Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 135144

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Research Paper

Uncertainty analysis of safety factor of embankment built on stone

column improved soft soil using fuzzy logic a-cut technique
S.M. Marandi a,, M. Anvar b, M. Bahrami c
a

Department of Civil Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

Civil Engineering Department, Graduate University of Advanced Technology, Mahan, Iran
c
Civil Engineering Department, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 26 July 2015
Received in revised form 26 October 2015
Accepted 17 January 2016

Keywords:
Safety factor
Uncertainty analysis
Stone column
Fuzzy logic
Numerical analysis

a b s t r a c t
Uncertainty in safety factor (FS) of slope stability is a main subject in geotechnical engineering.
Uncertainties are associated with shear strength parameters of the soil, their complex nature, numerical
analysis methods, etc. The main aim of this research was to improve the model used by other researchers
for determination of FS of embankments built on stone column improved soft soils, and compare the
results with what was found in literature using a-cut fuzzy technique (FAC). The results showed that
the highest and lowest uncertainty occurred at equivalent area with existence of underground water,
and for single stone column with no underground water respectively. A reduction factor proposed to
amend the FS calculated using the equivalent area method. In the equivalent area model, the equivalent
parameters were used. This contribution might have real and more precise behavior in comparison with
what was suggested by other researchers in literature. In addition, with applying of membership functions, the height of embankment had the most effect on the values of FS obtained using finite element
(FE) and finite difference (FD) methods.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In some projects of civil engineering, it is required to construct
vast and high embankments. Controlling the stability of the slopes
and embankments are the most important discussions between
geotechnical engineers. The importance is caused by a high level
of economical and life-related casualties, concerning the instability
and failure of the slopes. A slope stability problem is a statically
indeterminate problem, and there are different methods of analysis
available to the engineers such as finite element method (FEM),
finite difference method (FDM), limit equilibrium method (LEM),
and genetic algorithm (GA), (e.g. [13]). The modified Bishop, simplified Janbu, Spencer, or other widely accepted slope stability
analysis methods (based on LEM) should be used for rotational,
transitional and irregular surface failure mechanisms. Each limit
equilibrium method varies about assumptions used and how stability is determined. Therefore, a minimum of two limit equilibrium methods should be used and compared to one another to
ensure that the level of safety in the slope is accurately assessed.
In cases where the stability failure mechanisms anticipated are

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: marandi@uk.ac.ir (S.M. Marandi).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.01.014
0266-352X/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

not well modeled by limit equilibrium techniques, or if deformation analysis of the slope is required, more sophisticated analysis
techniques can be applied.
In the late two decades, FE method (e.g. [410]) and FD method
[3,1114] have been vastly used for computing the FS of stability of
slopes (embankments). The potential benefits of the elasticplastic
FEM [6,15] and FDM [3,16] to stability of slope analysis are well
known, and are summarized as follows: (a) no assumption needs
to be made in advance for the shape or location of the failure surface; (b) since there is no concept of slices or columns in the
approaches, there is no need for assumptions for side forces and
the consequent implications for local and global equilibrium. The
methods preserve global equilibrium until failure is reached; (c)
if realistic soil compressibility data are available, the FEM and
FDM solutions will give information about deformations at working stress levels; and (d) is able to monitor progressive failure
including overall shear failure.
The slope (embankment) failure may occur locally, surficial,
general, or deep-seated failure. The deep-seated slope failure is
referred to as a global slope failure (see Fig. 1), mainly induced
by a weak foundation existing under the embankment [3,17]. To
mitigate deep seated failure problems, different ground improvement approaches are available namely; stone columns (rammed

136

S.M. Marandi et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 135144

Fig. 1. Deep seated failure of embankment built on stone columns-improved soft soil (modified from Han et al. [17]).

