See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235299471

A new approach for prediction of the stability of soil and rock slopes

Article  in  Engineering Computations · October 2010

DOI: 10.1108/02644401011073700

CITATIONS READS

53 1,568

3 authors:

Alireza Ahangar-Asr Asaad Faramarzi

University of Salford University of Birmingham
31 PUBLICATIONS   406 CITATIONS    67 PUBLICATIONS   777 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Akbar Javadi
University of Exeter
236 PUBLICATIONS   2,830 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Optimisation of Enhanced Geothermal Systems View project

Alternative Raw Materials with Low Impact (ARLI) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Asaad Faramarzi on 11 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


EC
27,7
878
Received 30 July 2009
Revised 25 January 2010
Accepted 29 January 2010
Engineering Computations:
International Journal for Computer-
Aided Engineering and Software
Vol. 27 No. 7, 2010
pp. 878-893
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0264-4401
DOI 10.1108/02644401011073700
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-4401.htm
A new approach for prediction
of the stability of soil and
rock slopes
Alireza Ahangar-Asr, Asaad Faramarzi and Akbar A. Javadi
Computational Geomechanics Group, School of Engineering, Computer Science
and Mathematics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Abstract
Purpose – Analysis of stability of slopes has been the subject of many research works in the past
decades. Prediction of stability of slopes is of great importance in many civil engineering structures
including earth dams, retaining walls and trenches. There are several parameters that contribute to
the stability of slopes. This paper aims to present a new approach, based on evolutionary polynomial
regression (EPR), for analysis of stability of soil and rock slopes.
Design/methodology/approach – EPR is a data-driven method based on evolutionary computing,
aimed to search for polynomial structures representing a system. In this technique, a combination of
the genetic algorithm and the least square method is used to find feasible structures and the
appropriate constants for those structures.
Findings – EPR models are developed and validated using results from sets of field data on the
stability status of soil and rock slopes. The developed models are used to predict the factor of safety
of slopes against failure for conditions not used in the model building process. The results show that
the proposed approach is very effective and robust in modelling the behaviour of slopes and provides
a unified approach to analysis of slope stability problems. It is also shown that the models can predict
various aspects of behaviour of slopes correctly.
Originality/value – In this paper a new evolutionary data mining approach is presented for the
analysis of stability of soil and rock slopes. The new approach overcomes the shortcomings of
the traditional and artificial neural network-based methods presented in the literature for the analysis
of slopes. EPR provides a viable tool to find a structured representation of the system, which allows
the user to gain additional information on how the system performs.
Keywords Slope deflection method, Stability (control theory), Geological analysis, Rocks, Soils,
Programming and algorithm theory
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Estimation of the stability of a rock or soil slope is a complex problem due to the
heterogeneous nature of soil and rock masses, the large number of parameters involved
and the difficulty in determining the geotechnical parameters. In practice, only an
approximate general description of the physical and geometric characteristics of the
slope can usually be obtained. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the values of the
essential input parameters accurately.
Traditional limit equilibrium techniques are the most commonly used methods
for analysis of stability of slopes. In this approach, the shape and location of the
critical failure surface are assumed rather than determined. It is also assumed that
the soil (or rock) moves as a rigid block with movements only occurring on the
failure surface. The factor of safety (FS) is defined as the ratio of reaction over
action, expressed in terms of moments or forces, depending on the mode of failure
and the geometry of the slip surface considered. In rotational mechanisms of failure,
for example, FS is defined, in terms of moments about the centre of the failure arc,
as the ratio of the moment of the resisting shear forces along the failure surface over
the moment of weight of the failure mass. These computational methods vary in
terms of degrees of accuracy, depending on the suitability of the simplifying Stability of soil
assumptions for the situation under investigation. and rock slopes
In rock masses, the potential mechanism of failure can be wedge or planar,
depending on the orientation of joint sets. In soils and highly fractured rocks this
mechanism can be rotational. In evaluating the stability of slope using limit
equilibrium methods, it is necessary to determine the shape and location of the critical
slip surface and the minimum value of FS corresponding to that surface. This usually
involves analysing a large number of possible trial slip surfaces.
879
In the methods introduced by Taylor (1937) and Bishop and Donald (1961), the slip
surface is approximated with an arc of a circle. Other methods e.g. those introduced by
Janbu (1954), Spencer (1967), Sarma (1975), and Hoek and Bray (1981) assume different
shapes for the slip surface. The accuracy of these methods depends on the assumptions
made in developing the method and the accuracy with which shear strength parameters
can be determined. In all cases, it is assumed that the soils are isotropic and homogeneous.
These assumptions often lead to reasonable predictions when applied sensibly.
Stability analysis using charts is another method that is less complicated and provides a
rapid and potentially useful means of preliminary slope stability estimation (Duncan, 1996).
Although the conventional methods of stability analysis have been widely used for
analysis of stability of soil and rock slopes, these methods have a number of
shortcomings. For example, the existing methods of stability analysis for slopes on
cohesive soils are based on:
. assuming a slip surface and a centre about which it rotates;
. studying the equilibrium of the forces acting on this surface; and
. repeating the analysis on several different trial failure surfaces from different
centres, until the most critical slip surface is found.
The most critical slip surface is the one that yields the lowest FS. In these methods, a
number of assumptions and simplifications have been made in order to reduce the
computational time and cost and the complexity of the analysis. For example, the
failure slip surface is assumed to be of a specific predetermined shape, the inter-slice
forces may be ignored, etc.
In recent years, the use of artificial neural network (ANN) has been introduced as an
alternative approach for analysis of stability of slopes. Sakellariou and Ferentinou (2005)
used a neural network to acquire the relationship between the parameters involved in
analysis of stability of slopes. They used the models introduced by Hoek and Bray (1981)
in order to produce test data to validate the quality of training of the ANN model. Although
neural networks are very effective in capturing and representing the behaviour of
engineering systems, they suffer from a number of shortcomings. One of the drawbacks of
neural network is that the optimum structure of ANN (e.g. number of hidden layers,
number of neurons, transfer functions, etc.) should be identified a priori. This is usually
done through a trial and error procedure. The other major shortcoming is related to the
black box nature of ANN model and the fact that the relationship between input and
output parameters of the system is described in terms of a weight matrix and biases that
are currently not accessible to user understanding. In fact the black box nature and lack of
interpretability have prevented ANNs from achieving their full potential in engineering
applications (Rezania et al., 2008).
In this paper a new approach is introduced for analysis of stability of soil and rock
slopes using evolutionary polynomial regression (EPR). EPR is a new data mining
EC technique that integrates numerical and symbolic regression to represent the behaviour
27,7 of a system. It uses polynomial structures to take advantage of their favourable
mathematical properties. The main idea behind the EPR is to use evolutionary search for
exponents of polynomial expressions by means of a genetic algorithm (GA) engine while
the parameters of the function are determined using the least square method. This allows
easy computational implementation of the algorithm, efficient search for an explicit
expression (formula) and improved control of the complexity of the expression generated
880 (Rezania et al., 2008). EPR overcomes the shortcomings of ANNs by providing a
structured and transparent model representing the behaviour of the system.
The proposed technique is capable of capturing the behaviour of slopes from the
actual (field or experimental) data and making accurate predictions for other unseen
cases. EPR models are developed and validated using results from sets of field data.
The results show that the proposed approach is very effective and robust in modelling
the behaviour of slopes and provides a unified approach to analysis of slope stability
problems. Results from a sensitivity analysis show that the models can predict various
aspects of behaviour of slopes correctly.
In what follows the main principles of EPR will be outlined and EPR models will be
developed and evaluated for stability analysis and prediction of failure status of soil and
rock slopes.
Evolutionary polynomial regression
EPR is a data-driven method based on evolutionary computing, aimed to search for
polynomial structures representing a system. A general EPR expression can be
presented as (Rezania et al., 2008):
X
n
y¼ FðX; fðXÞ; aj Þ þ a0 ð1Þ
j¼1

where y is the estimated vector of output of the process, aj is a constant, F is a function

constructed by the process, X is the matrix of input variables, f is a function defined by
the user and n is the number of terms of the target expression. The general functional
structure represented by FðX; fðxÞ; aj Þ is constructed from elementary functions by
EPR using a GA strategy. The GA is employed to select the useful input vectors from
X to be combined. The building blocks (elements) of the structure of F are defined by
the user based on understanding of the physical process. While the selection of feasible
structures to be combined is done through an evolutionary process the parameters aj
are estimated by the least square method (Figure 1).
In this technique, the combination of the GA to find feasible structures and the least
square method to find the appropriate constants for those structures implies some
advantages. In particular, the GA allows a global exploration of the error surface relevant to
specifically defined objective functions. By using such objective functions some criteria can
be selected to be satisfied through the search process. These criteria can be set in order to
. avoid the overfitting of models;
. push the models towards simpler structures; and
. avoid unnecessary terms representative of the noise in data.
EPR shows robustness and in every situation can get a model truly representative of
data. An interesting feature of EPR is in the possibility of getting more than one model
 Stability of soil
and rock slopes

881

Figure 1.
Typical flow diagram
for the EPR procedure

for a complex phenomenon. A further feature of EPR is the high level of interactivity
between the user and the methodology. The user physical insight can be used to make
hypotheses on the elements of the target function and on its structure (Equation (1)).
Selecting an appropriate objective function, assuming pre-selected elements in
Equation (1) based on engineering judgement, and working with dimensional
information enable refinement of final models (Giustolisi and Savic, 2006). Detailed
explanation of the method can be found in the works of Rezania et al. (2008).

Database
In this paper a new approach is presented, for analysis of stability of slopes in soil and
rock. The methodology involves development and verification of EPR models for
determination of FS for soil and rock slopes. The input data consist of six input
parameters in the case of circular failure mechanism for cohesive soils and eight input
EC parameters in the case of wedge failure mechanism for rocks. The output of the EPR
27,7 models presents an FS that demonstrates the status of stability of the slope.
Two data sets, overall consisting of 67 case studies of slopes with circular critical
failure mechanism are used in this study (Sakellariou and Ferentinou, 2005) (Tables I
and II). Of these, 25 cases involve dry soil conditions (13 failed and 12 stable) and 42
cases involve wet conditions (20 failed and 22 stable). The third data set consists of
882 22 case studies of rock slopes involving wedge failure mechanism (Table III). All cases
involve dry rock conditions, with ten cases of failed slope and 12 cases of stable slopes
(Sah et al., 1994). These data cover a wide range of parameter values.
The main parameters contributing to the stability of a slope can, in general, be
categorized in two classes of geotechnical properties and geometrical characteristics of
the slope. More specifically, the parameters used for circular failure mechanism in soils
(Figure 2(a)) are unit weight (g), apparent cohesion (c), angle of internal friction (w),
slope angle (b), height (H) and pore water pressure parameter (r u).
The data are divided into two sets; one set is used for development of the EPR model
and the other one is used for validation and evaluation of the generalization capabilities
of the developed EPR model.
In this study the data set was divided into several random combinations of training
and validation sets until a robust representation of the whole population was achieved
for both training and validation sets. To select the most robust representation, a
statistical analysis was performed on the input and output parameters of the randomly
selected training and validation subsets. The aim of the analysis was to ensure that the

Reference No. g (kN/m3) c (kPa) ’ (degree) b (degree) H (m) ru F

Hoek and Bray (1981) 1 21.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 12.00 0.00 1.84
2 21.00 45.00 25.00 49.00 12.00 0.30 1.53
3 21.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 12.00 0.40 1.49
4 21.00 35.00 28.00 40.00 12.00 0.50 1.43
5 20.00 10.00 29.00 34.00 6.00 0.30 1.34
6 20.00 40.00 30.00 30.00 15.00 0.30 1.84
7 18.00 45.00 25.00 25.00 14.00 0.30 2.09
8 19.00 30.00 35.00 35.00 11.00 0.20 2.00
9 20.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 10.00 0.20 2.31
Hudson (1992b) 10 18.85 24.80 21.30 29.20 37.00 0.50 1.07
11 18.85 10.34 21.30 34.00 37.00 0.30 1.29
Lin et al. (1988) 12 18.80 30.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 0.10 1.40
13 18.80 25.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 0.20 1.18
14 18.80 20.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 0.30 0.97
15 19.10 10.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 0.40 0.65
16 18.80 30.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 0.10 1.46
17 18.80 25.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 0.20 1.21
18 18.80 20.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 0.30 1.00
19 19.10 10.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 0.40 0.65
Madzic (1988) 20 22.00 20.00 22.00 20.00 180.00 0.00 1.12
21 22.00 20.00 22.00 20.00 180.00 0.10 0.99
Table I.
Mechanism of circular Source: Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 23, 2005, p. 431, M. G. Sakellariou and M. D.
failure (21 data cases) Ferentinou, Table 3, # Springer 2005. With kind permission of Springer Science and Business Media
 w b
Case g (kN/m3) c (kPa) (degree) (degree) H (m) ru F S Moisture Location

1 18.68 26.34 15 35 8.23 0.00 1.11 Failed Dry Congress street, open cut slope, Chicago, USA
2 16.50 11.49 0 30 3.66 0.00 1.00 Failed Dry Brightlingsea slide, UK
3 18.84 14.36 25 20 30.50 0.00 1.875 Stable Dry Unknown
4 18.84 57.46 20 20 30.50 0.00 2.045 Stable Dry Unknown
5 28.44 29.42 35 35 100.00 0.00 1.78 Stable Dry Case 1: open pit iron ore mine, India
6 28.44 39.23 38 35 100.00 0.00 1.99 Stable Dry Case 2: open pit iron ore mine, India
7 20.60 16.28 26.5 30 40.00 0.00 1.25 Failed Dry Open pit chromite mine, Orissa, India
8 14.80 0.00 17 20 50.00 0.00 1.13 Failed Dry Sarukuygi landslide, Japan
9 14.00 11.97 26 30 88.00 0.00 1.02 Failed Dry Case 1: open pit iron ore mine, Goa, India
10 25.00 120.00 45 53 120.00 0.00 1.30 Stable Dry Mercoirol open pit coal mine, France
11 26.00 150.05 45 50 200.00 0.00 1.20 Stable Dry Marquesade open pit iron ore mine, Spain
12 18.50 25.00 0 30 6.00 0.00 1.09 Failed Dry Unknown
13 18.50 12.00 0 30 6.00 0.00 0.78 Failed Dry Unknown
14 22.40 10.00 35 30 10.00 0.00 2.00 Stable Dry Case 1: highvale coal mine, Alberta, Canada
15 21.40 10.00 30.34 30 20.00 0.00 1.70 Stable Dry Case 2: highvale coal mine, Alberta, Canada
16 22.00 20.00 36 45 50.00 0.00 1.02 Failed Dry Case 1: open pit coal mine, Newcastle coalfield, Australia
17 22.00 0.00 36 45 50.00 0.00 0.89 Failed Dry Case 2: open pit coal mine, Newcastle coalfield, Australia
18 12.00 0.00 30 35 4.00 0.00 1.46 Stable Dry Unknown
19 12.00 0.00 30 45 8.00 0.00 0.80 Failed Dry Unknown
20 12.00 0.00 30 35 4.00 0.00 1.44 Stable Dry Unknown
21a 12.00 0.00 30 45 8.00 0.00 0.86 Failed Dry Unknown
22 23.47 0.00 32 37 214.00 0.00 1.08 Failed Dry Pima open pit mine, Arizona, USA
23 16.00 70.00 20 40 115.00 0.00 1.11 Failed Dry Case 1: Wyoming, USA
24 20.41 24.90 13 22 10.67 0.35 1.40 Stable Wet Seven Sisters Landslide, UK
25 19.63 11.97 20 22 12.19 0.405 1.35 Failed Wet Case 1: the Northolt slide, UK
(continued)

failure (46 data cases)

Table II.
Mechanism of circular
Stability of soil

883
and rock slopes
 EC
27,7

884

Table II.
w b
Case g (kN/m3) c (kPa) (degree) (degree) H (m) ru F S Moisture Location

26 21.82 8.62 32 28 12.80 0.49 1.03 Failed Wet Selset Landslide, Yorkshire, UK
27 20.41 33.52 11 16 45.72 0.20 1.28 Failed Wet Saskatchewan dam, Canada
28 18.84 15.32 30 25 10.67 0.38 1.63 Stable Wet Case 2: the Northolt slide, UK
29 18.84 0.00 20 20 7.62 0.45 1.05 Failed Wet Sudbury slide, UK
30 21.43 0.00 20 20 61.00 0.50 1.03 Failed Wet Folkstone Warren slide, Kent, UK
31 19.06 11.71 28 35 21.00 0.11 1.09 Failed Wet River bank side, Alberta, Canada
32 18.84 14.36 25 20 30.50 0.45 1.11 Failed Wet Unknown
33 21.51 6.94 30 31 76.81 0.38 1.01 Failed Wet Unknown
34 14.00 11.97 26 30 88.00 0.45 0.625 Failed Wet Case 2: open pit iron ore mine, Goa, India
35 18.00 24.00 30.15 45 20.00 0.12 1.12 Failed Wet Athens slope, Greece
36 23.00 0.00 20 20 100.00 0.30 1.20 Failed Wet Open pit coal mine Allori coalfield, Italy
37 22.40 100.00 45 45 15.00 0.25 1.80 Stable Wet Case 1: open pit coal mine, Alberta, Canada
38 22.40 10.00 35 45 10.00 0.40 0.90 Failed Wet Case 2: open pit coal mine, Alberta, Canada
39 20.00 20.00 36 45 50.00 0.25 0.96 Failed Wet Case 3: open pit coal mine, Newcastle coalfield, Australia
40 20.00 20.00 36 45 50.00 0.50 0.83 Failed Wet Case 4: open pit coal mine, Newcastle coalfield, Australia
41 20.00 0.00 36 45 50.00 0.25 0.79 Failed Wet Case 5: open pit coal mine, Newcastle coalfield, Australia
42 20.00 0.00 36 45 50.00 0.50 0.67 Failed Wet Case 6: open pit coal mine, Newcastle coalfield, Australia
43 22.00 0.00 40 33 8.00 0.35 1.45 Stable Wet Case 1: Harbour slope, Newcastle, Australia
44 24.00 0.00 40 33 8.00 0.30 1.58 Stable Wet Case 2: Harbour slope, Newcastle, Australia
45 20.00 0.00 24.5 20 8.00 0.35 1.37 Stable Wet Case 3: Harbour slope, Newcastle, Australia
46 18.00 5.00 30 20 8.00 0.30 2.05 Stable Wet Case 4: Harbour slope, Newcastle, Australia

Notes: aIn the original data (Sah et al., 1994, Table 1) case 21 has a value of F ¼ 1.86, but it is also given that the slope failed; in Table 3 (Sah et al.,
1994), F value is corrected, F¼ 0.86
Source: Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 23, 2005, pp. 428-429, M. G. Sakellariou and M. D. Ferentinou, Table 1, # Springer 2005. With kind
permission of Springer Science and Business Media
Case g (kN/m3) cA cB (kPa) wA (degree) wB (degree) cp (degree) cf (degree) H (m) F S Moisture Location

1 20.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 45.00 60.00 100.00 0.86 Failed Dry Lake Garda Serraglio, Italy
2 25.14 23.94 47.88 20.00 30.00 31.20 65.00 30.50 1.36 Stable Dry Unknown
3 25.00 14.36 16.76 28.00 18.00 30.00 45.00 37.00 1.00 Failed Dry Danapoint Harbor, USA
4 22.80 0.00 0.00 35.00 35.00 38.00 47.00 110.00 1.10 Failed Dry Scheffevilla area, Canada
5 19.90 40.00 19.00 22.00 22.00 37.00 42.00 140.00 0.90 Failed Dry Open pit mine, (NIOP), India
6 26.00 0.00 0.00 30.60 22.80 30.60 33.00 270.00 1.40 Stable Dry Libby dam, Montana, USA
7a 26.00 20.00 20.00 27.00 27.00 60.00 70.00 44.00 2.35 Stable Dry Lower stream wedge, Kangaroo
Australia Valley,
8 26.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 39.00 60.00 70.00 44.00 0.90 Failed Dry Upper stream wedge, Kangaroo
Australia Valley,
9 26.66 0.00 0.00 35.00 35.00 30.00 42.00 150.00 1.73 Stable Dry Left abutment, Amaluza dam, Ecuador
10 26.66 0.00 0.00 45.00 45.00 35.00 50.00 150.00 2.48 Stable Dry Right abutment, Amaluza dam,
Ecuador
11 25.00 0.00 0.00 32.40 32.40 30.00 48.00 50.00 1.90 Stable Dry Auburn Forest hill bridge, Colorado,
USA
12 18.84 0.00 0.00 30.00 30.00 37.50 45.00 61.00 0.78 Failed Dry Case 1, Twin Buttes pit, Pima USA
County, Arizona, USA
13 18.84 30.07 3.60 30.00 36.70 37.50 45.00 61.00 1.12 Failed Dry Case 2, Twin Buttes pit, Pima USA
County, Arizona, USA
14 23.24 19.15 28.73 22.60 19.10 29.00 40.00 46.00 1.00 Failed Dry Open pit coal mine, Alberta, Canada
15 27.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 30.00 37.50 26.00 110.00 2.09 Stable Dry
16 27.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 30.00 37.50 26.00 110.00 1.65 Stable Dry
17 27.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 30.00 37.50 26.00 50.00 1.65 Stable Dry
18 27.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 30.00 43.00 26.00 50.00 1.65 Stable Dry
19 27.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 30.00 43.00 26.00 60.00 2.18 Stable Dry
20 27.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 43.00 26.00 60.00 0.64 Failed Dry
21 27.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 15.00 43.00 26.00 60.00 0.97 Failed Dry
22 24.00 24.50 49.00 20.00 30.00 65.00 31.00 40.00 1.77 Stable Dry

Notes: aCase 7, in the original data set the values of both cA and cB are equal to 2,000 kPa, which is not a valid cohesion value for the filling material of a joint set
Source: Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 23, 2005, p. 430, M. G. Sakellariou and M. D. Ferentinou, Table 2, # Springer 2005. With kind permission of
Springer Science and Business Media

data cases)
wedge failure (22
Mechanism of
Table III.
Stability of soil

885
and rock slopes
EC statistical properties of each of the subsets were as close to each other as possible and
27,7 therefore they represented the same statistical population. After the analysis, the most
statistically consistent combination was used for construction and validation of the EPR
models. The parameters used in statistical analysis include the maximum, minimum,
mean and standard deviation.

886 EPR procedure

In the evolutionary process of building EPR models, a number of constraints can be
implemented to control the output models in terms of the type of functions used,
number of terms, range of exponents, number of generations, etc. In this process there
is a potential to achieve different models for a particular problem which enables the
user to gain additional information for different scenarios (Rezania et al., 2008).
Applying the EPR procedure, the evolutionary process starts from a constant mean of
output values. By increasing the number of evolutions it gradually picks up the
different participating parameters in order to form equations describing the
relationship between the parameters of the system. Each proposed model is trained
using the training data and tested using the testing data provided. The level of
accuracy at each stage is evaluated based on the coefficient of determination (COD), i.e.
the fitness function as:
X
ðYa  Yp Þ2
N
COD ¼ 1  !2 ð2Þ
X 1X
Ya  Ya
N
N N

where Ya is the actual input value, Yp is the EPR predicted value and N is the number
of data on which the COD is computed. If the model fitness is not acceptable or the
other termination criteria (in terms of maximum number of generations and maximum
number of terms) are not satisfied, the current model should go through another
evolution in order to obtain a new model.

EPR model for circular failure mechanism

From the total of 67 cases in the database, 57 cases are used to develop the EPR model
and the remaining ten cases are used as unseen cases to validate the developed EPR
model. Among the resultant equations developed by EPR process the one with the

Figure 2.
(a) circular failure
mechanism; (b) wedge
failure mechanism
highest value of COD is selected (Equation (3)): Stability of soil
1:49H and rock slopes
Fs ¼   1:8  r2u þ tanðwÞ½2:59  2:18 tanðbÞ þ 0:014  c  5:19  105 c2 þ 0:817
g2
ð3Þ

Figure 3 shows the comparison of the results in terms of factors of safety predicted by 887
the EPR model together with the ones from ANN analysis (Sakellariou and Ferentinou,
2005) and the field data for the training cases. The results of the EPR model are in close
agreement with the field data as well as those predicted by the ANN model.
Once training is completed, the performance of the trained EPR models is validated
using the validation data that were not used during the model development process. The
purpose of validation is to examine the capabilities of the trained model to generalize the
training to conditions that have not been seen during the training phase. Equation (3) is
used to predict the FS for the unseen data cases and the results are shown in Figure 4. A
very good agreement can be seen between the model results and the field data
demonstrating the excellent capability of the EPR-based model in generalizing the
relationship to unseen cases. The COD values for the developed EPR models as well
as the ANN are shown in Table IV. It is shown that the EPR model outperforms the

Figure 3.
Comparison of EPR
training results with those
from ANN and field data
for circular failure
mechanism

Figure 4.
Comparison of EPR
testing results with ones
from ANN and field
measurements for FS
in circular failure
mechanism

Model COD values for training (%) COD values for testing (%) Table IV.
COD values for ANN
ANN 97.6 93.7 and EPR models for
EPR 98.3 97.1 soil slopes
EC ANN model both in terms of the COD values for the training and testing as well as
providing a transparent and easy-to-use expression (as opposed to the black box model
27,7 of ANN).
A parametric study is carried out to evaluate the predictive capabilities of the
proposed EPR model, the extent to which it represents the physical relationship between
different parameters and the effects of different input parameters on the model output.
This was done through a basic approach to sensitivity analysis which is to fix all but one
888 input variables to their mean values and vary the remaining one within the range of its
maximum and minimum values. This procedure was repeated consecutively for all input
parameters and the results are shown in Figure 5. The results indicate that:
. The FS increases with increasing unit weight, apparent cohesion and angle of
friction of the soil and decreases with increasing angle of the slope, height of the
slope and pore water pressure in the slope. The trends of variations of all these
parameters are consistent with the expected behaviour of slopes.
. The parameters internal friction angle, apparent cohesion, slope angle and
height are the most effective parameters on stability of slopes.
. The effect of unit weight on stability appears to be less than the other
contributing parameters, for the cases used in development of this model.
. The proposed EPR model is also consistent with traditional models of slope
analysis such as Bishop’s conventional and rigorous methods.
The results of the parametric study indicate that the developed EPR model has been able
to capture, with a very good accuracy, the important physical patterns of behaviour of
slopes and the relationship between the slope stability and its contributing factors.

Figure 5.
Sensitivity analysis
results for EPR model
developed for circular
failure mechanism
EPR model for wedge failure mechanism Stability of soil
The data set used for development of EPR model for analysis of wedge failure
mechanism in rocks consists of 22 case studies (Table III). All these cases involve dry
and rock slopes
rock conditions; with ten cases of failed slope and 12 cases of stable slopes (Sah et al.,
1994).
The main parameters contributing to the stability of a rock slope are unit weight (g),
apparent cohesions (cA) and (cB), angles of internal friction (wA) and (wB), angle of the
line of intersection of the two joint sets (cp), slope angle (cf) and height (H), where A and 889
B refer to the two joint sets (see Figure 2).
The data are divided into two sets; one set is used for development of the EPR model
and the other one is used for validation and evaluation of the generalization capabilities
of the developed EPR model.
From the total of 22 cases in the database, 20 cases are used to develop the EPR
model and the remaining twos cases are used as unseen cases to validate the developed
EPR model. From the models developed by EPR process the one with the highest value
of COD is selected (Equation (4)):

0:0028 2; 091 229 tan wA  tan wB

Fs ¼  3
 2
 0:11ðtan cf Þ3 þ
ðtan wB Þ ðH þ 10Þ H þ 10 ð4Þ
2
þ 0:015  cB þ 5  104 c2A 4 3
 tan cp ðtan cf Þ þ 1:2  10 g  0:88

Figure 6 represents the comparison of the results in terms of factors of safety predicted
by the EPR model together with the ones from ANN analysis (Sakellariou and
Ferentinou, 2005) and field measurements for the training cases. The results of the EPR
model are in very close agreement with the field measurements as well as those
predicted by the ANN model.
After training, the performance of the trained EPR models is validated using the
validation data that were not used during the model development process. Equation (4)
is used to predict the FS for the unseen data cases and the results are represented in
Figure 7. A close agreement can be seen between the model results and the field data
demonstrating the great capability of the EPR-based model in generalizing the
relationship to unseen cases. The COD values for the developed EPR models as well as
the ANN are shown in Table V. It is shown that results of the EPR model are in a very
close agreement with those of the ANN model in terms of the COD value for the

Figure 6.
Comparison of EPR
training results with those
from ANN and field
data for wedge
failure mechanism
EC training. It is worth noting that Sakellariou and Ferentinou (2005) did not report the
COD value for the testing data. It appears that they used all 22 cases for training of the
27,7 ANN model. The proposed model still outperforms the ANN model by providing a
transparent and easy-to-use expression (as opposed to the black box model of ANN).
A parametric study is carried out to evaluate the predictive capabilities of the
proposed EPR model for stability analysis of rock slopes. The same procedure as the
one followed for sensitivity analysis of the model proposed above for slopes in soils and
890 highly fractured rocks is taken and the results are shown in Figure 8. The results
indicate that:
. The FS increases with increasing unit weight, apparent cohesion and internal
friction angle on both failure planes and decreases with increasing angle of the
slope. The trends of variations of all these parameters are consistent with the
expected behaviour of slopes.
. The parameters internal friction angle, apparent cohesion, slope angle and unit
weight are the most effective parameters on stability of rock slopes.
. The effect of the joint sets’ intersection angle and slope height on stability
appears to be negligible.

Summary and conclusion

Analysis of stability of soil and rock slopes is a complex geotechnical engineering
problem due to the heterogeneous nature of soils and rocks and the participation of a
large number of factors involved. Traditional methods are based on simplifying
assumptions and usually require trial and error procedures that are time demanding
and computationally expensive. In recent years the use of pattern recognition methods
such as ANN has been introduced as an alternative method for analysis of stability of
slopes based on field data. These methods have the advantages that they do not require
any simplifying assumptions in developing the model. However, the neural network-
based models also suffer from a number of shortcomings including:

Figure 7.
Comparison of EPR
testing results with those
from ANN and field data
for wedge failure
mechanism

Table V. Model COD values for training (%) COD values for testing (%)
COD values for ANN
and EPR models ANN 99.9 –
for rock slopes EPR 99.7 96.2
 Stability of soil
and rock slopes

891

Figure 8.
Sensitivity analysis
results for EPR model
developed for FS for
wedge failure

