2016 13th Symposium on Neural Networks and Applications (NEUREL)
SAVA Center, Belgrade, Serbia, November 22-24, 2016
Application of artificial neural networks for
slope stability analysis in geotechnical practice
Srÿan Kostiü, Nebojša Vasoviü, Kristina Todoroviü, Andreja Samþoviü
Abstract — In present paper, authors develop a model for
estimation of earth slope stability based on the artificial
neural networks. For this purpose, authors engage multi-
layer feed-forward network with Levenberg-Marquardt
learning algorithm and 14 hidden nodes, using existing
experimental data, and the results of traditional limit
equilibrium analyzes of 57 different cases according to the
predefined experimental plan. The results obtained indicate
high level of statistical reliability (R=0.95 and MSE=0.0035
for testing set of scaled values) and similar estimation
accuracy as the existing mathematical expression for
calculation of slope safety factor.
Keywords — artificial neural network, safety factor, slope
stability, verification
I. INTRODUCTION
S LOPE stability analysis represents one of the main
tasks in geotechnical design, since it provides the
estimation of the slope safety factor against sliding, and,
consequently, enables the appropriate choice of slope
inclination for cuts and embankments. Moreover, slope
stability could serve for the estimation of critical
parameter values (shear strength) at the moment of the
rupture surface formation, using the backward analysis.
There are several methods which are commonly used
for estimation of slope stability. In geotechnical practice
one usually applies limit equilibrium methods, some of
which are very convenient even for a manual calculation,
such as simplified Bishop’s or Janbu’ methods of slices
[1,2]. Recent development of user-friendly software
packages enables easy estimation of slope safety factor
even for complex geological conditions, using methods
which could not be applied by hand, such as Spencer’s
method or Morgenstern-Price method [3,4]. Apart from
limit equilibrium methods, graphical method using
stability diagrams also provides reliable preliminary
estimation of slope stability. The most commonly used
stability diagrams are the ones proposed by Taylor [5],
This work was partly supported by the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technological Development (Contracts No. 176016,
171017 and 32025)
Srÿan Kostiü is with the Institute for Development of Water
Resources ‘’Jaroslav ýerni’’, Jaroslava ýernog 80, 11226 Belgrade,
Serbia (phone:381-11-390-64-50/295;email: srdjan.kostic@jcerni.co.rs).
Nebojša Vasoviü is with the Faculty of Mining and Geology,
University of Belgrade, Ĉušina 7, 11120 Belgrade, Serbia (phone: 381-
11-321-91-07; e mail: nebojsa.vasovic@rgf.bg.ac.rs).
Kristina Todoroviü is with the Faculty of Pharmacy, University of
Belgrade, Vojvode Stepe 450, 11221 Belgrade, Serbia (phone: 381-11-
395-12-99; e mail: kisi@pharmacy.bg.ac.rs).
Andreja Samþoviü is with the Faculty of Transport and Traffic
Engineering, University of Belgrade, Vojvode Stepe 305, 11000
Belgrade, Serbia (phone: 381-11-309-12-17, email: andrej@sf.bg.ac.rs).
‹,(((
Janbu [6], Bishop and Morgenstern [7] and Hoek and
Bray [8]. Recently, increase of the complex calculation
speed using modern computing units enabled the
application of finite element method [9] or plasticity
theorem [10] for slope stability analysis.
In present paper authors examine the possibility of
using the artificial neural network (ANN) for
development of reliable model for estimation of slope
safety factor. One has to note that previous studies also
indicated the positive outcomes of the application of
neural network for slope stability analysis [11-13]. In
particular, Das et al [11] assumed that slope height and
inclination, pore pressure coefficient, unit mass, cohesion
and friction angle primarily determine the slope stability.
Correlation coefficient for three different ANN models is
found to be higher than 0.9, with the root mean squared
error smaller than 0.274. Erzin and Cetin [12] analyzed
675 homogeneous finite slopes with different properties
and derived an ANN model for estimation of slope safety
factor by assuming that slope stability is predominantly
controlled by the impact of the following input factors:
unit weight, cohesion, internal angle of friction, slope
height and cotangent of the slope inclination. Comparison
of the estimated values of slope safety factor with the
results of simplified Bishop’s method indicated high
values of determination coefficient and small error
(R2§0.99, MSE<0.09). Gelisli et al. [13] created an
estimation model for slope safety factor based on artificial
neural network approach, by assuming slope stability as a
function of seven main input factors: slope height, height
of the water level, slope angle, unit weight, cohesion and
angle of internal friction. Results of their research
indicated high level of statistical reliability of the derived
model (R2=0.99). Apart from slope stability analysis,
artificial neural networks were extensively used for
solving other geotechnical issues, such as: transportation
geotechnics [14], mechanical characteristics of soil and
rock [15-17], properties of geopolymers [18] and pile
capacity [19].
The main goal of the presented analysis was multifold:
(1) a new model for estimation of slope safety factor
should be developed; (2) the new model should provide
reliable and accurate estimations; (3) the new model
should provide predictions of similar estimation accuracy
as the existing mathematical expressions. The presented
model is developed for the most commonly determined
range of values for the main soil properties: unit mass,
cohesion, angle of internal friction, pore water pressure
coefficient, bedrock depth, slope inclination and slope
height. As input units authors use the previously obtained
results of stability analyzes using Spencer’s method and
experimental design [20].
The paper is organized as follows. Brief description of
the applied methods is given in Section 2. Section 3 is
devoted to the results of the analysis, including the
definition of the values of input factors, development of
ANN model, and the internal and external verification of
the model accuracy. Discussion and conclusion are given
in Section 5, together with suggestions for further
research.
II. APPLIED METHODS
In order to develop a reliable model for estimation of
earth slope stability, authors engage several methods.
Starting ranges of values for the input parameters (slope
height H and slope inclination ȕ, unit mass Ȗ, cohesion c,
angle of internal friction ij, pore pressure coefficient ru
and bedrock depth d) are chosen as representative values
for clay-marl deposits in Belgrade [20]. Within the
defined starting intervals different combinations of input
parameters are established using the method of
experimental design, with the final aim to uniformly
cover the examined parameter space, so that developed
model could provide reliable and statistically significant
responses. For each combination of input parameters,
slope safety factor is calculated using Spencer's method of
slices, which is considered to be the simplest method
which satisfies all the equlibrium equations of forces and
moments [21]. These values of safety factors, together
with corresponding combinations of parameter values are
used for creating the adequate estimation model by
applying mutlilayer feed-forward neural network with
Levenberg-Marquardt learning algorithm, and 60% of
data for training, 15% for validation and 25% for testing.
Results obtained are then compared with the results of
Spencer's method for values of input factors different
from those used for model derivation, and using the
existing mathematical relation defined for the similar
range of input values as in the present case.
III. RESULTS
A. Definition of input factor values
For starting intervals of the chosen input parameters,
authors chose the most commonly determined values for
clay-marl deposits in Belgrade [20]:
ƒ Slope height H (m): 3-25
ƒ Slope inclination ȕ (0): 3-25
ƒ Unit mass Ȗ (kN/m3): 16-23
ƒ Cohesion c (kPa): 9-90
ƒ Friction angle ij (0): 13-22
ƒ Pore pressure coefficient ru: 0-0.5
ƒ Bedrock depth d/H: 1-3
Using the predetermined ranges from Table I, 57
different combinations of input factors were derived using
experimental design, so as to uniformly cover the
examined parameter space. For these combinations, slope
safety factor is calculated using Spencer’s method of
slices [20]. These data are used for derivation of neural
network model (Table I).
TABLE I: INPUT-OUTPUT FACTORS FOR ANN MODEL
Case Output factor=f (input factors)
No. Fs=f(H, ȕ, Ȗ, c, ij, ru, d/H)
1 1.43 = f(14, 14, 19.5, 9, 13, 0, 2)
2 3.80 = f(14,14, 19.5, 90, 13, 0, 2)
3 2.22 = f(14, 14, 19.5, 9, 22, 0, 2)
4 4.85 = f(14, 14, 19.5, 90, 22, 0, 2)
5 0.86 = f(14, 14, 19.5, 9, 13, 0.5, 2)
6 3.03 = f(14, 14, 19.5, 90, 13, 0.5, 2)
7 1.25 = f(14, 14, 19.5, 9, 22, 0.5, 2)
8 3.58 = f(14, 14, 19.5, 90, 22, 0.5, 2)
9 11.91 = f(3, 14, 19.5, 49.5, 17.5, 0, 1)
10 2.78 = f(25, 14, 19.5, 49.5, 17.5, 0, 1)
11 11.02 = f(3, 14, 19.5, 49.5, 17.5, 0.5, 1)
12 2.01 = f(25, 14, 19.5, 49.5, 17.5, 0.5, 1)
13 7.89 = f(3, 14, 19.5, 49.5, 17.5, 0, 3)
14 2.51 = f(25, 14, 19.5, 49.5, 17.5, 0, 3)
15 6.60 = f(3, 14, 19.5, 49.5, 17.5, 0.5, 3)
16 1.66 = f(25, 14, 19.5, 49.5, 17.5, 0.5, 3)
17 10.52 = f(14, 3, 19.5, 49.5, 13, 0.25, 1)
18 2.06 = f(14, 25, 19.5, 49.5, 13, 0.25, 1)
19 13.23 = f(14, 3, 19.5, 49.5, 22, 0.25, 1)
20 2.43 = f(14, 25, 19.5, 49.5, 22, 0.25, 1)
21 5.97 = f(14, 3, 19.5, 49.5, 13, 0.25, 3)
22 1.85 = f(14, 25, 19.5, 49.5, 13, 0.25, 3)
23 8.71 = f(14, 3, 19.5, 49.5, 22, 0.25, 3)
24 2.27 = f(14, 25, 19.5, 49.5, 22, 0.25, 3)
25 7.83 = f(3, 3, 19.5, 9, 17.5, 0.25, 2)
26 5.06 = f(25, 3, 19.5, 9, 17.5, 0.25, 2)
27 1.87 = f(3, 25, 19.5, 9, 17.5, 0.25, 2)
28 0.76 = f(25, 25, 19.5, 9, 17.5, 0.25, 2)
29 34.25 = f(3, 3, 19.5, 90, 17.5, 0.25, 2)
30 8.38 = f(25, 3, 19.5, 90, 17.5, 0.25, 2)
31 10.55 = f(3, 25, 19.5, 90, 17.5, 0.25, 2)
32 2.09 = f(25, 25, 19.5, 90, 17.5, 0.25, 2)
33 1.61 = f(14, 14, 16, 9, 17.5, 0.25, 1)
34 1.43 = f(14, 14, 23, 9, 17.5, 0.25, 1)
35 6.10 = f(14, 14, 16, 90, 17.5, 0.25, 1)
36 4.66 = f(14, 14, 23, 90, 17.5, 0.25, 1)
37 1.51 = f(14, 14, 16, 9, 17.5, 0.25, 3)
38 1.38 = f(14, 14, 23, 9, 17.5, 0.25, 3)
39 4.34 = f(14, 14, 16, 90, 17.5, 0.25, 3)
40 3.47 = f(14, 14, 23, 90, 17.5, 0.25, 3)
41 8.23 = f(3, 14, 16, 49.5, 13, 0.25, 2)
42 1.93 = f(25, 14, 16, 49.5, 13, 0.25, 2)
43 6.08 = f(3, 14, 23, 49.5, 13, 0.25, 2)
44 1.63 = f(25, 14, 23, 49.5, 13, 0.25, 2)
45 9.11 = f(3, 14, 16, 49.5, 22, 0.25, 2)
46 2.62 = f(25, 14, 16, 49.5, 22, 0.25, 2)
47 6.96 = f(3, 14, 23, 49.5, 22, 0.25, 2)
48 2.29 = f(25, 14, 23, 49.5, 22, 0.25, 2)
49 10.73 = f(14, 3, 16, 49.5, 17.5, 0, 2)
50 2.64 = f(14, 25, 16, 49.5, 17.5, 0, 2)
51 9.34 = f(14, 3, 23, 49.5, 17.5, 0, 2)
52 2.14 = f(14, 25, 23, 49.5, 17.5, 0, 2)
53 7.52 = f(14, 3, 16, 49.5, 17.5, 0.5, 2)
54 2.02 = f(14, 25, 16, 49.5, 17.5, 0.5, 2)
55 6.20 = f(14, 3, 23, 49.5, 17.5, 0.5, 2)
56 1.57 = f(14, 25, 23, 49.5, 17.5, 0.5, 2)
57 2.74 = f(14, 14, 19.5, 49.5, 17.5, 0.25, 2)
B. Neural network model
Following the suggestion of Rumelhart et al. [22],
Lippmann [23] and Sonmez et al. [24] one hidden layer
was chosen in present study, while authors chose 14
hidden nodes as suggested by Kannellopoulas and
Wilkinson [25], who proposed that number of hidden
nodes should be two time larger than the number of input
factors.
The initial weights were set in the range [-1.0;1.0]. In
all the examined cases, the total data set has been divided
as following: 60% for training (34 recordings), 15% for
validation (9 recordings) and 25% for testing (14
recordings), which corresponds well with the suggestion
of Nelson and Illingworth [26] who supported the idea of
20-30% of data for testing.
Considering different units of input factors, their
scaling was necessary, and it was performed in the
following way:
scaled value =
(max.value − unscaled value) (1)
(max.value − min.value)
In that way, numerical values of the analyzed
parameter were normalized in the range of [0,1].
In present paper, in order to create an adequate ANN
model for estimation of slope stability, based on the
calculated data, a three-layer artificial neural network is
chosen using Levenberg-Marquardt learning algorithm.
This training algorithm is commonly considered as the
fastest method for training moderate-sized feed-forward
neural networks [27], and it is the first choice for solving
the problems of supervised learning, which is the case in
present analysis. A sigmoid function was chosen for the
activation function, as the most common transfer function
implemented in the literature [24].
Fig. 2. Comparison of the scaled values of Fs estimated by
The first task in development of a reliable ANN model
ANN model and Spencer’s method of slices using training set
is to exclude the possibility of overfitting, when the ANN (a), validation set (b) and testing set (c), for ANN model with
model tends to memorize instead of learning the data. In 14 hidden nodes.
order to minimize overfitting, any increase in accuracy
over the training data set should yield an increase in Regarding the properties of residuals, obtained results
accuracy over a data set that the network has not trained indicate that residuals for the testing set represent
on it. As it is clear from Figure 1, the training stopped sequence of independent numbers that follow normal
when the validation error increased for six iterations, distribution, indicated by p-value larger than 0.05 for
which occurred at iteration 3. In present case, the result is Anderson-Darling test (Fig. 3).
reasonable because the final mean-square error is small
(MSE=0.0035), the test set error and the validation set
error have approximately the same properties and no
significant overfitting has occurred by iteration 3 (where
the best validation performance occurs).

Fig. 3. Testing the normal distribution of residuals for

testing set (Anderson-Darling test).

Explicit equation for the derived ANN model with 14

hidden neurons could be given in the following matrix
Fig. 1. MSE versus the number of epochs for training, form:
validation and testing data, for ANN model with 14 hidden
nodes. Full line denotes the training set, dashed line –
validation set and dotted line – testing set. Best validation
performance is 0.0035 at epoch 3.
Resulting neural network model is shown for training
(Figure 2a), validation (Figure 2b) and testing set (Figure
2c). It is clear that developed ANN model with 14 hidden
nodes has high coefficient of correlation (R§0.95) for
testing set, approximately the same value of R for training
and validation set and with statistically small value of
MSE (0.00088, 0.0055 and 0.0035 for training, validation
and testing set, respectively), indicating good
performance of the proposed model.
 Fs = abs[tanh[0.2698 + [0.2198 − 0.0873 − 0.0541 − 0.3968 of the safety factor for slopes given in Table II are
0.01523 0.0373 0.0823 0.0523 − 0.0539 − 0.0577 − 0.0794 determined using Spencer's method of slices (Table III).
ªª− 2.2090º ª 0.6114 º
«« » « » TABLE II: RANDOM PROPERTIES OF SLOPES FOR VERIFICATION OF
««− 1.6599 » « 0.8545 » THE PROPOSED MODEL (2).
««1.3671 » «− 0.9270»
«« » « » Numerical
««− 1.5765 » « 1.5890 » H ȕ Ȗ c ij
example ru d/H
««− 1.0625 » « 0.2430 » (m) ( 0) (kN/m3) (kPa) ( 0)
«« » « » No.
««− 0.4491» « 0.8155 » 1 7 21 19 12 18 0.22 2.8
««0.2382 » «− 0.5937» 2 21 12 20 64 15 0.45 2.4
0.1400 − 0.1308 0.4213] * tanh«« »+« »*H 3 23 13 21 19 20 0.33 2.2
««0.1988 » « 1.3873 » 4 19 19 20 74 18.5 0.11 1.5
«« » « »
««0.5690 » « 0.6757 » 5 20 11 21.5 66 19 0.35 1.2
««0.7939 » « 0.7992 »
«« » « » TABLE IV: ESTIMATED VALUES OF FS BY PROPOSED MODEL (2)
««1.3082 » «− 0.3300»
««− 2.0140» «− 0.5570» FOR NUMERICAL EXAMPLES IN TABLE III
«« » « » Case Fs1 (Spencer abs(Fs1-
««− 2.3333» «− 0.7445» Fs2 (Eq. 2)
«« » « » No. method) Fs2)
¬¬2.3257 ¼ ¬− 0.6967¼ 1 1.61 1.81 0.20
ª− 0.0264º ª 1.1257 º ª − 1.0605º ª− 0.7625º 2 2.14 2.35 0.21
« 0.6181 » «− 0.5819» «− 0.9076» « 1.4969 »
« » « » « » « » 3 1.62 1.83 0.21
«− 0.8672» « 1.3923 » «− 0.3922» «− 0.2513» 4 2.71 2.88 0.17
« » « » « » « »
« 0.3782 » « 0.6093 » «− 0.8807» «− 0.4539» 5 3.19 2.87 0.32
« 1.7294 » « − 0.0991» « 0.3783 » « 0.2252 »
« » « » « » « » The obtained results indicate high level of prediction
« 0.3662 » « − 0 .4177» « 0.4852 » « − 0.3971»
« 0.3155 » « 1.3440 » « 0.6350 » « 0.2734 » accuracy, with small estimation error (< 0.32) (Table III).
+« »*β + « » *γ + « »*c + « » *ϕ Hence, it is clear that the proposed model (2) enables the
« 1.1775 » «− 0.0447» « − 0.2533» « − 1.0420»
« » « » « » « » estimation of the Fs with high statistical reliability.
« 0.9205 » «− 0.4717» « 0.0182 » « − 1.0765»
« 0.6625 » « 0.9390 » « 0.8478 » « 1.0585 » D. External verification
« » « » « » « »
« − 0 .8920» « 0 .4601 » « − 1 .0809 » « − 1.4191» In order to justify the need for the new estimation
« 0.3764 » « 0.9156 » «− 0.4468» « 0.8833 » model, it is necessary to compare its prediction accuracy
« » « » « » « »
« − 0 .5830» « 1. 1175 » « − 0 . 5372» « 0.3557 » with the existing mathematical expressions. For this
« − 1.8683» « » « 0.5168 » «− 0.3020» purpose, authors analyze the following model:
¬ ¼ ¬ 0.0626 ¼ ¬ ¼ ¬ ¼
1§
ª 0.5287 º ª 0.0410 º Fs =
H© ¹
( )
¨1.406 + 0.039c × csc ϕ ·¸ + 1.25 1 − ru tan ϕ cot β
2
(3)
« 0.0222 » «− 0.0387»
« » « » 1
+ 0.156 sec ϕ + 0.011 csc β
« 0.2647 » « 0.6215 » γ
« » « »
« 0.5175 » « − 0.1071» which was developed by Yang et al. [28], for the same
« 0.3387 » «− 0.7776» input parameters as in present study, except for the
« » « »
« − 1.4711» « 0.8004 » bedrock depth. The range of input parameters used for
« 1.0237 » « − 1.1106» deriving this model is the following: H (3.66-214m), ȕ
+« » * ru + « » * (d / H )]]] (2) (16-530), Ȗ (12-28.44 kN/m3), c (0-150.05kPa), ij (0-450),
«− 0.1130» « 0.0106 »
« » « » ru (0.11-0.5). Hence, analyzed range of input parameters
«− 0.8568» « 0.6820 » partially fall within the range of the model developed in
« 0.8320 » «− 0.3227»
« » « » present study. The range of input values for unit mass Ȗ,
« 0.8745 » «− 0.1042» cohesion c and friction angle ij for the model (2) falls
« 0.8337 » « − 0.0761»
« » « » within the parameter range for existing equation (3),
« 0.5448 » « 0.7526 » while the minimum values of slope height H, slope
«− 0.1986» «− 0.7620» inclination ȕ and pore pressure coefficient ru for model (2)
¬ ¼ ¬ ¼
2 are lower than those for Eq. (3).
where tanh(n ) =
(1+ e−2n ) −1 , H, ȕ, Ȗ, c, ij, r and d/H
u In order to examine the drawbacks/benefits of
implementing the present model (2) over the existing
denote the input data, and Fs stands for the output Equation (3), authors analyze 5 random cases from Table
value (slope safety factor). II. Values of Fs obtained by model (2) are compared with
the results of Spencer’s method and Eq. (3) in Figure 4.

C. Internal verification
In order to further confirm the reliability of the
proposed model (2), its predictive power is tested by
analyzing 5 random samples of slopes with geometrical
characteristics and soil properties, different from those
used for deriving the model (2) (Table III). Exact values

Fig. 4. Comparison of the slope safety factor determined
by the Spencer's method (light gray column), proposed model
(2) (dark gray column) and by the existing equation (3) (black
column). Values for input factors are given in Table III.
As it can be seen in Fig. 4, proposed prediction model
(2) provides similar prediction accuracy as the existing
model (3). One could notice that Eq. (3) does not include
the impact of bedrock depth on slope stability. Still, it
provides similar prediction accuracy as the derived model
(2), which implies that the effect of bedrock depth on
slope stability, in present case, is minimal.
IV. CONCLUSION
In present paper, we developed a prediction model for
safety factor (Fs) of homogeneous slope based on
artificial neural networks. It was assumed that seven main
factors predetermine the slope stability: height H, slope
inclination ȕ, unit mass Ȗ, cohesion c, angle of internal
friction ij, pore pressure coefficient ru and bedrock depth
d/H. As input values, authors use the results of stability
analyzes of 57 different slopes, which are previously set
using in situ determined range of values and
experimental design. In testing phase, proposed model (2)
shows high correlation coefficient (R=0.95) and small
MSE (0.0035) for scaled values. The proposed model is
verified by analyzing five samples of slopes with random
geometrical and soil properties within the examined range
of input parameters. The obtained results indicate high
level of estimation accuracy, with the difference from the
results of Spencer’s method smaller than 0.32. When
compared to the existing mathematical expression
proposed by Yang et al. [28], derived model provides
similar estimation accuracy.
One could notice that, on the basis of the results of
conducted research, model based on artificial neural
networks is able to provide reliable results reducing the
number of analyzes needed for calculation of Fs, without
the loss of statistical reliability and estimation accuracy.
It should be emphasized that model proposed by the
current analysis, represents a simplified model for
estimation of slope safety factor. Future studies in this
direction should include the derivation of estimation
model for heterogeneous slope conditions, with the
possibility of locating the rupture surface.
REFERENCES
[1] A.W. Bishop, “The Use of the Slip Circle in the Stability Analysis
of Slopes,” Geotechnique, Vol. 5, pp 7 – 17, 1955.
[2] N. Janbu, ‘’Slope Stability Computations,’’ in Embankment Dam
Engineering - Casagrande Volume, R.C. Hirschfeld and S.J.
Poulos, Ed.,New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973, pp 47-86.
[3] E. Spencer, A method of analysis of the stability of embankments
assuming parallel interslice forces. Geotechnique, Vol. 17pp. 11-
26, 1967.
[4] N.R. Morgenstern and V.E. Price, ‘’The analysis of the stability
of general slip surfaces,’’ Geotechnique, Vol. 15, pp. 79-93, 1965.
[5] D.W. Taylor, ‘’Stability of earth slopes,’’ Journal of the Boston
Society of Civil Engineering, pp. 24-31, 1937.
[6] N. Janbu, "Stability Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless
Parameters," in Soil Mechanics Series, No. 46, Harvard
University, 81 p., 1954.
[7] A.W. Bishop, and N.R. Morgenstern, ‘’Stability coefficients for
earth slopes,’’ Geotechnique, Vol. 10, pp. 129-150, 1960.
[8] E. Hoek and J.W. Bray. Rock slope engineering, third Edition,
B.C., Canada, 1981.
[9] Y. Huo and H. Zhai ‘’The study on slope stability analysis based
on finite element method,’’ Advanced Materials Research, Vol.
575, pp. 70-74, 2012.
[10] L.H. Zhao, L. Li, F. Yang, Q. Luo and X. Liu, ‘’Upper bound
analysis of slope stability with nonlinear failure criterion based on
strength reduction technique,’’ Journal of Central South
University of Technology, Vol. 17, pp. 836-844, 2010.
[11] S.K. Das, R.K. Biswal, N. Sivakugan and B. Das, ‘‘Classification
of slopes and prediction of factor of safety using differential
evolution neural networks,’’ Environmental Earth Sciences, Vol.
64, pp. 201-210, 2011.
[12] Y. Erzin and T. Cetin, ‘’The prediction of the critical factor of
safety of homogeneous finite slopes using neural networks and
multiple regressions,’’ Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 51, pp.
305-313, 2013.
[13] K. Gelisli, T. Kaya and A.E. Babacan, ‘’Assessing the factor of
safety using an artificial neural network: case studies on
landslides in Giresun Turkey,‘’ Environmental Earth Sciences,
Vol. 73, pp. 8639–8646, 2015.
[14] A. Gomes Correia, P. Cortez, J. Tinoco and R. Marques,
‘’Artificial Intelligence Applications in Transportation
Geotechnics’’ Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol.
31, pp. 861–879, 2013.
[15] J.Lai, J. Qiu, Z. Feng, J. Chen and H. Fan, ‘’Prediction of Soil
Deformation in Tunnelling Using Artificial Neural Networks,’’
Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience
Vol. 2016 Article ID 6708183, 16 pages, 2016.
[16] V. Kohestani and M. Hassanlourad, "Modeling the Mechanical
Behavior of Carbonate Sands Using Artificial Neural Networks
and Support Vector Machines," International Journal of
Geomechanics, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000509,
04015038, 2015.
[17] J. Tinoco, A. Gomes Correia, P. Cortez, ‘’A novel approach to
predicting Young's modulus of jet grouting laboratory
formulations over time using data mining techniques,’’
Engineering Geology, Vol. 169, pp. 50–60, 2014.
[18] M. M. Yadollahia, A. Benlia and R. Demirbog, ‘’Prediction of
compressive strength of geopolymer composites using an
artificial neural network,’’ Materials Research Innovations Vol.
19, pp. 453-458, 2015.
[19] D. J. Armaghani, R. Shoib, K. Faizi, A. Rashid, ‘’Developing a
hybrid PSO–ANN model for estimating the ultimate bearing
capacity of rock-socketed piles,’’ Neural Computing and
Applications doi: 10.1007/s00521-015-2072-z
[20] S. Kostiü, N. Vasoviü and D. Jevremoviü. 2015. Stability of earth
slopes under the effect of main environmental properties of
weathered clay-marl deposits in Belgrade (Serbia). Environmental
Earth Sciences, Vol. 75, doi: 10.1007/s12665-016-5339-5
[21] J.M. Duncan, S.G. Wright, Soil strength and slope stability. New
York: Wiley.
[22] D.E. Rumelhart, G.E. Hinton and R.J. Williams, ‘’Learning
internal representation by error propagation’’ In Parallel
distribution processing, D.E.,Rumelhart and J.L.McCleland, Eds.
1986, 1318-1362
[23] R.P. Lipmann, ‘’An introduction to computing with neural nets,’’
IEEE ASSP Mag, Vol. 4, pp. 4-22, 1987.
[24] H. Sonmez, C. Gokceoglu, H.A. Nefeslioglu, A. Kayabasi,
‘’Estimation of rock modulus: For intact rocks with an artificial
 neural network and for rock masses with a new empirical
equation,’’ International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, Vol. 43, pp. 224-235, 2006.
[25] I. Kanellopoulas and G.G. Wilkinson, ‘’Strategies and best
practice for neural network image classification,’’ International
Journal of Remote Sensing, Vol. 18, 711-725, 1997.
[26] M. Nelson, W.T. Illingworth, A practical guide to neural nets,
Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990.
[27] B. Tiryaki, ‘’Application of artificial neural networks for
predicting the cuttability of rocks by drag tools’’ Tunneling and
Underground Space Technology, Vol. 23, pp. 273-280, 2008.
[28] C. Yang, X.T. Tham Feng, Y. J. Wang, and P.K.K. Lee, “Two-
stepped evolutionary algorithm and its application to stability
analysis of slopes.” Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering,
Vol.18, pp. 145–153, 2004.