Advertisement

Two-Dimensional Random Field Conditioned by CPT Data: Case Study

  • Sina Sasanian
  • Abbas SoroushEmail author
  • Reza Jamshidi Chenari
Research paper
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

The presented geotechnical random field (GRF) algorithm is utilized to realize the soil inherent variability based on in situ site investigation results. This paper aims at investigating the effect of cone penetration test (CPT) borehole arrangements in horizontal plane on slope stability reliability analysis considering stochastic fields of soil design parameters via the conventional stationary along with the non-stationary random field adopted in the GRF approach. An advantage of the GRF algorithm is that it yields conservative results in comparison to the conventional stationary random field theory; therefore, using non-stationary random field underestimates slope stability reliability. The current study tried to highlight the importance of the availability of in situ profiles of soil strength parameters when stability analysis of geotechnical structures is concerned. Slope stability was chosen to interpret the role of the CPT profiles in the adjacent site in determining the factor of safety of the slope against shear failure. Furthermore, the results of the case under study showed that when the geometric dimensions of the slope are too small compared to the horizontal correlation length, more CPT borehole data availability leads only to very slightly conservative results in comparison to the case with single available CPT profile.

Keywords

Slope stability CPT borehole Uncertainty Inherent soil variability Random field GRF 

References

  1. 1.
    Jamshidi Chenari R, Seyedein M, Faraji S, Eslami Kenarsari A (2012) Investigation on inherent variability of soil properties from cone penetration test. Paper presented at the ISC4, XVI Brazilian Congress of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 4th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Porto de Galinhas, Pernambuco, Brazil, September 18–21, 2012Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eslami Kenarsari A, Jamshidi Chenari R, Eslami A (2013) Characterization of the correlation structure of residual CPT profiles in sand deposits. Int J Civ Eng 11(1B):29–37Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pishgah Gilani P, Jamshidi Chenari R (2014) Reliability measures for consolidation settlement by means of CPT data. Int J Civ Eng 12(2 B):213–218Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jamshidi Chenari R, Kamyab Farahbakhsh H (2015) Generating non-stationary random fields of auto-correlated, normally distributed CPT profile by matrix decomposition method. Georisk: Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst Geohaz 9(2):96–108Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jamshidi Chenari R, Kamyab Farahbakhsh H, Heidarie Golafzani S, Eslami A (2018) Non-stationary realisation of CPT data: considering lithological and inherent heterogeneity. Georisk: Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst Geohaz.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2018.1447675 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vanmarcke E (1983) Random fields: analysis and synthesis. MIT Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Matheron G (1981) Splines and kriging: their formal equivalence. Down-to-earth-statistics: solutions looking for geological problems:77–95Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dubrule O (1984) Comparing splines and kriging. Comput Geosci 10(2–3):327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang Y, Akeju OV, Zhao T (2017) Interpolation of spatially varying but sparsely measured geo-data: a comparative study. Eng Geol 231:200–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li Y, Hicks M, Vardon P (2016) Uncertainty reduction and sampling efficiency in slope designs using 3D conditional random fields. Comput Geotech 79:159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Owuama CO (2002) Semi-empirical method of interpretation of CPT data. Eng Sci 14(1):31–43Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Ganju E, Prezzi M, Salgado R (2017) Algorithm for generation of stratigraphic profiles using cone penetration test data. Comput Geotech 90:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van den Eijnden A, Hicks M (2011) Conditional simulation for characterizing the spatial variability of sand state. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Comp. Geomech., Croatia, pp 288–296Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lloret-Cabot M, Hicks M, Van Den Eijnden A (2012) Investigation of the reduction in uncertainty due to soil variability when conditioning a random field using Kriging. Géotechnique letters 2:123–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bartels RH, Beatty JC, Barsky BA (1995) An introduction to splines for use in computer graphics and geometric modeling. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Press WH, Flannery B, Teukolsky S, Vetterling W (1992) Cubic spline interpolation. Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN. The Art of Scientific Computing:107–110Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vanmarcke EH (1977) Probabilistic modeling of soil profiles. J Geotech Eng Div 103(11):1227–1246Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhalehjoo N, Chenari RJ, Pouya KR (2012) Evaluation of bearing capacity of shallow foundations using random field theory in comparison to classic methods. In: GeoCongress 2012: State of the Art and Practice in Geotechnical Engineering. pp 2971–2980Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jamshidi Chenari R, Alaie R (2015) Effects of anisotropy in correlation structure on the stability of an undrained clay slope. Georisk: Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst Geohaz 9(2):109–123Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jamshidi Chenari R, Mahigir A (2014) The effect of spatial variability and anisotropy of soils on bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Civ Eng Infrastruct J 47(2):199–213Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wolff T (1985) Analysis and design of embankment dam slopes: a probabilistic approach. Soil Mechanics, IndianaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cherubini C Data and considerations on the variability of geotechnical properties of soils. In: Proceedings of the international conference on safety and reliability, ESREL (1997) pp 1583–1591Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yucemen MS, Tang WH, Ang A-S (1973) A probabilistic study of safety and design of earth slopes. University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station. College of Engineering. University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lumb P (1970) Safety factors and the probability distribution of soil strength. Can Geotech J 7(3):225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ranjbar Pouya K, Zhalehjoo N, Jamshidi Chenari R (2014) Influence of random heterogeneity of cross-correlated strength parameters on bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Indian Geotechn J 44(4):427–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    El-Kadi AI, Williams SA (2000) Generating two-dimensional fields of autocorrelated, normally distributed parameters by the matrix decomposition technique. Groundwater 38(4):530–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sina Sasanian
    • 1
  • Abbas Soroush
    • 1
    Email author
  • Reza Jamshidi Chenari
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of GuilanRashtIran

Personalised recommendations