期刊
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
卷 187, 期 -, 页码 60-72出版社
ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.12.003
关键词
Slopes; Reliability analysis; Spatial variability; Random field; Autocorrelation function; Response surface
资金
- National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars [51225903]
- National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2011CB013506]
- National Natural Science Foundation of China [51329901]
- Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province of China [2014CFA001]
This paper proposes a multiple response-surface method for slope reliability analysis considering spatially variable soil properties. The scales of fluctuation of soil shear strength parameters are summarized. The effect of theoretical autocorrelation functions (ACFs) on slope reliability is highlighted since the theoretical ACFs are often used to characterize the spatial variability of soil properties due to a limited number of site observation data available. The differences in five theoretical ACFs, namely single exponential, squared exponential, second-order Markov, cosine exponential and binary noise ACFs, are examined. A homogeneous c-phi slope and a heterogeneous slope consisting of three soil layers (including a weak layer) are studied to demonstrate the validity of the proposed method and explore the effect of ACFs on the slope reliability. The results indicate that the proposed method provides a practical tool for evaluating the reliability of slopes in spatially variable soils. It can greatly improve the computational efficiency in relatively low-probability analysis and parametric sensitivity analysis. The extended Cholesky decomposition technique can effectively discretize the cross-correlated non-Gaussian random fields of spatially variable soil properties. Among the five selected ACFs, the squared exponential and second-order Markov ACFs might characterize the spatial correlation of soil properties more realistically. The probability of failure associated with the commonly-used single exponential ACF may be underestimated. In general, the difference in the probabilities of failure associated with the five ACFs is minimal. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据