Advertisement

Slope Failure Probability Under Earthquake Condition by Monte Carlo Simulation: Methodology and Example for an Infinite Slope

  • Jui-Pin WangEmail author
  • Duruo Huang
Conference paper

Abstract

A new approach in evaluating the slope failure probability under earthquake condition was proposed in this study. Unlike the use of a deterministic seismic coefficient in a pseudostatic analysis, the uncertainties of earthquake magnitude, location, frequency, and seismic-wave attenuation were taken into account in the new approach. The probability distributions of the earthquake parameters follow those described in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). Along with the considerations of the uncertainties of slope parameters, such as slope angle, slope height, and soil/rock properties, the slope failure probability can be estimated by a probabilistic analysis. In particular, the new approach used Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) in the analysis, in which random parameters were generated with prescribed probability distributions and statistics. With an n-trial MCS being performed, slope failure probability is equal to the ratio between the trial of slope failure and total trials. In this study, the approach was also demonstrated by a benchmark PSHA example integrated with a hypothetical infinite slope. For such a slope under the setup of seismicity, its failure probability increased to 8.3% in a 50-year condition, from 0.16% in a one-year condition. The increase in slope failure probability resulted from a higher earthquake frequency with respect to a longer duration of interest.

Keywords

Slope failure probability Earthquake Monte Carlo simulation 

References

  1. 1.
    Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seism Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duzgun HSB, Yucemen MS, Karpuz C (2003) Probabilistic modeling of plane failure in rock slopes. Appl Stat Probab Civ Eng 1:1255–1262Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geller RJ, Jackson DD, Kagan YY, Mulargia F (1997) Earthquakes cannot be predicted. Science 275(5306):1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seism Soc Am 34(4):1985–1988Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna (2002) Evaluation of seismic hazards for nuclear power plants safety guide, Safety standards series no. NS-G-3.3Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jafari MA (2010) Statistical prediction of the next great earthquake around Tehran, Iran. J Geodyn 49:14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jimenez R, Sitar N, Chacon J (2006) System reliability approach to rock slope stability. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43(6):847–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kebede F, Van Eck T (1997) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the Horn of Africa based on seismotectonic regionalization. Tectonophysics 270:221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kramer AL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Latha GM, Garaga A (2010) Seismic stability analysis of a Himalayan rock slope. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43(6):831–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McGuire RK, Arabasz WJ (1990) An introduction to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Geotech Environ Geophys Soc Explor Geophys 1:333–353Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sokolov VY, Wenzel F, Mohindra R (2009) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Romania and sensitivity analysis: a case of joint consideration of intermediate-depth (Vrancea) and shallow (crustal) seismicity. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(2):364–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Terzaghi K, (1950) Mechanics of landslides. Bull Geol Soc Am Berkeley Volume:83–123Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    United States Geological Survey (2008) United States geological survey national seismic hazard maps. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2008/maps/
  15. 15.
    United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (2007) A performance-based approach to define the site-specific earthquake ground motion, Regulatory Guide 1.208. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil & Environmental EngineeringHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyKowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations