Practical reliability analysis of slope stability by advanced Monte Carlo simulations in a spreadsheet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper develops a Monte Carlo simulation (MCS)-based reliability analysis approach for slope stability problems and utilizes an advanced MCS method called “subset simulation” for improving efficiency and resolution of the MCS at relatively small probability levels. Reliability analysis is operationally decoupled from deterministic slope stability analysis and implemented using a commonly available spreadsheet software, Microsoft Excel. The reliability analysis spreadsheet package is validated through comparison with other reliability analysis methods and commercial software. The spreadsheet package is then used to explore the effect of spatial variability of the soil properties and critical slip surface. It is found that, when spatial variability of soil properties is ignored by assuming perfect correlation, the variance of the factor of safety (FS) is overestimated, which may result in either over (conservative) or under (unconservative) estimation of the probability of failure (P f = P(FS < 1)). When the spatial variability of soil properties is considered, the critical slip surface varies spatially and such spatial variability should be properly accounted for. Otherwise, the probability of failure can be significantly underestimated and unconservative.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".