or rigid stone column), sand (granular) compaction piles, deep

mixed columns, etc. The stone column technique of ground treatment has proven successful in improving FS of slope stability of
both embankments and natural slopes against deep seated failure
[3,8,9,18].
The robust and simple non-linear model is based on soil parameters that are well known in geotechnical engineering practice.
However, not all non-linear features of soil behavior are included
in this model. The MohrCoulomb model has been widely used
to calculate FS of slopes (embankments) using a phi-c reduction
approach. The materials in slope stability analysis, are usually
modeled as linearly elastic-perfectly plastic with MohrCoulomb
failure criteria (e.g. [3,8,9,1923].
Christoulas et al. [24] presented the FS of stone columnsupported embankment resting on soft foundation soil against
deep seated failure, using a circular slip failure. They used the
Dimaggio assumption combined with average and discrete shear
strength parameters. Han et al. [11,25] investigated the deep
seated slope stability of embankments over deep-mixed columns
improved soft clay. They demonstrated that the improved foundation slip surfaces with individual deep mixed columns due to stress
concentration on stone columns are not continuous and noncircular. Abusharar and Han [3] evaluated the factors influencing the FS
against deep-seated failure of embankments over stone columnimproved soft clay based on the individual column and the equivalent area models. Christoulas et al. [24] found the stability of the
embankment seated on stone columns using limit equilibrium
with a slip circle, where individual stone column and equivalent
area models were analyzed. They concluded that the computed
safety factor from the individual stone column method was greater
than that from the equivalent area method. Han et al. [25,12]
showed that the slip surface for the improved foundation with
individual deep mixed columns is not continuous and noncircular.
Therefore, weather the limit equilibrium method with slip circles is
suitable for analyzing the stability of embankment over individual
stone columns is questionable [3].
Uncertainty in geotechnical engineering problems is a main
subject that should be evaluated by engineers. One of these problems is embankment stability analysis that caused by the uncertainties associated with shear strength parameters of soil and
their complex nature, numerical analysis methods, model parameter, etc. (e.g. [2630]). The reliability analysis of slope can be used
to show the uncertainty in mathematical models, which can be
assumed to follow the characteristic of random uncertainty [31].
However, not all uncertainties are random or objectively quantifiable. Some uncertainties, especially those based on imprecise data
are due to cognitive sources. To quantify uncertainties in numerical
analysis, a robust possibility theory is usually applied. It is difficult
to estimate the distribution of the uncertain variable. Hence, the

concepts of fuzzy set theory appear to be quite reliable, when limited information is available [31]. The fuzzy logic as a basis for a
theory of possibility was developed specially to evaluate such
uncertainties by Zadeh [32]. The fuzzy logic has been shown drastic and adequate for evaluating the uncertainty of numerical analysis and geotechnical parameters [33,34].
The main aim of this research was to improve the model used
by Abusharar and Han [3], to compare the obtained data using
numerical methods, and to investigate uncertainty analysis of
slope stability FS of embankment built on stone column improved
soft soil using fuzzy logic a-cut technique. In this regard, obtained
FS was analyzed using FE and FD methods. To carry out the objectives, the effects of parameters such as the cohesion of underneath
soil of the foundation, embankment and stone column internal
angle of friction, slope heights, and distances between the columns
on FS of slope stability and the reducer parameter of FS were
obtained using numerical methods. With obtained data, the uncertainty of FS behavior was compared and analyzed using fuzzy
a-cut technique under above mentioned parameters.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Modeling of geometry
The problem considered is composed of an embankment sited
on 10 m thick of soft clay overlying 2 m thick of sand. The geometric parameters used are the crest width of 20 m, height of 5 m and
angle of slope of 2H:1V respectively. Fig. 2 shows that, the selective
model consists of an embankment supported by stone columns in
soft clay under a two-dimensional plane strain condition. Due to
the symmetry of the model, half of the cross-section was analyzed
using FE and FD methods. In engineering analysis viewpoints,
selection of the half of the cross section for numerical analysis
causes for diminution of the calculation on time and size.
The stone columns were modeled as continuous walls parallel
to the centerline of the embankment as shown in Fig. 2a. The
dimensions and spacing of stone columns and the overall embankment and foundation dimensions were selected based on a common practice used by Han et al. [18] and Abusharar and Han [3].
The parameters of the baseline case are provided as follows: columns diameter = 0.8 m, side slope angle = 26.56 (2H:1V). The
clear spacing between adjacent columns was set at 3.2 m. FEM
and FDM discretization have showed in Figs. 3 and 4.
2.2. Modeling of materials and constitutive parameters
The stone columns, the embankment and soft clay soil were modeled as linearly elastic-perfectly plastic materials using MohrCoulomb failure criteria. In the equivalent area model, the equivalent

S.M. Marandi et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 135144

Fig. 2. Cross-sections of analyzed model (a) individual stone columns, (b) equivalent area (unit: m), (Abusharar and Han, [3]).

parameters (unit weight, cohesion and friction angle) for the

improved area were calculated. The equivalent parameters for the
improved area were estimated based on the average area of the
parameters of stone columns and the soft clay soil (e.g. [3,35]) as
follow:

ceq accol cs 1  a

ueq arctana tan ucol 1  a tan us

ceq acc 1  acs

1
2
3

where a is the area replacement ratio by the stone columns over the
overall soft soil area; ceq, ccol, and cs are the equivalent cohesion and
the cohesions of the column and the soft soil, respectively; ueq, ucol,

137

and us are the equivalent internal angle of friction and the internal
angles of friction of the column and the soft soil respectively; and
ceq, ccol, and cs are the equivalent unit weight and the unit weights
of the column and the soft soil, respectively. The equivalent parameters are used for MohrCoulomb failure criteria in FEM, and FDM
program analysis. The installation of stone columns may changes
the properties of the soft soil clay; however, such properties may
changes minimum, especially when a wet method is used to install
stone columns, the change of the properties of soft clay is ignored in
this study [3].
Abusharar and Han [3] suggested a model using parameters
shown in Table 1. They assumed that, the materials used in stone
columns are non-cohesive and shear strength is to come into existence of inter-granular friction. On the other hand, clay materials
have no inter-granular friction and only cohesion putting into
effect of shear strength.
Actually, based on some codes of practice and researches performed, a minimum cohesion for granular soils and friction angle
for loose and soft clays must be considered [19,36]. These assumptions causes analyzed model to have real and more precise behavior. However, in present work the modified parameters are
presented in Table 2.
2.3. Calculation of FS
The FS for slope stability analysis is usually defined as the ratio
of the ultimate shear strength divided by the mobilized shear
stress at incipient failure. There are several ways to formulate
the factor of safety. The most common formulation for the FS to
be constant along the slip surface is defined with respect to the
force or moment equilibrium. Typically, a FS of about 1.5 is
required for design and stability of embankments. Based on the
above definition, the current approach is to use a shear strength
reduction technique [6,3,9,23,37,38] in which shear strength
parameters c0 and u0 , given by:

Fig. 3. FE discretization of an embankment supported by: (a) individual columns and (b) an equivalent area (unit: m).

138

S.M. Marandi et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 135144

Fig. 4. FD discretization of an embankment supported by: (a) individual columns and (b) an equivalent area (unit: m), (Abusharar and Han [3]).

Table 1
Material properties (Abusharar and Han [3]).
Parameter

Unit

Embankment fill

Clay

Sand

Stone column

Equivalent area

Thickness
Unsaturated unit weight
Porosity
Cohesion
Friction angle

m
kN/m3

kN/m2

5
18
0.25
0
32

10
16
0.25
20
0

2
18
0.25
0
30

10
17
0.25
0
38

10
16.2
0.25
16
8.9

c0

c
FStrial


tan u
u0 arctan
FStrial

where c, u are the real shear strength parameters and FStrial is a trial
factor of safety. Usually, initial FStrial is set to be sufficiently small so
as to guarantee that, the slope is stable. Adjusted cohesion and
friction angle of soil layers are used in the model for equilibrium
analysis. The FS is quantified by adjusting the cohesion and friction
angle to make the slope become unstable from a stable condition.
2.4. Fuzzy analysis and fuzzy alpha-cut (FAC) technique
The fuzzy analysis is based on fuzzy logic, which is immensely
used in indicating uncertain knowledge. Uncertain model

parameters and numerical methods are demeaned as fuzzy numbers with a membership function. In fuzzy logic, membership is
expressed as a degree of appurtenance to a system. The membership function can be specified by many different types of functions
and by the different shapes of their graphs. Triangular and trapezoidal shapes are the most common types of membership function.
Fig. 5 shows a parameter K represented as a triangular fuzzy
number with support of J0. The wider the support of the membership function, the higher the uncertainty. The fuzzy logic that contains all elements with a membership of a e [0, 1] and above is
called the a-cut of the membership function. At a resolution level
of a, it will have support of Ja. Higher the value of a, higher the
confidence in the parameter. The membership function is cut
horizontally at a finite number of a-levels between 0 and 1. For
each a-level of the parameter, the model is run to quantify the
minimum, median and maximum possible values of the output.

Table 2
Modified material properties.
Parameter

Unit

Embankment fill

Clay

Sand

Stone column

Equivalent area

Thickness
Unsaturated unit weight
Porosity
Cohesion
Friction angle

m
kN/m3

kN/m2

5
18
0.25
1
32

10
16
0.25
20
3

2
18
0.25
1
30

10
17
0.25
1
38

10
16.2
0.25
16.2
11.2

S.M. Marandi et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 135144

139

3. Results and interpretation

3.1. Effect of evaluated parameters on FS

Fig. 5. Exhibition of linear triangular membership function and a-cut interval.

Fig. 6. FAC technique for measure of uncertainty.

This information is then directly used to construct the corresponding fuzziness (membership function) of the output, which is
utilized as a measure of uncertainty. For the fuzzy alpha cut
(FAC) method, as a measure is defined by the ratio of the 0.1, 0.3
and 0.5 level support to the value for the median membership
function equal to 1 (see Fig. 6).
Following model analysis and calculation of FS of slope stability
based on FE and FD methods, for each case and under similar conditions, two FS are obtained. One is the minimum and the other is
the maximum amount. For investigation on uncertainty of numerical methods and effective parameters, the median FS is defined. It
can be noticed that FSmin and FSmax have function member of zero
and FSmedian have function member of one. Calculation method for
quantity of uncertainty based on function member (a = 0.1, 0.3 and
0.5) is as follows:

8
Z 1 FSmax  FSmin  0:9
>
>
>
< Z FS
Z1 Z2 Z3
2
max  FSmin  0:7
) ; ;
>
Z Z Z
Z
3 FSmax  FSmin  0:5
>
>
:
Z FSmedian

Some factors affecting the FS versus embankment deep seated

failure over unreinforced stone columns-amended soft clay soil
were evaluated, including the stone columns (friction angle, diameter and spacing), the soft clay soil (un-drained cohesion) and
embankment fill (height and friction angle). According to
Figs. 712, the parameters (I.C.) and (E.A.) are related to individual
column and equivalent area respectively.
Fig. 7 illustrates the effect of stone columns spacing on FS values. The results indicate that the FS calculated using FD method
is higher than the one calculated using the FE method, while both
methods showing decrease in FS. It is also understood that, the
variations of the FS related to these two numerical methods are
lower with existence of groundwater.
Fig. 8 shows the stone columns friction angle efficacy versus FS
of the embankment laid on columns-amended soft clay soil.
Increasing of internal friction angle of stone column material is
eventuated a higher FS for the embankment system. Handling
the stone columns friction angle, it is observed that FS calculated
using the FE method is more than what is calculated using the
FD method. For condition u P 40, almost no significant change
is observed in the FS which is more seen in the FD method. Generally speaking, FS variations related to the FE method is relatively
lower and owns a steady ascendance.
Fig. 9 shows that with increase in stone column diameter, the FS
values of the embankment system increases considerably. It is concluded that the FD method presents higher FSs. For the case of
D P 1 m, the FS boasts less steady ascendance. This is due to
replacement of soft clay with stone columns. In fact, the foundation shape changes from the homogeneous soft clay soil to homogeneous stone column may cause this change. However, soil
improvement using stone columns in practical works is based on
replacement of 1535% of soft soil [39].
Fig. 10 evinces the effect of un-drained cohesion of the soft clay
on values of FS against deep seated failure of embankment. It is
well observed that FS calculated using FE method is higher. The
drop in the ascendance of FS for c P 25 kN/m2, is determined for
both techniques (I.C. and E.A.) using the FE and FD methods, while
the value of FS is sometimes constant, and sometimes a slight drop
is sensed through their ascendance. Comparing to other parameters, when the variations are related to the soft soil cohesion, in
both methods special convergence is witnessed. Regarding the
stone columns being reinforced or not, it depends on the clay

where FSmax is the maximum, FSmin is the minimum, and FSmedian is

the median of safety factors respectively. Z1, Z2, and Z3 are difference between maximum and minimum of safety factors when
a = 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 respectively.

Fig. 7. Stone columns spacing efficacy.

140

S.M. Marandi et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 135144

Fig. 8. Stone columns friction angle efficacy.

Fig. 9. Stone columns diameter efficacy.

Fig. 11. Embankment fill friction angle efficacy.

Fig. 11 demonstrates the effect of embankment internal friction

angle on FS of the embankment laid on columns-amended soft clay
soil. It is observed that the FE method analyzes a higher FS. It is
plain to see that FSs calculated from FD method boast more convergence and steadiness. Regarding the fact that stone columns
and the surrounding clay soil have been modeled via the two individual column and equivalent area techniques, it can be concluded
that the variations related to the values of FS in this condition is
more than the rest. The reason could be the coinciding changes
of a number of parameters in the modeling and analysis.
Fig. 12 illustrates that an increase in embankment fill height
decreases the FS values of the embankment system. It is well
known that the variations range of the FS is highly significant while
the FD method offers a higher FS. In fact the effect of this parameter is superior to the others because, this parameter acts as to
increase the weight of the embankment or loading which lifts
the rate of failure. Considering all the variations that are observed
in various methods and heights, nonetheless in the high amounts
of height variables of the embankments, a kind of convergence is
seen.
In all Figs. 712, the equivalent area reveals higher FS in comparison with individual stone column, while their behaviors have
similar convergence. Using underground water in all analysis and
modeling will decrease FS considerably. This criterion is due to
decrease in shearing strength parameters.

Fig. 10. Cohesion of un-drained soft clay efficacy.

cohesion. In a way that (according to the scientists and researchers) whenever the clay cohesion falls short of 15 kN/m2, it must
be reinforced due to the deflection of the stone columns. In the current study because the ordinary stone column is used, the minimum cohesion rate of 15 kN/m2 is determined as a guarantee for
the clay soil.

Fig. 12. Embankment fill height efficacy.

141

S.M. Marandi et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 135144

Table 3
Membership function values related to FS resulting assessed parameters.
FS(i)

Statistical values

Conditions
I.C.-water

I.C.-no water

E.A.-water

E.A.-no water

FS(s)

min
median
max

1.33
1.42
1.57

1.35
1.45
1.61

1.42
1.53
1.70

1.52
1.62
1.79

FS(ucol)

min
median
max

1.35
1.47
1.56

1.45
1.54
1.63

1.48
1.62
1.74

1.58
1.71
1.85

FS(D)

min
median
max

1.33
1.48
1.62

1.41
1.53
1.73

1.43
1.61
1.73

1.54
1.68
1.80

FS(c)

min
median
max

1.20
1.67
1.78

1.25
1.69
1.80

1.37
1.83
2.10

1.48
1.89
2.14

FS(uemb)

min
median
max

1.23
1.50
1.58

1.29
1.58
1.62

1.40
1.63
1.74

1.46
1.74
1.83

FS(H)

min
median
max

1.05
1.71
2.69

1.09
1.83
2.75

1.22
1.90
3.11

1.32
1.90
3.23

Abusharar and Han [3] used FD method in their research and

demonstrated that the profit of the un-drained cohesion of the soft
clay became less significant when the soft soil cohesion was higher
than 25 kN/m2, because the slip surface expanded was shallower in
the amended foundation and the participation of the foundation
became less important. They proved that the preference of the
embankment fill friction angle became less significant when the
friction angle was higher than 30, because the slip surface
expanded was deeper in the amended foundation and the participation of the foundation became more important.
In present work based on amended shear parameters presented
in Table 2, the factors of safety obtained via numerical methods for
variation ranges of cohesion and internal angle of frictions, showed
similar behaviors.

3.2. FS reduction factor based on numerical methods and assessed

parameters
The reduction factor is defined as the ratio of FS of the individual column model to that of the equivalent area model. The reduction FS factor for both numerical methods, are investigated under
six parameters for slope stability. In general (except two cases),
the values of FS is higher when underground water exist.
Abusharar and Han [3] concluded that the FS reduction factor
varies between 0.86 and 0.96. The reduction factor considering
groundwater is slightly higher without considering groundwater.
The average reduction factor considering groundwater is 0.92,

FSI:C: k  FSE:A:

3.3. Results of FAC analysis

Results obtained may have uncertainty on calculated FS using
numerical analysis, and must be investigated using membership
function. In membership function, extremum indexes with minimum and maximum degrees of zero and one are used to disclose
the uncertainty. The values between median and extremum
indexes are other outputs which have membership function
between zero and one. Whatever the extremum index reaches to

E.A-water

0.5

-cut

-cut

-cut

E.A-no water

0.5

where k is the reduction factor, FSI.C. and FSE.A. are the factors of
safety against the deep-seated failure of the embankment built on
stone column improved foundations based on the individual column and the equivalent area models, respectively. Hence, a reduction factor of 0.88 can be proposed to amend the FS calculated based
on the equivalent area method.

I.C-no water

I.C-water
1

-cut

while is 0.90 without considering groundwater (based on material

properties presented in Table 1). In this research, the results illustrate that the FS reduction factor based on FDM varies between
0.78 and 0.97, and for FEM is between 0.82 and 0.94. The average
reduction factor based on FDM with and without is 0.92 and 0.89
respectively, while based on FEM are 0.90 and 0.88. Therefore,
the following equation should be used to adjust the FS value calculated by the equivalent area model to acquire the FS value for the
individual column model:

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1
0

0.1
0

0.1
0

0.1
0

1.4

1.6

1.8

Factor of safety

1.4

1.6

Factor of safety

1.8

1.4

1.6

1.8

Factor of safety

Fig. 13. Uncertainty on calculated FS using numerical methods related to stone columns spacing.

1.4

1.6

Factor of safety

1.8

142

S.M. Marandi et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 135144

I.C-water

I.C-no water

E.A-water

0.5

-cut

0.5

E.A-no water

-cut

-cut

-cut

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1
0

0.1
0

0.1
0

0.1
0

1.4

1.6

1.8

1.4

Factor of safety

1.6

1.8

1.4

Factor of safety

1.6

1.8

1.4

Factor of safety

1.6

1.8

Factor of safety

Fig. 14. Uncertainty on calculated FS using numerical methods related to stone columns friction angle.

0.5
0.3
0.1
0

E.A-water

I.C-no water

0.5
0.3

1.4

1.6

0.1
0

1.8

Factor of safety

E.A-no water

-cut

-cut

-cut

-cut

I.C-water
1

0.5
0.3

1.4

1.6

0.3

0.1
0

1.8

0.5

Factor of safety

1.4

1.6

0.1
0

1.8

1.4

Factor of safety

1.6

1.8

Factor of safety

Fig. 15. Uncertainty on calculated FS using numerical methods related to stone columns diameter.

I.C-water

I.C-no water

0.3
0.1
0

1.5

0.1
0

-cut

0.5
0.3

-cut

0.5

E.A-no water

E.A-water

-cut

-cut

0.5
0.3

Factor of safety

1.5

0.1
0

0.5
0.3

Factor of safety

1.5

0.1
0

1.5

Factor of safety

Factor of safety

Fig. 16. Uncertainty on calculated FS using numerical methods related to soft soil un-drained cohesion.

I.C-no water

0.3

0.5
0.3

1.4

1.6

Factor of safety

1.8

0.1
0
1.2

E.A-no water

-cut

-cut

-cut

0.5

0.1
0
1.2

E.A-water

-cut

I.C-water
1

0.5
0.3

1.4

1.6

1.8

Factor of safety

0.1
0
1.2

0.5
0.3

1.4

1.6

Factor of safety

1.8

0.1
0
1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Factor of safety

Fig. 17. Uncertainty on calculated FS using numerical methods related to embankment fill friction angle.

median index, show more existing data. Data scattering/gathering

indicate membership function width. The more membership functions width the more uncertainty and vice versa. Using member-

ship functions is used for assessing the uncertainty of the

obtained results through analysis and modeling. Table 3 shows
the membership function values related to FS of assessed

143

S.M. Marandi et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 135144

I.C-water

0.5

-cut

-cut

0.5

E.A-no water

-cut

-cut

E.A-water

I.C-no water

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1
0

0.1
0

0.1
0

0.1
0

Factor of safety

Factor of safety

Factor of safety

Factor of safety

Fig. 18. Uncertainty on calculated FS using numerical methods related to embankment fill height.

Table 4
Quantified uncertainties based on a = 0.1-level.
Parameter

Stone columns spacing (s)

Stone columns friction angle (ucol.)
Stone columns diameter (D)
Soft soil un-drained cohesion (c)
Embankment fill friction angle (uemb)
Embankment fill height (H)

Table 6
Quantified uncertainties based on a = 0.5-level.

I.C.

E.A.

Parameter

Water

No
water

Water

No water

0.152
0.129
0.176
0.313
0.210
0.863

0.161
0.105
0.188
0.293
0.188
0.816

0.165
0.144
0.168
0.359
0.188
0.895

0.150
0.142
0.139
0.314
0.191
0.905

Table 5
Quantified uncertainties based on a = 0.3-level.
Parameter

Stone columns spacing (s)

Stone columns friction angle (ucol)
Stone columns diameter (D)
Soft soil un-drained cohesion (c)
Embankment fill friction angle (uemb)
Embankment fill height (H)

I.C.

E.A.

Water

No
water

Water

No water

0.118
0.100
0.137
0.243
0.163
0.671

0.126
0.082
0.146
0.228
0.146
0.635

0.128
0.112
0.130
0.279
0.146
0.696

0.117
0.111
0.108
0.244
0.149
0.704

Stone columns spacing (s)

Stone columns friction angle (ucol)
Stone columns diameter (D)
Soft soil un-drained cohesion (c)
Embankment fill friction angle (uemb)
Embankment fill height (H)

I.C.

E.A.

Water

No
water

Water

No water

0.085
0.071
0.098
0.174
0.117
0.48

0.09
0.058
0.105
0.163
0.104
0.454

0.092
0.080
0.093
0.199
0.104
0.497

0.083
0.079
0.077
0.175
0.106
0.503

3. For variation in stone column diameter, the results showed that

the highest uncertainty was for single stone column with no
underground water, while the lowest uncertainty occurred at
equivalent area with no underground water.
4. The variation of cohesion for un-drained clay soil showed the
highest uncertainty at equivalent area with existence of underground water, and the lowest uncertainty occurred for single
stone column with no underground water.
5. For embankment internal angle of friction the highest uncertainty was for the single stone column with existence of underground water, and the lowest uncertainty was for the single
stone column and at equivalent area with existence of underground water (see Tables 46 with yellow color).
6. The results for embankment height showed that the highest
uncertainty occurred at equivalent area with no underground
water, and the lowest uncertainty was for single stone column
with no underground water.

parameters and illustrates the uncertainty of calculated FS using

numerical analysis related to stone columns spacing, stone columns friction angle, stone columns diameter, soft clay undrained cohesion, embankment fill friction angle, and embankment fill height respectively. Figs. 1318 illustrate the uncertainty
of calculated safety factor using numerical analysis related to stone
columns for spacing, friction angle, diameter, soft clay un-drained
cohesion, embankment fill friction angle, and embankment fill
height respectively. For determination of the highest and lowest
values of uncertainty on calculated FS using numerical methods
and six investigated parameters, the membership functions with
parameters FSmin and FSmax with membership function of zero,
and FSmedian, with membership function of one should be drawn.
In this regard, with various a, the uncertainty values are different
(Tables 46).
The values of the highest and lowest uncertainties presented in
Tables 46 show that:

To improve the model used by Abusharar and Han [3] using

numerical methods FE and FD, and to investigate uncertainty of
methods used for determination of FS of an embankment built
on stone column improved soft soil using fuzzy technique, the following results are achieved:

1. For stone columns the highest uncertainty occurred at equivalent area with existence of underground water, while the lowest
uncertainty was at equivalent area with no underground water.
2. The results for internal friction of stone columns indicated that
the highest uncertainty occurred at equivalent area with existence of underground water, and the lowest uncertainty was
for single stone column with no underground water.

1. The results showed that the FS reduction factor using FDM and
FEM varied between 0.78 and 0.97, and 0.82 and 0.94 respectively. Hence, from comparing the numerical methods and
quantified uncertainties, a reduction factor of 0.88 can be proposed to amend the FS calculated using the equivalent area
method, which can be real and more precise behavior in comparison with what was suggested by Abusharar and Han [3].

From Tables 46, it can be observed that with increase in a, the

values of uncertainty decreases, and the highest and lowest uncertainties are occurred for a 0:1 and a 0:5 respectively.
4. Summary and conclusions

144

S.M. Marandi et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 75 (2016) 135144

2. Considering internal angle of friction, the calculated FS using FE

method is higher than what was found using FD method.
3. Using stone column with diameter greater than 1 m showed
that the FS boasts a highly less steady ascendance. This might
be due to the foundation shape change from the homogeneous
soft clay to homogeneous stone column.
4. Using membership functions the height of embankment had the
most effect on the values of FS calculated using the FD and FE
methods. This effect is due to loading increase caused by the
weight of the embankment.
5. The highest and lowest uncertainty occurred at equivalent area
with existence of underground water, and for single stone column with no underground water respectively.

References
[1] Cheng YM, Lau CK. Slope stability analysis and stabilization: new methods and
insight. UK: Routledge; 2008.
[2] Sengupta A, Upadhyay A. Locating the critical failure surface in a slope stability
analysis by genetic algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 2009;9(1):38792.
[3] Abusharar SW, Han J. Two-dimensional deep-seated slope stability analysis of
embankments over stone column-improved soft clay. Eng Geol 2011;120(1
4):10310.
[4] Griffiths DV, Fenton GA. Probabilistic slope stability analysis by finite
elements. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2004;130(5):50718.
[5] Xu B, Low BK. Probabilistic stability analyses of embankments based on finiteelement method. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2006;132(11):144454.
[6] Griffiths DV, Marquez RM. Three-dimensional slope stability analysis by
elasto-plastic by finite elements. Geotechnique 2007;57(6):53746.
[7] Griffiths DV, Huang J, Fenton GA. Influence of spatial variability on slope
reliability using 2-D random fields. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2009;135
(10):136778.
_
SB, alik . Experimental and numerical
[8] Vekli M, Aytekin M, Ikizler
investigation of slope stabilization by stone columns. Nat Hazards 2012;64
(1):797820.
[9] Zhang Z, Han J, Ye G. Numerical analysis of failure modes of deep mixed
column-supported embankments on soft soils. Ground Improve Geosynth GSP
2014;238.
[10] Griffiths DV, Fenton GA. Influence of soil strength spatial variability on the
stability of an un-drained clay slope by finite elements. In: Griffiths DV, et al.,
editors. Slope stability 2000. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 101.
Proceedings of the GeoDenver 2000 symposium. Pub. ASCE; 2000. p. 18493.
[11] Cheng YM, Lansivaara T, Wei WB. Two-dimensional slope stability analysis by
limit equilibrium and strength reduction methods. Comput Geotech 2007;34
(3):13750.
[12] Han J, Hong ZS, Shen SL. Stability of levees over soft soil improved by deep
mixing technology GeoCongress 2008. Geosustain Geohazard Mitigation ASCE
2008:71623.
[13] Sun J, Li J, Liu Q. Search for critical slip surface in slope stability analysis by
spline-based GA method. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2008;134(No.
2):2526.
[14] Srivastava A, Sivakumar Babu GL. Effect of soil variability on the bearing
capacity of clay and in slope stability problems. Eng Geol 2009;108(1
2):14252.
[15] Griffiths DV, Lane PA. Slope stability analysis by by finite elements.
Geotechnique 1999;49(No. 3):387403.
[16] Cala M, Flisiak J. Slope stability analysis with FLAC and limit equilibrium
methods. In: Bilaux Rachez, Detournay Hart, editors. FLAC and numerical
modelling in geomechanics. A.A. Balkema Publishers; 2001. p. 1114.

[17] Han J, Sheth AR, Porbaha A, Shen SL. Numerical analysis of embankment
stability over deep mixed foundations. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 126: Geotechnical Engineering for Transportation Projects, GeoTrans 2004,
ASCE, Los Angles, California, USA, July 2631; 2004. p. 138594.
[18] Han J, Oztoprak S, Parsons RL, Huang J. Numerical analysis of foundation
columns to support widening of embankments. Comput Geotech 2007;34
(6):43548.
[19] Brinkgreve RBJ, Broere W, Waterman D, 2006. Plaxis 2D-Version 8. Plaxis bv,
Delft, The Netherlands.
[20] Borges JL, Domingues TS, Cardoso AS. Embankments on soft soil reinforced
with stone columns: numerical analysis and proposal of a new design method.
Geotech Geol Eng 2009;27(6):66779.
[21] Michalowski RL. Limit analysis and stability charts for 3D slope failures. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2010;136(4):58393.
[22] Tandel YK, Solanki CH, Desai AK. 3D FE analysis of an embankment
construction on GRSC and proposal of a design method. Int Scholar Res
Notices 2013.
[23] Zhao L, Yang F, Zhang Y, Dan H, Liu W. Effects of shear strength reduction
strategies on FS of homogeneous slope based on a general nonlinear failure
criterion. Comput Geotech 2015;63(1):21528.
[24] Christoulas S, Giannaros C, Tsiambaos G. Stabilization of embankment
foundations by using stone columns. Geotech Geol Eng 1997;15(3):24758.
[25] Han J, Parsons RJ, Sheth AR, Huang J. Factors of safety against deep-seated
failure of embankments over deep mixed columns. In: Proceedings of deep
mixing 2005 conference, Sweden, May 2325, vol. 1.2; 2005. p. 23136.
[26] Duncan JM, Navin M, Wolff TF. Discussion: probabilistic slope stability analysis
for practice. Can Geotech J 2003;40(4):84850.
[27] Cheung RWM, Tang WH. Realistic assessment of slope reliability for effective
landslide hazard management. Geotechnique 2005;55(1):8594.
[28] Abbaszadeh M, Shahryar K, Sharifzadeh M, Heydari M. Classification and
determination of Sungun copper mine rock mass properties uncertainties. J
Eng Geol Teach Train Univ 2006;2(2):37794.
[29] Fisher BR. Improved characterization and analysis of bi-planar dip slope
failures to limit model and parameter uncertainty in the determination of
setback distances. Ph.D. thesis, Geological Engineering, Univ. of British
Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; 2009.
[30] Abbaszadeh M, Shahryar K, Sharifzadeh M, Heydari M. Uncertainty and
reliability analysis applied to slope stability: a case study from Sungun Copper
Mine. Geotech Geol Eng 2011;29:58196.
[31] Khan N, Vijaya RB, Reddy AM, Kumar MTP. Reliability and fuzzy logic concept
as applied to slope stability analysis a review. Int J Eng Res Appl 2015;5(6
Part-2):013. ISSN: 2248-9622.
[32] Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst
1978;1(1):328.
[33] Giasi CI, Masi P, Cherubini C. Probabilistic and fuzzy reliability analysis of a
sample slope near Aliano. Eng Geol 2003;67:391402.
[34] Park HJ, Um JG, Woo I, Kim JW. Application of fuzzy set theory to evaluate the
probability of failure in rock slopes. Eng Geol 2012;125:92101 [January].
[35] Madhyannapu RS, Puppala AJ, Hossain S, Han J, Porbaha A. Analysis of
geotextile reinforced embankment over deep mixed soil columns: using
numerical and analytical tools. In: Proceedings of the ASCE GeoCongress,
Atlanta, GA; 2006.
[36] Michalowski RL, Drescher A. Three-dimensional stability of slopes and
excavations. Geotechnique 2009;59(10):83950.
[37] Dawson EM, Roth WH. Slope stability analysis with FLAC. In: FLAC and
numerical modeling in geomechanics. In: Detournay C, Hart R, editors.
Proceedings of the international FLAC symposium on numerical modeling in
geomechanics, Minneapolis, Minnesota, September 1999. Rotterdam: A.A.
Balkema; 1999. p. 39.
[38] Won J, You K, Jeong S, Kim S. Coupled effects in stability analysis of pile-slope
systems. Comput Geotech 2005;32(4):30415.
[39] Barksdale RD, Bachus RC, 1983. Design and construction of stone column, vol
1, FHWA/RD.