides a robust tool for reliability analysis. Numerical examples demonstrate that spatial variability plays a key role in determining the overall stability of embankments, emphasizing the necessity of incorporating realistic soil property distributions in stability evaluations.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geotechnical Engineering and Analysis · Dam Engineering and Safety · Probabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Yellow River Shandong Bureau Yellow River Conservancy Commission Jinan China
State Key Laboratory of Water Disaster Prevention Hohai University Nanjing China
College of Water Conservancy and Hydropower Engineering Hohai University Nanjing China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China · National Key Research and Development Program of China
References (50)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1007/s11269‐014‐0732‐x10.1007/s11269‐014‐0732‐x ↗
2. 10.1016/j.asoc.2024.11216510.1016/j.asoc.2024.112165 ↗
3. Quang T. T. · 2008 · 235
4. 10.3390/jmse1303057310.3390/jmse13030573 ↗
5. Lessons Learned From Dike Failures in Recent Decades
6. 10.1007/s11269‐015‐1084‐x10.1007/s11269‐015‐1084‐x ↗
7. A Method for Evaluating Sea Dike Safety
8. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.15220710.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152207 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.05.00410.1016/j.compgeo.2014.05.004 ↗
10. 10.1139/t99‐03810.1139/t99‐038 ↗
11. 10.1139/t95‐00110.1139/t95‐001 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.11.00610.1016/j.enggeo.2013.11.006 ↗
13. 10.1002/nag.79110.1002/nag.791 ↗
14. 10.22436/jmcs.002.02.0710.22436/jmcs.002.02.07 ↗
15. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090‐0241(2004)130:5(507)10.1061/(ASCE)1090‐0241(2004)130:5(507) ↗
16. 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943‐5606.000253810.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943‐5606.0002538 ↗
17. 10.1007/s12665‐021‐09963‐210.1007/s12665‐021‐09963‐2 ↗
18. Jaksa M. B. · 1995
19. 10.1061/AJGEB6.000051710.1061/AJGEB6.0000517 ↗
20. Stochastic Evaluation of Heterogeneous Slope Stability
21. 10.1016/j.istruc.2023.10497710.1016/j.istruc.2023.104977 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.10336510.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103365 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.10311110.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103111 ↗
24. Vanmarcke E. H. · 1983
25. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733‐9410(1993)119:1(147)10.1061/(ASCE)0733‐9410(1993)119:1(147) ↗
26. 10.1016/j.strusafe.2014.09.00710.1016/j.strusafe.2014.09.007 ↗
27. C.Bucher Structural Reliability and Stochastic Finite Elements(John Wiley & Sons 2003).
28. Deutsch C. V. · 1992
29. 10.1007/s00477‐017‐1448‐210.1007/s00477‐017‐1448‐2 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.01.02610.1016/j.compgeo.2019.01.026 ↗
31. 10.1139/t90-07610.1139/t90-076 ↗
32. 10.1111/jfr3.1284810.1111/jfr3.12848 ↗
33. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733‐9410(1993)119:1(147)10.1061/(ASCE)0733‐9410(1993)119:1(147) ↗
34. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.03.02110.1016/j.enggeo.2018.03.021 ↗
35. 10.1139/cgj‐2018‐040910.1139/cgj‐2018‐0409 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2011.11.00210.1016/j.compgeo.2011.11.002 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.06.01710.1016/j.compgeo.2015.06.017 ↗
38. 10.1155/adce/784929010.1155/adce/7849290 ↗
39. 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943‐5606.000122710.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943‐5606.0001227 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.07.01110.1016/j.asoc.2017.07.011 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.10763210.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107632 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.10421210.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104212 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.10509410.1016/j.compgeo.2022.105094 ↗
44. 10.1007/s00366‐020‐01108‐610.1007/s00366‐020‐01108‐6 ↗
45. 10.1002/nag.316910.1002/nag.3169 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.ress.2022.10860710.1016/j.ress.2022.108607 ↗
47. 10.1061/AJRUA6.RUENG‐117210.1061/AJRUA6.RUENG‐1172 ↗
48. 10.1007/s12209‐015‐2298‐y10.1007/s12209‐015‐2298‐y ↗
49. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.10478310.1016/j.compgeo.2022.104783 ↗
50. 10.1155/2022/395898510.1155/2022/3958985 ↗