. the black box nature of the models and their inability to present an explicit
relationship between the input and output parameters;
. the fact that they require the structure of the neural network (e.g. number of
hidden layers, number of neurons in hidden layers, transfer functions, etc.) to be
identified a priori; and
. that the optimum structure and parameters of the network are obtained by a trial
and error.
In this paper, a new approach was presented for the analysis of stability of soil and
rock slopes using EPR. The capabilities of the EPR methodology have been illustrated
by application to modelling of stability of soil and rock slopes. Two separate EPR
models were developed and validated using a database of case histories involving field
data on characteristics of soil and rock and the stability status of slopes. The results of
model predictions were compared with field data as well as results from a neural
network model. A parametric study was conducted to evaluate the effects of different
parameters on stability of slopes, and the extent to which the developed models can
represent the physical relationships between contributing parameters. Comparison of
EC the results shows that the developed EPR models provide very accurate predictions for
27,7 stability of slopes. The developed model presents structured and transparent
representation of the system, allowing a physical interpretation of the problem that
gives the user an insight into the relationship between the stability status of a slope
and various contributing parameters. From practical point of view, the EPR models
presented in this paper are easy to use and provide results that are more accurate than
892 the existing methods. In the EPR approach, no preprocessing of the data is required
and there is no need for normalization or scaling of the data.
EPR provides more than one model for a complex problem. The best models are
chosen on the basis of their performances on a test set of unseen data. For this purpose,
the initial data set is split into two subsets:
(1) training set which is used for model construction; and
(2) testing set which is used for model validation.
The test set is not used in the model construction phase, which allows examining the
generalization capabilities of each constructed model. Thus, an unbiased performance
indicator is obtained on the real capability of the models.
Another major advantage of the EPR approach is that as more data become
available, the quality of the prediction can be easily improved by retraining the EPR
model using the new data. However, it should be noted that the EPR models should
not be used for extrapolation, i.e. for new cases where one or more parameters fall
outside the range of the parameters used in training (see Tables I-III), the predicted
results should be taken with caution and allowance should be made for
the uncertainty. Also, quality of the data could have an effect on the quality of the
models. Although EPR has shown to be effective in developing robust models based
on data, the selection of the appropriate models should be based on engineering
judgement to avoid selecting inappropriate models that may not conform to physics
of the problem being studied.

References
Bishop, A.W. and Donald, I.B. (1961), ‘‘The experimental study of partly saturated soil in triaxial
apparatus’’, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Soil Mechanic and
Foundation Engineering, Paris, pp. 13-21.
Duncan, M. (1996), ‘‘Soil slope stability analysis’’, in A.K. Turner and R.L. Schuster (Eds),
Landslides Investigation and Mitigation, Transportation Research Board Special Report
No. 247, Washington Press, Washington, DC, pp. 337-1.
Giustolisi, O. and Savic, D.A. (2006), ‘‘A symbolic data-driven technique based on evolutionary
polynomial regression’’, Journal of Hydroinformatics, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 207-22.
Hoek, E. and Bray, J.W. (1981), Rock Slope Engineering, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy,
London.
Hudson, J.A. (1992b), Rock Engineering systems – Theory and Practice, Ellis Horwood, Chichester.
Janbu, N. (1954), ‘‘Application of composite slip circles for stability analysis’’, Proceedings of the
Fourth European Conference on Stability of Earth Slopes, Stockholm, pp. 43-9.
Lin, P.S., Lin, M.H., Su, M.B. and Lee, T.M. (1988), ‘‘An investigation on the failure of a building
constructed on hillslope’’, in Bonnard (Ed.), Landslides, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 445-9.
Madzic, E. (1988), ‘‘Stability of unstable final slope in deep open iron mine’’, in Bonnard (Ed.),
Landslides, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 455-8.
 Rezania, M., Javadi, A.A. and Giustolisi, O. (2008), ‘‘An evolutionary-based data mining technique Stability of soil
for assessment of civil engineering systems’’, Journal of Engineering Computations, Vol. 25
No. 6, pp. 500-17. and rock slopes
Sah, N.K., Sheorey, P.R. and Upadhyama, L.W. (1994), ‘‘Maximum likelihood estimation of slope
stability’’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts, Vol. 31, pp. 47-53.
Sakellariou, M.G. and Ferentinou, M.D. (2005), ‘‘A study of slope stability prediction using neural
networks’’, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 23, pp. 419-45. 893
Sarma, S.K. (1975), ‘‘Seismic stability of earth dams and embankments’’, Geotechnique, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 743-61.
Spencer, E. (1967), ‘‘A method of analysis of the stability of embankments assuming parallel inter-
slice forces’’, Geotechnique, Vol. 17, pp. 11-26.
Taylor, D.W. (1937), ‘‘Stability of earth slopes’’, Journal of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 24, p. 197.

Corresponding author
Akbar A. Javadi can be contacted at: a.a.javadi@ex.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats