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

net/publication/276943594

A New Open-Pit Mine Slope Instability Index Defined Using the Improved
Rock Engineering Systems Approach

Article  in  International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences · July 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.01.012

CITATIONS READS

71 6,911

4 authors, including:

Masoud Zaré S. E. Jalali

United Consulting Group Shahrood University of Technology
64 PUBLICATIONS   711 CITATIONS    160 PUBLICATIONS   704 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Estimation of rock mass strength with non-persistence joints using 3D stochastic Discrete fractures network (DFN) - Case study Rudbar Lorestan Dam & hydropower
plant) View project

‫ ﺑﺮآورد ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺖ ﺗﻮده ﺳﻨﮓﻫﺎي ﺳﺨﺖ ﺑﺎ ﻛﺎرﺑﺮد اﺟﺰاي ﭼﺴﺒﻨﺪه و ﺷﺒﻜﻪ ﻧﺎﭘﻴﻮﺳﺘﮕﻲﻫﺎ در روش اﺟﺰاي ﻣﺠﺰا‬View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Masoud Zaré on 17 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 61 (2013) 1–14

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

A new open-pit mine slope instability index defined using the improved rock
engineering systems approach
Masoud Zare Naghadehi a,b,n, Rafael Jimenez b, Reza KhaloKakaie c, Seyed-Mohammad Esmaeil Jalali c
a
Department of Mining Engineering, Hamedan University of Technology (HUT), Hamedan 6516913418, Iran
b
Technical University of Madrid (UPM), E.T.S.I. Caminos, Canales y Puertos, 28040 Madrid, Spain
c
Faculty of Mining, Petroleum and Geophysics, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood 3619995161, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: A new Mine Slope Instability Index (MSII) to assess the (in)stability conditions of slopes in open-pit
Received 8 December 2011 mining is presented. Eighteen parameters that can be easily obtained and rated in the field, and that are
Received in revised form important for open-pit slope stability, are employed for the MSII definition. Their corresponding ratings
11 January 2013
are also proposed, so that the MSII can be computed as a simple weighted sum of ratings for all
Accepted 15 January 2013
parameters considered; to minimize subjectivity the weights are computed, in the context of the Rock
Engineering Systems paradigm, using an optimized Back-Propagation Artificial Neural Network that has
Keywords: been trained with an extensive database of worldwide open-pit slope stability case histories. Results
Open-pit mining show that the ANN provides a highly reliable RES interaction matrix, and also that the selected
Slope instability potential
parameters are important for open-pit slope stability. Slope (in)stability hazard levels are defined based
Rock engineering systems (RES)
on MSII values and the predictions of the newly proposed MSII are validated by comparing our
Artificial neural networks (ANN)
predictions with the actual (i.e. observed) behaviour corresponding to 12 independent case histories
that were not used for the ANN training. An excellent agreement between predictions and observations
has been found, with only one (out of 12) cases providing an incorrect prediction.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
We study the problem of rock slope stability in open-pit
mines. Open-pit mining is the most important technology for
extracting mineral resources from the earth’s crust. Production
rates of open pits have progressively grown over the last 100
years and they will continue growing in the future [1].
The ultimate slopes of an open pit mine are generally exca-
vated to the steepest possible angle, as the economic conse-
quences of the excavation angle are significant; for instance, for
large scale open pits, changes in slope angle by approximately
2–31 can be measured in hundreds of millions of dollars in project
value [2]. Steeper slope angles, however, result in an increased
risk of slope failure, could the consequences of which affect
mining operations. Consequently, continual evaluation of the
stability of excavated slopes is a vital component of open pit
design and operation.
Conventional methods for open-pit slope design are usually
based on assumed failure mechanisms, such as planar, wedge,
n
Corresponding author at: Hamedan University of Technology (HUT), Depart-
ment of Mining Engineering, Fahmideh Blvd., Hamedan 6516913418, Iran. Tel.:
þ 98 811 8411000x405; fax: þ98 811 8411407.
E-mail addresses: mzare@hut.ac.ir,
masoud.zare@hotmail.com (M. Zare Naghadehi).
toppling and circular shear failure (see e.g. [3]). But many failure
mechanisms in large scale rock slopes are more complex and, for
instance, they are often a combination of failure along pre-
existing geological weakness planes and failure of intact rock
[1,4]. An example of such a large scale slope failure is shown in
Fig. 1. This complexity results from various factors affecting
stability, such as the geological setting, the geometry of the
slopes, or the short term and long term precipitation.
One powerful approach to tackle this problem is the Rock
Engineering Systems (RES) paradigm, which was first introduced
by Hudson [6] (see also [7,8]) to deal with complex rock
engineering problems from a holistic point of view.
The RES approach has been widely used in rock mechanics
analyses, such as slope stability [9–21], stability of tunnels and
other underground excavations [22–24], and rock blasting
[25,26]. (See [21] for an in-depth review of RES applications in
other fields such as environmental studies, road construction,
marine sediments analysis, etc.)
In the RES approach (see e.g. [6]) the interactions between
parameters of the system are presented in an ‘interaction matrix’,
whose values (i.e. the elements of the matrix) need to be
quantified, in a process usually referred to as ‘coding the matrix’.
Several coding methods have been developed for this purpose,
with the most common being the (deterministic) ‘expert semi-
quantitative’ (ESQ) coding method. Despite recent contributions

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.01.012
2 M. Zare Naghadehi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 61 (2013) 1–14
Fig. 1. A large-scale slope failure at a porphyry copper mine in South America (from [5]).
towards a probabilistic coding of the matrix (see e.g. [21]), a
common feature in RES analyses is that interactions are ‘manually’
determined (either deterministically or probabilistically) by
‘experts’. For that reason, questions can be raised regarding their
objectivity and, hence, on the validity of results based on such
interactions.
Motivated by these issues, we aim to minimize the subjectivity
due to the human-coding of the interaction matrix. To that end,
the recommendations from Hudson [6] and Hudson and Harrison
[27] for an objective interaction matrix (which uses equations for
coding) have been taken into account. In addition, following Shin
et al. [24] (see also [7,28,29]), we train an Artificial Neural
Network (ANN)—using an extensive (and worldwide) database
of open-pit rock slope stability (or instability) observations that
we have compiled for the task—to code the matrix in a fully
coupled manner. (The use of neural networks applied to slope
instability and underground construction has been described
recently by Feng and Hudson [30].)
By using the newly developed ANN, interactions among com-
ponents in the system, as well as their degree of dominance or
subordinance, can be compiled and interpreted using the RES
framework. In this way, the subjectivity of the expert (human)
assignment of interactions is replaced by a systematic and objec-
tive methodology.
In addition, and as the main contribution of this work, we
propose a newly developed Mine Slope Instability Index (MSII)
that is based on the ANN-calibrated interaction matrix, and that
can be used to evaluate open-pit (in)stability and the potential for
wall collapses. The main difference with other general rock mass
classifications (e.g. Rock Mass Rating (RMR) [31]) or with specific
classifications/indices for rock slopes (e.g. Slope Mass Rating
(SMR) [32]; Slope Rock Mass Rating (SRMR) [33]; Mining Rock
Mass Rating (MRMR) [34]; Chinese Slope Mass Rating (CSMR)
[35]; Rockslope Deterioration Assessment (RDA) [36,37]; Rockfall
Risk Assessment for Quarries (ROFRAQ) [38]) is our use of a
systems approach that accounts (in a fully coupled manner) for
the complex interactions among rock engineering factors.
Besides, since the MSII is based on case histories, it accounts
for the specific characteristics of open-pit walls (like the large
scale of these projects), and comprises many types of failures
(including combined complex failure mechanisms). Additional
advantages of the MSII are its simplicity of use, and that it
employs easily obtainable parameters for an open-pit mine. In
addition, it has been validated using a set of different real cases,
therefore demonstrating its applicability in the field.
2. Development of the mine slope instability index (MSII)
2.1. The rock engineering systems (RES) approach
The rock engineering systems (RES) approach [6,27] can be
used for the analysis of coupled mechanisms in rock engineering
problems. The RES uses a top-down analytic model to treat the
rock mass, the boundary conditions, and the engineering activ-
ities as a complete, interactive and dynamic system. It establishes
the engineering objective and then considers all the potentially
relevant parameters for such an objective, as well as their
relations, to develop a model that considers the complex beha-
vioural modes of the rock mass.
The interactions between parameters in the RES approach are
represented using an ‘interaction matrix’. The influence of each
individual factor on any other factor is included at the corre-
sponding off-diagonal position of the matrix, so that the (i,j)-th
element represents the influence of parameter i on parameter j
(note that the matrix will generally not be symmetric). Fig. 2a
shows a general interaction matrix. In principle, there is no
limitation to the number of factors that may be included in an
interaction matrix.
Each interaction mechanism in the matrix can be assigned a
matrix coding value, and by summing the coding values in the row
and column through each parameter, ‘cause’ (C) and ‘effect’ (E)
co-ordinates can be computed, allowing each parameter’s inter-
action intensity and dominance to be established [6]. See Fig. 2b
 M. Zare Naghadehi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 61 (2013) 1–14
Fig. 2. (a) Illustration of the interaction matrix in RES for two factors (based
on [6]). (b) Generation of the ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ co-ordinates for the i-th
parameter in the interaction matrix (based on [6]).
for the method of determining the ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ values, and
Fig. 3 for a graphical representation of a parameter’s dominance
and interaction intensity.
The cause–effect plot is also helpful in understanding the role
of each factor within the project. For instance, levels of inter-
activity can be used to identify parameters to be kept under
control, as their variation is likely to significantly change the
system behaviour [10]. Such understanding is important in
conjunction with information about which interactions are ben-
eficial for engineering (and hence should be enhanced) and about
3
Fig. 3. View of (C,E) plot to show lines of equal parameter interaction intensity
and dominance (based on [6]).
which interactions are detrimental for engineering (and hence
should be inhibited).
There are a wide number of methods for the selection of
factors and for the coding (quantification) of their interactions.
For instance, in the conventional expert semi-quantitative (ESQ)
coding approach only one unique code (i.e. numerical value),
based on ‘expert-opinion’, is assigned to quantify the influence of
a parameter on the others in the matrix. Similarly, and based on
the idea that parameters of the system can be all related to each
other in varying degrees of influence, Jiao and Hudson [7]
proposed, with the help of graph theory, an improved algorithm
for constructing an interaction matrix for fully coupled para-
meters (the so called ‘fully coupled model’ or FCM). To that end,
they replaced the binary interaction matrix (BIM) (with isolated
binary influences) by a global interaction matrix (GIM) which
considers all the mechanism pathways in the system by the use of
partial derivatives (rather than simple derivatives) that incorpo-
rate the influence of every other parameter on a given parameter.
However, each component of such a global interaction matrix
is still determined based on the intuition of experts, making it
difficult to be judged with objectivity. This subjectivity problem
also exists in other improvements to the matrix coding process,
like the continuous quantitative coding (CQC) approach [25,39]
which uses the grey systems theory; and also in the probabilistic
expert semi-quantitative (PESQ) methodology [21] that considers
uncertainties in coding values of the interaction matrix to gen-
erate probabilistic (C,E) diagrams.
To avoid this subjectivity problem, Yang and Zhang [28]
proposed coding the interaction matrix using an artificial neural
network (ANN) to model the complex non-linear mapping from
system inputs to system outputs. Such ANN is based on the
concept of relative strength effect (RSE) to assess the strength of
links among components (further details are provided below).
2.2. Coding of the interaction matrix using
artificial neural networks (ANN)
We build on Yang and Zhang’s [28] work (making additional
improvements in the network optimization algorithm) to develop
4 M. Zare Naghadehi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 61 (2013) 1–14

Fig.4. Diagram of the BP network in the learning stage.

1 X
an ANN that can be used to code an objective interaction matrix. Ojn ¼ f jn ðNET jn Þ ¼ ; NET jn ¼ Ojn1 W jn1,jn þ yjn
1þe NET jn
To that end, we constructed a database with a large number of jn1
open-pit slope stability case histories from all over the world. The 1 X
Ok ¼ f k ðNET k Þ ¼ ; NET k ¼ Ojn W jn,k þ yk ð1Þ
matrix of global relative strength effects (GRSE) is computed 1 þeNET k jn
using the available data, and the mine slope instability index
(MSII) can be defined to predict the (in)stability of open-pit mine where indices i, jn and k (i ¼ 1 to imax ,jn ¼ 1 to jn,max and
slopes. (Note that all parameters in the matrix interact in a fully k ¼ 1 to kmax ) stand for input units on the input layer I, hidden
coupled manner as described in [7].) Eliminating the manual (or units on the hidden layer Jn and output units on the output layer
expert-based) intervention to determine interactions increases K, respectively. (The subscript max indicates the total number of
objectivity, and relying on real case histories provides an anchor units on each layer, and n is the number of hidden layers if more
to reality. than one hidden layer is adopted.) Wi,j represents the weighting
In ANN, the knowledge gained with the sample (training) sets is matrix of coefficients adjusted for connection between the i-th
represented as ‘weights’ in the connections of the neural network and the j-th unit, f is an activation function adopted each time,
that determine the influence of the input on the output. Since such and y is a threshold of each unit. Applying the chain rule, and
weights supplied by the ANN analysis indicate the relative impor- noting that only the components of the output vector Ok from the
tance of input vs. output relationships, they can be used to analyze units on the hidden layer J are output variables in Eq. (1), the
the interactions of factors in the RES approach [28]. partial derivatives of Ok at output layer K with respect to Oi at
The ANN used herein is based on a standard back propagation input layer I are [28]
(BP) architecture, which, due to its simplicity and applicability, is      
@Ok @Ok @Ojn @Oj2 @Oj1
a powerful design consisting of fully interconnected layers of ¼ 
@Oi @Ojn @Ojn1 @Oj1 @Oi
processing units, incorporated with the well-known sigmoid    
@Ok @NET k @Oj1 @NET j1
activation function [40–42]. The BP algorithm is based on a ¼  ð2Þ
@NET k @Ojn @NET j1 @Oi
weight correction procedure with two passes: a forward pass
and a backward pass. In the forward pass, the weights of the The activation function employed in this case is given by the
network are randomly initialized and an output is obtained, for a following sigmoid function:
given input, with weights fixed. The error between the output of f ðxÞ ¼ 1=ð1 þ expðxÞÞ ð3Þ
the network and the target value is then propagated backward
during the backward pass and used to update the weights of the and its derivative is
previous layers [43]. @f 0
¼ f ðxÞ ¼ f ðxÞf ðxÞexpðxÞ ð4Þ
The BP algorithm considered in this study is used to directly @x
calculate the first partial derivative of each input node for Considering Eq. (1), components of the right-hand side of
variations in each output node. For this purpose, after training Eq. (2) are given by
is completed, the neural network is no longer allowed to adapt.
Fig. 4 shows a diagram of the considered BP network in the @Om
¼ f m ðNET m Þ ¼ Dm ðNET m Þ ¼ eNET m =ð1 þeNET m Þ2 ¼ Om ð1Om Þ
0

learning stage. To compute derivatives of the neural network, it is @NET m

assumed that, for all current connections, the weights (W) and ð5Þ
thresholds (y) are constant. Also, all given input and output and by
patterns are normalized into the range of 0–1 via a linear
@NET m
normalization for the cases that do not obey this range. ¼ W m1,m ð6Þ
@Om1
In the trained network with weights (W) adjusted for all
connections between neurons, the relationships between input Substituting Eqs. (5) and (6) into Eq. (2), we have
(NET) and output (O) for an activation function on the layers I, J1 @Ok X X X
to Jn and K can be written as [28] ¼  Dk W j,nk Djn W jn1:jn    Dj2 W j1,j2 Dj1 W i,j1 ð7Þ
@Oi jn jn1 j1
1 X
Oj1 ¼ f j1 ðNET j1 Þ ¼ NET j1
; NET j1 ¼ Oi W i,j1 þ yj1 where j1 to jn are the hidden layers and D denotes the differentia-
1þ e i tion of the corresponding activation function (Note that, no
 M. Zare Naghadehi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 61 (2013) 1–14
matter which function is approximated by the neural network, all
terms on the right side of Eq. (7) always exist [44]).
After a neural network has ‘learnt’ with samples (i.e. observa-
tions) from the training database, the influence of input values on
the output can be determined. To that end, and because the
‘knowledge’ provided by the database observations is contained
in the weights (W) of the ANN (which are fixed once that the
learning process has been completed), we can compute the
influence of the input on the output using these weights [28].
According to Eq. (7), we can define the Relative Strength of Effect,
RSEki, of input unit i on output unit k, so that such RSEki value is
analogous to the (i,k)-th component of the fully coupled interac-
tion matrix of the RES approach (see [28] for details).
Then considering that all the input parameter values range
within a (0,1) interval (they are defined in that way so that we do
not need to be concerned with the influence of changes in the
domains of the input variables), the corresponding RSEki values
can be computed as [28]
XX X network architecture and parameter settings, and a manual trial
RSEki ¼ C  Dk W jn,k Djn W jn1,jn    Dj2 W j1,j2 Dj1 W ij1 ð8Þ
jn jn1 j1
where C is a normalizing constant to limit the maximum absolute
value of RSEki to 1. The RSE values given by Eq. (8) indicate the
fully coupled relative influence of one given input on one given
output unit of the network in the considered input space (con-
sidering all the pathways between two parameters).
We can regard the differentiation of the simulated function as
constant within one part (piecewise linear), to obtain a global
relative strength effect which does not vary with the change of
input position in input space. As noted above, we will assign
values to the different categories of the considered parameters so
that they belong to the range of 0–1, and the sigmoid function can
be approximated by a linear function in such range. Therefore, its
activation function is a linear function (at least in our working
range) when we calculate the values of RSEki.
As an example, if we suppose the activation function as the
following linear function:
FðxÞ ¼ x
then, its differentiation can be expressed as
GðxÞ ¼ 1:
So, in this case, the RSE is replaced with the Global Relative
Strength of Effect (GRSE) which can be written as [28,45]
XX X
GRSEki ¼ C  W jn,k W jn1,jn    W j1,j2 W ij1 ð11Þ
jn jn1 j1
where C is a normalizing constant limit the maximum absolute
value of GRSEki to 1. The GRSE in Eq. (11) stands for the relative
importance of every input unit on one output unit in a neural
network in the ‘global’ sense, and for that reason, it is similar to the
components of the interaction matrix in RES.
Because of their physical meaning (they indicate the general
influence of input units on output units) and their flexibility (they
demand no continuity requirements for the function), and also
because they are suitable for extension to other ANN models (see
e.g. [28,45]), the GRSEki values are the preferential parameters to
measure the importance of input units on output units. (Note that
the output increases with an increasing input when GRSEki 40 that
the output decreases with an increasing input when GRSEki o0, and
that the output has no relation with the input when GRSEki ¼0.)
Therefore, they will be used in this study to code the interaction
matrix.To that end, we can use the GRSEki values to form a matrix as
GRSE ¼ ½GRSEki 
where k represents the number of output units, and i denotes the
number of input units. In particular, if we assign the same variables
5
(or parameters) to the inputs and outputs, then the matrix in Eq.
(12) is the interaction matrix of the variables considered, with the
leading diagonal terms, GRSEjj, of the matrix being the (general
relative) strength effect of a variable on itself, and with the off-
diagonal components GRSEjk (kaj) being the (general relative)
strength effect between the corresponding i-th and j-th parameters.
Following the discussion above, such a matrix will be used in this
paper as the objective fully coupled interaction matrix for the RES
approach.
Finally, the accuracy of an ANN model is mainly dependent on
the network architecture and on the parameter settings consid-
ered. One of the most difficult tasks in ANN studies is to find this
‘optimal’ network architecture, which depends on the number of
layers and on the number of neurons in the hidden layers. (Such
numbers are usually selected by trial and error, although the
assignment of initial weights and other related parameters may
also influence the performance of the ANN to a great extent)
However there is no well-defined procedure to find the optimal
and error approach can be very time consuming. For instance,
MATLABs Neural Networks ToolboxTM [46] which is used for
ANN modelling in this work, randomly assigns the initial weights
for each run, which considerably changes the performance of the
trained network, even when all other parameters and the network
architecture are kept constant. This leads to extra difficulties in
the selection of the ‘optimal’ network architecture and of para-
meter settings. To overcome this difficulty, we developed a
MATLABs program to automatically optimize the ANN architec-
ture. Our experience indicates that this is crucial to get good
results, even though previous works published in the literature
often do not optimize their ANN architecture. Our program
automatically changes both the number of hidden layers and
the number of neurons in the hidden layers and then selects the
‘best’ network architecture (i.e. with the minimum MAPE—mean
absolute percent error—or RMSE—root mean squared error—for
the training set).
ð9Þ
2.3. Definition of the mine slope instability index (MSII)
ð10Þ
Once the ANN has been (automatically) ‘trained’ using the
methodology and the software described above for the available
training set of observations, the RES interaction matrix can be
computed (coded). (Remember that the interaction matrix is
given by the GRSE matrix.)
Then, a hazard index for slope stability in open-pit mines can
be calculated using the values of the parameters considered and
their corresponding ‘weights’; this index will be called the mine
slope instability index (MSII). A method for assigning a ‘weight’ to
each parameter was proposed by Hudson [6], and this method has
been applied in many RES applications in the literature (see e.g.
[16–19,47,48]).
To define such weights, we start by computing the ‘cause’ (C)
and ‘effect’ (E) of each parameter in the system. For the i-th
parameter, we have [6]
X X
Ci ¼ Imn ðwith m  iÞ; Ei ¼ Imn ðwith n  iÞ: ð13Þ
n m
where Imn represents the components of the RES interaction
matrix. (Note that Ci is computed by the sum of the i-th row in
the interaction matrix, and that Ei is computed as the sum of the i-
th column).
ð12Þ
Then, the influence weights assigned to each parameter
(needed to compute the MSII) can be expressed as a percentage
of the sum of the system’s cause (Ci) and effect (Ei) for such
6 M. Zare Naghadehi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 61 (2013) 1–14
Fig. 5. The selected categories and principal parameters for the system.
parameters, according to the following Eq. (10):
0 1
1
BMRi  ðC i þ E i ÞC
ai ð%Þ ¼ @ P A  100
ðC j þ Ej Þ
j instability potential of open-pit walls.
where MRi indicates the maximum (input) rating for parameter i.
(Remember that, as indicated in Section 2.2, the maximum rating
has been set to one for all parameters considered in this work; i.e.
MRi 1, 8i). That is, the weight for parameter i, indicated by ai, is
given by its ‘parameter interaction intensity’ (Ci þEi) divided by
the (total) sum of interaction intensities of all parameters in the
system.
Once the parameters weights, ai, are available for all para-
meters considered, the hazard level (i.e. the mine slope instability
index) for a given mine (or site) can be computed as
X influences slope failure. The most common rock types are classi-
MSII ¼ ai  Ri ð15Þ
i
where the ai values are the corresponding weights of the classi-
fication system (they are therefore ‘constant’ once the system has
been trained with an available dataset) and the Ri values (with 0
rRi r1) are the ‘ratings’ assigned to each input parameter
considered for our open-pit mine slope stability problem (they
are therefore specific for that mine or site). (The discussion of the
parameters is presented in Section 3.)
The MSII defined above ranges from 0 to 100, and it indicates
instability potential, so that (as we show below) higher MSII values
indicate more critical slope stability conditions.
3. Development of a database of worldwide experience in
open-pit mine slope stability
3.1. Selection and description of the main parameters affecting the
slope (in)stability of open-pit mines
The selection of the principal parameters for our analysis is
made based on Hudson [6,49], who proposed an ‘atlas’ of general
categories of factors affecting the stability of generic rock slopes.
Such a set of parameters has been considered as a primary list in
this research, although some details have been modified to
account for the specific characteristics of open-pit walls (espe-
cially the scale of such projects which makes some other factors
important too). Therefore, the selection of parameters was based
on recommendations from the literature and also on the experi-
ence gained from our own analysis of failures in open-pit mines.
(We also made an effort to select parameters that are easily
obtainable without having to resort to special site investigation
techniques.) As shown in Fig. 5, 18 key parameters (divided into
ð14Þ
nine main categories) have been selected to represent the
Each parameter selected for our analysis is discussed below;
physical ranges of parameters, as well as the corresponding
ratings (to be used in the MSII definition; see Eq. (15)), are listed
in Table 1. Note that each parameter value is subdivided into 5–6
intervals (or classes) and that each class is rated with values
ranging from 0.0 to 1.0. (The higher the rate, the higher the
instability potential is likely to be.)
3.1.1. Overall environment
Rock type (P1): Experience suggests that lithology or rock type
fied into six groups depending on their lithological characteristics.
To conduct such classification, recommendations from the litera-
ture (see e.g. [50–55]) were taken into account (see Table 1).
Precipitation (P17): Precipitation (as indicated by rainfall and
snow) is highly connected with slope failure and, in fact, it usually
constitutes a triggering cause for initiation or for reactivation of
failures. It is well known that many failures occur after a period of
heavy rainfall, although this ‘period’ has not been unequivocally
defined [56]. Precipitation may influence due to different factors,
such as the rise of the groundwater table (which may lead to
saturation of the rock mass, hence increasing its unit weight), and
to the build-up of water pressures into fractures, that provides
additional de-stabilizing forces. The annual precipitation of the
area has been classified into five classes ranging from ‘ o150 mm/
year’ to ‘ 4600 mm/year’ (see Table 1).
3.1.2. Intact rock quality
Intact rock strength (P2): Intact rock strength is an important
parameter to characterise rock mass strength and rock mass
quality (e.g. RMR rating heavily depends on intact rock strength;
see [31]). To quantify this parameter, the unconfined compressive
strength of intact rock (UCS) is subdivided into six classes ranging
from ‘ 4150 MPa’ to ‘ o25 MPa’ (see Table 1).
3.1.3. Rock mass properties
Rock quality designation index (RQD) (P3): RQD indicates the
degree of fracturing of the rock mass at the slope face [57,58].
RQD values are divided into five classes following the traditional
intervals in the literature (see Table 1).
 M. Zare Naghadehi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 61 (2013) 1–14 7

Table 1
Classification of the parameters of the system.

Parameters Classification categories and ratings

Rock type (lithology) Igneous: Granite, Sedimentary: Breccia, Sedimentary: Sedimentary: Metamorphic: Sedimentary:
Granodiorite, Greywacke, Sandstone and Anhydrite and Limestone shale, Schists and Clay shale,
Diorite and Gabbro; Conglomerate; Metamorphic: Gypstone; Dolomite, Limestone, Mylonites Mudstone,
Metamorphic: Hornfels; Igneous: Dolerite, Igneous: Tuff, Chalk and Siltstone; Claystone and
Gneiss, Quartzite, Obsidian, Andesite, Norite and Basalt, Breccia, Metamorphic: Slate, Marle;
Amphibolite Agglomerate Dacite and Phyllites and Marble
Rhyolite
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Intact rock strength-UCS (MPa) 4150 100–150 75–100 50–75 25–50 o 25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
RQD (%) 75–100 50–75 25–50 10–25 o 10
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Weathering W1 Fresh W2 Slightly weathered W3 Moderately W4 Highly weathered W5
(unweathered) weathered Completely
weathered
(Decomposed)
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Tectonic regime Weak (almost Moderate (presence of Strong (presence Very strong (high- Intense
absence of foliation, schistosity and of folds, faults and fractured zones) (Imbrications
meaningful tectonic cleavage) discontinuities) and
events) overthrusts)
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Groundwater condition Completely dry Damp Wet Dripping Flowing
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Number of major 0 1 2 3 4 3
discontinuity sets
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Discontinuity persistence (m) o5 5–10 10–25 25–40 440
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Discontinuity spacing 43hb 2hb–3hb 1hb–2hb 1/5hb–1hb o 1/5hb
(hb is bench height; see Fig. 6)
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Discontinuity orientation Very favourable Favourable Fair Unfavourable Very
(ad ¼ discontinuity dip direction; bd 4 bs and bd 4 bs and ad–as o 301 0r bd o bs/4 or bs/4 r bd o bs/2 and ad– unfavourable
as ¼slope dip direction; ad–as 4301 ad–as 4301 as o 301 bs/2 r bd o bs
bd ¼discontinuity dip; and ad–
bs ¼slope dip ) as o301
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Discontinuity aperture No separation o0.1 mm 0.1–1 mm 1–5 mm 45 mm
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Discontinuity roughness (JRCMacro) Very rough Rough Slightly rough Smooth Slickensided
47 5–7 3–5 1–3 o1
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Discontinuity filling Not filled Very hard filling Hard filling Soft filling Very soft
filling
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Slope (pit-wall) angle o 301 30–401 41–501 51–601 4601
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Slope (pit-wall) height (m) o 50 50–100 100–200 200–300 4300
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Blasting method Presplitting Postsplit Smoothwall/ Modified production Regular
cushion blast blasting/
mechanical
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Precipitation (annual rainfall and o 150 150–300 300–450 450–600 4600
snow) (mm/y)
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0
Previous instability None Inactive Quiescent Relatively active Highly
(obviously)
active
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0

Weathering (P4): Field studies have shown that both physical
and chemical weathering increase the instability of slopes [59,60].
Our classification is adapted from the weathering descriptions
proposed by ISRM [61], with classes ranging from ‘Fresh (W1)’ to
‘Completely weathered (W5)’ (see Table 1).
3.1.4. Tectonic conditions and in situ stress
Tectonic regime (P5): Rock masses are subjected to in situ
stresses resulting from the weight of the overlaying strata and
from tectonic stresses. The ‘tectonic history’ of the rock mass has a
major influence upon the in situ stresses [62]. This is demonstrated
by the World Stress Map [63] which shows that the orientation of
the maximum horizontal stress is dependent upon their location in
tectonic plates [64]. Therefore, because of the lack of in situ stress
measurements in most of open-pit mines, the parameter ‘tectonic
regime’ [17] was considered as an alternative to direct measure-
ments. (Note that, although tectonic disturbance is often related
with in situ stress, this is not always the case. Therefore, although
the use of ‘tectonic regime’ introduces uncertainty in our estimates,
8 M. Zare Naghadehi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 61 (2013) 1–14
it also allows us to develop field estimations more easily, without
the need to conduct in situ stress tests.) Following Rozos et al. [17],
this parameter was classified into five groups ranging from ‘Weak’
(almost absence of meaningful tectonic events) to ‘Intense’ (for
imbrications and overthrusts) (See Table 1 for details).
3.1.5. Hydraulic conditions
Groundwater (P6): Groundwater in a rock slope reduces its
stability due to the decrease of shear strength produced by a
reduced effective stress. And it has additional effects, such as
serving as an aid to rock weathering. Its subdivision into classes
follows the well-known RMR [31] and SMR [32] classifications
(see Table 1).
3.1.6. Discontinuity properties
Discontinuity properties are obviously important for slope
stability. Therefore, many properties are employed to characterise
discontinuities as described below.
Number of major discontinuity sets (P7): Number of major
discontinuity sets (P7)The rock mass ‘blockiness’ and overall
behaviour is dominated by the number of discontinuity sets.
Block shape and rock mass (an)isotropy are also affected by the
number of discontinuity sets, and methods for the automatic
clustering of discontinuity sets and for selection of the ‘optimum’
number of sets are available in the literature (see e.g. [65–67]). In
this study, five classes are used to describe this parameter,
ranging from rock masses with 0 to more than 3 discontinuity
sets (see Table 1).
Discontinuity persistence (P8): Persistence is important because
discontinuity lengths (or sizes) heavily influence the size of blocks
that may be formed [68]. Another reason is its major effect on
rock mass strength [69,70]. We have modified the traditional
classes for this parameter to consider common scales in open-pit
mining (see Table 1).
Discontinuity spacing (P9): The spacing of discontinuities affects
the size of blocks within the rock mass and its overall behaviour.
For instance, several closely spaced sets tend to produce isotropic
conditions with low cohesion, whereas widely spaced disconti-
nuities are more likely to yield interlocking conditions [3]. In this
study, we have altered traditional classes for discontinuity spa-
cing from the literature to account for the scale of open-pit
mining projects, with five classes in terms of bench height (see
Table 1 and Fig. 6).
Discontinuity orientation (P10): The orientation of discontinu-
ities relative to an excavation controls kinematic admissibility for
specific failure modes, and it is also an important parameter
affecting stability (see e.g. [71,72,73]). Following RMR [31], a
qualitative description from ‘Very favourable’ to ‘Very unfavour-
able’ has been adopted for this study. The specific category
applicable to each case, however, has been selected building on
the recommendations proposed in SMR [32] and MRMR [34]
(with some modifications so that it is easily applicable in pit-
walls), so that specific rankings are selected depending on the
relative orientations—measured as the differences of dip direc-
tion and of dip values—of the discontinuities and the excavation
surface (see Table 1 for details).
Discontinuity aperture (P11): Aperture is the perpendicular
distance between adjacent surfaces of an open discontinuity [3].
Discontinuity aperture increases water infiltration, frost wedging,
and associated ravelling [74]. The classification of aperture into
five classes proposed in RMR [31] and SMR [32] was followed in
this study (see Table 1).
Discontinuity roughness (P12): Roughness heavily affects the
shear strength of discontinuities and the stability of excavations
in rock masses (e.g. see [75]). The joint roughness coefficient (JRC)
Fig. 6. Typical geometry of an open-pit mine.
[76] is the most common index of discontinuity roughness. In the
present study, the scale effect on JRC [77] has been considered to
differentiate between laboratory and natural (block scale) condi-
tions. Five classes are used for this parameter, as described in
Table 1.
Discontinuity filling (P13): Infillings can have a significant
impact on the strength of discontinuities. For slope design, it is
therefore important that they are identified and that their
strength is characterised. Following the suggestions by ISRM
[61] for the filling of discontinuities—which have also been used
in other rock mass classifications; see e.g. [78]—in this study we
adopted a qualitative classification for this parameter, ranging
from ‘Not filled’ to ‘Very soft filling’ conditions (see Table 1).
3.1.7. Pit-wall geometry
A typical geometry of an open-pit mine slope has been shown
in Fig. 6. For this study, the following two geometrical parameters
have been considered.
Overall slope angle (P14):The slope angle plays an important
role in relation to slope stability. In structurally controlled rock
masses, this parameter affects the number of removable blocks
that can be formed in a slope (see e.g. [79]). In addition, as the
angle of a slope increases, the driving force on blocks also
increases, therefore making removable blocks more prone to
failure. Thus, everything being equal, slope failure would be more
frequent on steep slopes. In this study, and following several
studies in the literature (see e.g. [4,62,80]), five classes varying
from ‘ o301’ to ‘4601’ were considered (see Table 1).
Overall slope height (P15): Rock blocks in higher slopes have
more potential energy than rocks in lower slopes; thus they
present a greater instability hazard and are more failure prone
[51]. In addition, the stress levels are higher around the slopes in
deeper pits. Many records of open-pit mines were reviewed (e.g.
[62,80]) to classify this parameter into five classes ranging from
‘o50 m’ to ‘ 4300 m’ (see Table 1).
3.1.8. Construction
Blasting method (P16): Damage to rock faces by excessively
heavy blasting is a frequent cause of instability in open-pit
mining. In this research, the five most common blasting methods
in open-pit mines according to [81,82] have been considered to
quantify this parameter (see Table 1).
 M. Zare Naghadehi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 61 (2013) 1–14 9

3.1.9. History
Previous instability (P18): The presence of previous instabilities
demonstrates that a critical combination of factors leading to
instability is possible and, from the observation of failures, it is
possible to deduce how these factors (in some combination) led to
instability and to anticipate how they might combine again [83].
Moreover, even small-scale failures may be repeated at larger
scales, and their analysis is always useful to understand the
process [10]. The presence of previous instability has been
classified as ‘none’, ‘inactive’, ‘quiescent’, ‘relatively active’ and
‘highly (obviously) active’ with associated ratings according to the
definitions given by Varnes [84] (Inactive slopes are those for
which factors for movement have been removed by human
activity; quiescent slopes are those for which there is no evidence
that the movement is taking place in the present conditions, but
the movement may be renewed; active slopes are those that are
Fig. 7. Distribution of the stability status for all 84 cases within the database.
currently moving.)

3.2. Database of case histories 4. Computed results

The information for all 18 selected parameters was gathered 4.1. ANN-based coding of the interaction matrix
and compiled for a total of 84 cases from open-pit mines from
various locations in the world. The data were collected by using The database of 84 open-pit slope case histories was con-
publications and reports from the literature, by direct correspon- structed using the classification parameters and the coding values
dence with the associated companies and/or by visits to some of presented in Table 1 (The complete database, with additional
the mines (Table 2). Out of these 84 case histories, 72 were references to case histories, is available as supplementary mate-
‘randomly’ selected as the ‘coding set’ (i.e. for training and testing rial to this article). As mentioned before, 72 cases were ‘randomly’
of the ANN), and the remaining 12 were employed for validation selected for training and testing of the ANN and the remaining
of the newly developed MSII. (Selection was made based on ‘time 12 cases were used to validate the methodology.
of availability’, so that the last available case histories were Once that the appropriate neural network (in which the input
employed for validation.) The stability status of all the slopes and output nodes have identical ANN structures of a mirror
corresponding to the time in which measurements were con- configuration) was established, we employed the optimization
ducted was also recorded, and, for most of the failed slopes, the algorithm to find the optimal number of neurons in each layer. It
failure volume and the mode of failure were also obtained. That produced an ‘optimum’ architecture for the training ANN in the
allowed us to categorize slopes into three main groups according form of 18–36–36–18, which consists of an input layer (18
to their stability (see [85]): ‘Stable slopes’, ‘Failure in set of neurons), an output layer (18 neurons) and two hidden layers
benches (inter-ramp failure)’, and ‘Overall failure’. The distribu- (36 neurons each).
tion of stability status and of failure scale for the compiled case Once that training is completed, the partial derivative of an
histories is shown in Fig. 7. input node can be calculated for each output node, so that the
weights of all connections will be available to calculate the
components of GRSE matrix. Table 3 shows the interaction matrix
Table 2 constructed with this process. In this matrix, the leading diagonal
The list of open-pit mines in the database. terms represent the coupled effect of one parameter on itself. In
isolation, a variable will not affect itself because, theoretically, its
Open-pit mine Country Commodity Number of cases partial derivative with respect to itself should always be 1.0.
in database
All the leading diagonal values in the GRSE matrix calculated by
Cadia Hill Australia Gold & Copper 5 the trained neural network are quite close to 1.0 which shows a
Aguas Claras Brasil Iron ore 5 highly reliable interaction matrix. The off-diagonal components
Panda (Ekati) Canada Diamond 1 are the interactions between pairs of corresponding leading
Chuquicamata Chile Copper 5
diagonal variables. As explained in Section 2, considering the
Escondida Chile Copper 7
Ujina (Collahuasi) Chile Copper 1 signs and values of every input and output items, we can study
Angooran Iran Lead & Zinc 4 their influence on the rock engineering project. That is, the output
Chadormalou Iran Iron Ore 5 increases with an increasing input when GRSEki 40; the output
Choghart Iran Iron Ore 5 decreases with an increasing input when GRSEki o0; and the
Gole-Gohar Iran Iron Ore 4
Sarcheshmeh Iran Copper 4
output has no relation with the input when GRSEki ¼0. (Note that
Sungun Iran Copper 4 this has a strong connection with the positive and negative
Sandsloot South Africa Platinum 6 feedback loops discussed in [7]).
Venetia South Africa Diamond 7 As described in Section 2.1, from this matrix (Table 3), the
Aznalcollar Spain Lead and Zinc 5
influence of each parameter on the system (named ‘cause’, C) and
La Yesa Spain Claystone 2
Aitik Sweden Copper 6 the influence of the system on each parameter (named ‘effect’, E)
Esperanza USA Copper 1 can be computed (see Table 3). The influence weights (ai) of
(Phelps-Dosge) parameters on slope failure is computed using Eq. (14) with the
Betze-Post USA Gold 4 cause vs. effect diagram of Fig. 8; Fig. 9 shows the resulting
(Goldstrike)
Ok Tedi Papua New Guinea Gold–Copper 2
parameters’ interaction intensities (Cþ E). Table 4 lists the results
obtained for the database of case histories considered in this work.
 10
Table 3
The coded interaction matrix.

1.000 0.635 0.425 0.577  0.193 0.172 0.419 0.342 0.229 0.003  0.006 0.228 0.008  0.581  0.621  0.010 0.016 0.377 4.842 Cause (C)
0.000 1.000 0.373 0.452  0.009 0.009 0.222 0.113 0.120 0.002 0.006 0.194  0.001  0.386  0.275 0.000 0.011 0.211 2.384
 0.007 0.053 1.000 0.247 0.005  0.005 0.165 0.342 0.018 0.002 0.042 0.324 0.000  0.400  0.414 0.004  0.007 0.453 2.488
0.003 0.318 0.286 1.000  0.002 0.001  0.005  0.006 0.007  0.003 0.260 0.471 0.000  0.141  0.123  0.011 0.003 0.385 2.025
0.381 0.102 0.617 0.155 1.000 0.388 0.536 0.499 0.510 0.718 0.533 0.286  0.099  0.393  0.396 0.003  0.024 0.118 5.758
0.004 0.347 0.249 0.489 0.006 1.000  0.008 0.164 0.009  0.006 0.486 0.198 0.065  0.426  0.360 0.015  0.038 0.216 3.086
0.001  0.009 0.365 0.249 0.000  0.006 1.000 0.004  0.001  0.009  0.009  0.006 0.059  0.094  0.093  0.007 0.000 0.102 1.014
0.005 0.004 0.193 0.177 0.000 0.006 0.009 1.000  0.027 0.001 0.155 0.103 0.111  0.011  0.128  0.009 0.053 0.144 1.136
 0.007  0.008 0.270 0.146 0.000  0.002  0.009  0.128 1.000 0.009 0.162  0.090  0.006 0.005  0.086  0.005  0.007 0.062 1.002

M. Zare Naghadehi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 61 (2013) 1–14
0.002  0.003  0.008  0.017  0.008 0.288 0.008 0.207 0.217 1.000 0.215 0.000  0.006  0.291  0.220  0.009 0.000 0.555 2.054
0.005  0.003  0.006 0.397 0.000  0.007  0.002  0.100 0.095  0.007 1.000  0.099  0.970  0.120  0.023 0.000 0.026 0.041 1.901
0.004 0.000 0.002  0.008  0.001 0.009 0.002  0.002 0.007 0.006  0.007 1.000  0.008  0.054  0.084  0.003 0.005 0.129 0.331
0.000 0.000 0.008 0.138 0.009  0.004  0.005 0.008  0.009 0.003  0.102  0.003 1.000  0.077  0.090 0.001  0.008 0.148 0.613
 0.009  0.007  0.004  0.009 0.007  0.006  0.009 0.006  0.001  0.009 0.005  0.009 0.000 1.000  0.238  0.127  0.011 0.154 0.611
0.004 0.003  0.008 0.005 0.007 0.297  0.008 0.197  0.009 0.004  0.009  0.006 0.000  0.227 1.000  0.104 0.003 0.107 0.998
 0.007 0.006 0.515 0.064 0.004  0.009 0.399 0.154 0.319 0.000 0.222  0.001 0.000 0.000 0.004 1.000  0.006 0.070 1.780
 0.008 0.081 0.131 0.242  0.005 0.555 0.006 0.000 0.004 0.005  0.004 0.128 0.383  0.069  0.091 0.002 1.000 0.141 1.855
0.000  0.008 0.243 0.187  0.002 0.107 0.121  0.005 0.193  0.001 0.177 0.226  0.006 0.000 0.005  0.009 0.005 1.000 1.295
0.447 1.587 3.703 3.559 0.258 1.871 1.933 2.277 1.775 0.788 2.400 2.372 1.722 3.275 3.251 0.319 0.223 3.413
Effect (E)

P1, Rock type; P2, Intact rock strength; P3, RQD; P4, Weathering; P5, Tectonic regime; P6, Groundwater; P7, Number of sets; P8, Persistence; P9, Spacing; P10, Orientation; P11, Aperture; P12, Roughness; P13, Filling; P14, Overall slope
angle; P15, Overall slope height; P16, Blasting method; P17, Precipitation; P18, Previous instability.

‘safe zone’ of stable cases for (approx.) MSIIr50; a zone of

results suggest that three regions can be identified in Fig. 5: a
sidered to separate between hazard levels. In particular, our
open-pit slopes, as long as adequate threshold values are con-
that the MSII is an adequate indicator of instability potential in
MSII values with stability observations (see Fig. 10). Results show
each case is known (see Table 5), we can compare our computed
database. Table 5 shows the results. Since the stability status of
corresponding MSII values for all 72 cases in the training
are known (see Table 4), we can use Eq. (15) to compute the

4.2. Definition of hazard levels based on MSII

important for open-pit slope stability.

diagram) [6,7]. This means that our selected parameters are indeed
is elongated perpendicularly to the C¼E locus (the diagonal of the
parameters used are rather interactive, as their cloud in the diagram
the 18 parameters employed (Fig. 8), we observe that all the
cases, it will not be. Similarly, plotting the cause–effect diagram of
this type of information will be apparent to the engineer; in other
suggests a complex system with many interactions. In some cases,
that many of its non-diagonal elements are not equal to zero, which
Once the ai values (i.e. weights of parameters in the system)

According to the ANN-based GRSE matrix (Table 3), we can see

Fig. 9. Interaction intensity for the parameters in considered system.

Fig. 8. The cause–effect plot for the considered system.

 M. Zare Naghadehi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 61 (2013) 1–14 11

Table 4 Table 5
Influence weights of system’s parameters. Computed MSII values for all the case histories used to code the matrix.
P
Parameter ai value (weight) Case number MSII ¼ i ai  Ri Slope behaviour (in reality)

P1: Rock type 7.519 1 65.5 Overall failure

P2: Intact rock strength 5.645 2 52.0 Stable
P3: RQD 8.801 3 49.0 Stable
P4: Weathering 7.938 4 44.3 Stable
P5: Tectonic regime 8.552 5 53.1 Stable
P6: Groundwater 7.047 6 52.6 Stable
P7: Number of sets 4.189 7 42.6 Stable
P8: Persistence 4.852 8 51.9 Stable
P9: Spacing 3.948 9 49.7 Stable
P10: Orientation 4.040 10 44.4 Stable
P11: Aperture 6.114 11 58.5 Failure in set of benches
P12: Roughness 3.842 12 65.4 Overall failure
P13: Filling 3.319 13 58.7 Failure in set of benches
P14: Overall slope angle 5.524 14 53.0 Stable
P15: Overall slope height 6.040 15 39.8 Stable
P16: Blasting method 2.984 16 46.6 Stable
P17: Precipitation 2.954 17 49.8 Stable
P18: Previous instability 6.692 18 45.1 Stable
19 40.2 Stable
20 55.1 Failure in set of benches
21 57.2 Failure in set of benches
‘Hazard Level 1’ (H.L. 1), mainly with cases of limited-scale 22 48.2 Stable
failures (failure in set of benches), and corresponding to 23 52.9 Stable
50 oMSIIr60); and a zone of ‘Hazard Level 2’ (H.L. 2) with cases 24 51.6 Stable
of large scale or ‘overall’ failures, and corresponding to MSII 460. 25 60.2 Failure in set of benches
26 51.1 Stable
The reader should note that there is some overlap between
27 60.3 Overall failure
types of stability outcome in some MSII ranges (approx. for 28 53.2 Stable
50 oMSIIo65). This is, of course, something to be expected, 29 65.6 Failure in set of benches
since the MSII represents an empirical method that, despite the 30 66.7 Overall failure
31 59.4 Failure in set of benches
wide number of factors considered, cannot completely reproduce
32 47.2 Stable
the complex reality of a large-scale open-pit slope. To reduce 33 47.5 Stable
failure hazards, the limits between zones have been chosen 34 61.9 Failure in set of benches
conservatively. For instance, there are some ‘stable’ observations 35 66.6 Overall failure
within Hazard Level 1 and some ‘failure in set of benches’ cases 36 53.4 Stable
37 76.0 Overall failure
within Hazard Level 2. This may cause that some stable cases in
38 62.4 Failure in set of benches
H.L. 1 are rated as producing ‘failure in set of benches’, or even 39 42.8 Stable
that some cases producing ‘failure in set of benches’ are rated as 40 48.4 Stable
‘overall failure’ when they fall within H.L. 2. These, however, are 41 61.2 Overall failure
42 40.4 Stable
conservative errors, since they predict instability outcomes that
43 50.5 Failure in set of benches
are worse than reality. Although the opposite could also happen 44 56.1 Failure in set of benches
theoretically—i.e. having stability predictions that are better than 45 61.9 Failure in set of benches
reality—the conservative selection of MSII values between hazard 46 59.4 Failure in set of benches
level boundaries makes it a much more unlikely event. 47 55.9 Failure in set of benches
48 42.4 Stable
49 56.0 Failure in set of benches
4.3. Validation of the methodology 50 43.4 Stable
51 44.8 Stable
To validate the newly proposed MSII, and to assess its field 52 47.0 Stable
53 60.9 Failure in set of benches
applicability, 12 case histories of open-pit walls (not used in the
54 43.5 Stable
training database) were selected. After computing their MSII 55 52.0 Failure in set of benches
values, we compared their corresponding (in)stability predictions 56 37.5 Stable
based on hazard levels (see Fig. 10) with actual stability condi- 57 59.8 Failure in set of benches
tions observed in the field. Although more cases would always be 58 41.6 Stable
59 36.0 Stable
welcome to further validate the approach, these validation cases
60 38.9 Stable
represent an ample variability of field conditions, since they 61 64.7 Overall failure
correspond to six different open-pit mines, from different loca- 62 51.7 Failure in set of benches
tions in the world, and including the three stability conditions 63 39.9 Stable
considered for hazard evaluation using MSII (stable slopes, failure 64 45.0 Stable
65 40.5 Stable
in set of benches, and overall failure). Table 6 shows details of the 66 58.3 Failure in set of benches
12 validation case histories. 67 63.0 Overall failure
Table 7 compares the predicted instability conditions based on 68 59.8 Failure in set of benches
computed MSII values, and observations from the field. Results 69 45.7 Stable
70 74.6 Overall failure
show that, except for case history No. 2, the predictions based on
71 72.6 Overall failure
the MSII are completely consistent with the site observations, 72 71.7 Overall failure
which confirms the applicability of the proposed approach.
12 M. Zare Naghadehi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 61 (2013) 1–14

5. Conclusions

We present a new Mine Slope Instability Index (MSII) to assess

the (in)stability conditions of slopes in open-pit mining and to
assess the potential for open-pit wall collapses. The approach
employs the rock engineering systems (RES) approach to account,
in an objective and systematic way, for the complex interactions
that exist between parameters in real projects. In particular, we
selected 18 key parameters affecting the design of open-pit slopes,
and we used an optimized Back-Propagation Artificial Neural Net-
work (ANN) to code their RES interaction matrix, hence minimizing
the subjectivity introduced by ‘expert’ human coding of the matrix.
To train the ANN, we compiled a comprehensive database with
a large number of open-pit slope stability case histories from all
over the world. The RES interaction matrix is computed using the
global relative strength effects (GRSE) obtained from the weights
of the ANN calibrated with the available data, and we defined the
mine slope instability index (MSII) using such an interaction
matrix (72 case histories were ‘randomly’ selected to train the
ANN, and the remaining 12 cases served as a ‘validation bench-
mark’). In particular, the MSII is a weighted sum of parameter
ratings (one for each of the 18 parameters considered), in which
the ‘influence weights’ are computed as the ratio of each para-
meter’s interaction intensity divided by the (total) sum of inter-
action intensities of all parameters in the system.
Results show that the ANN provides a highly reliable interac-
tion matrix (all the leading diagonal values are very close to their

Table 7
Results of field applicability assessment of MSII.

Case history Calculated MSII Predicted Observed

No. value behaviour behaviour

1 65.0 Overall failure Overall failure

2 57.9 Failure in set of Overall failure
benches
3 68.0 Overall failure Overall failure
4 66.9 Overall failure Overall failure
5 44.5 Stable Stable
6 63.1 Overall failure Overall failure
7 39.8 Stable Stable
8 51.2 Failure in set of Failure in set of
benches benches
9 38.1 Stable Stable
10 55.0 Failure in set of Failure in set of
benches benches
11 59.3 Failure in set of Failure in set of
benches benches
Fig. 10. Calculated MSII values for 72 cases in the database and the estimated 12 66.0 Overall failure Overall failure
hazard levels (HLs).

Table 6
Details for the case histories used for the field applicability assessment.

Case history No. Mine—Pit-wall Country Commodity Occurrence (year)

1 Betze-Post (Goldstrike)—South wall USA Gold Wedge type overall failure (1997)
2 Betze-Post (Goldstrike)–South wall USA Gold Overall failure (2001)
3 Betze-Post (Goldstrike)—Southeast wall USA Gold Complex wedge overall failure (1997)
4 Betze-Post (Goldstrike)—Southwest wall USA Gold Bi-planar overall failure (2005)
5 Betze-Post (Goldstrike)—North wall USA Gold Stable (2001)
6 La Yesa—Northwest wall Spain Claystone Toppling-circular overall failure (2009)
7 La Yesa—Southeast Spain Claystone Stable (2009)
8 Ujina (Collahuasi)—West wall Chile Copper Failure in set of benches (1999)
9 Panda (Ekati)—North wall Canada Diamond Stable (2005)
10 Esperanza (Phelps-Dosge)—North wall USA Copper Wedge failure in set of benches (2001)
11 Ok Tedi—West wall Papua New Guinea Gold–Copper Failure in set of benches (2005)
12 Ok Tedi—East wall Papua New Guinea Gold–Copper Overall failure (2005)
 M. Zare Naghadehi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 61 (2013) 1–14
theoretical value of 1.0), and they also show that the selected
parameters are indeed important for open-pit slope stability
(since all parameters employed are rather interactive in the
cause–effect analysis). In addition, results show that the MSII
can be employed to predict the (in)stability status of open-pit
mine slopes and, using adequate threshold values, to define
hazard levels. For instance, a ‘safe zone’ can be defined for MSII
values of less than 50; ‘failures in set of benches’ can be expected
for values of MSII ranging between 50 and 60 and ‘large scale’ (or
‘overall’) failures tend to occur for MSII values greater than 60.
The newly proposed MSII has been validated by comparing our
MSII-based predictions with the actual (i.e. observed) behaviour
corresponding to 12 independent case histories of the ‘validation’
dataset. An excellent agreement between predictions and obser-
vations has been found, with only one (out of 12) case providing
an incorrect prediction (it predicted ‘set of benches failure’ vs. the
observation of ‘overall failure’), hence confirming the validity of
the proposed approach.
However, the MSII does not aim to substitute the traditional
engineering approach to solving slope stability problems (i.e.
assessing rock mass conditions, determining probably failure
modes, conducting stability analysis, interpreting the results)
but, rather, it aims to serve as a fast and simple field method
that provides ‘adequate’ approximations to reality using only
easily available input data. In this context, note that—despite
the ‘complex’ mathematics behind the ANN-based calibration of
the RES interaction matrix—the actual use of the MSII in the field
is very simple, since it is just a simple sum of weighted parameter
ratings, with weights provided herein (they are constant as long
as the training database is not extended or modified), and with
parameter ratings that can be easily rated in the field (they are
specific for a given open-pit) following the procedures discussed.
Finally, being an empirical method, the reliability of (in)stabil-
ity predictions based on MSII could be improved as the database
of the open-pit cases is extended, and as engineers and geologists
become more acquainted with its use. (For instance, this may lead
to future improvements in the definition of parameters or in the
numerical evaluation of their categories.) In that sense, although
the MSII has been proven to work well in a number of validation
case histories, further validation case histories are welcome, since
they will allow users to define better weighting factors and
threshold values between hazard levels. (Note that, for large
projects with plenty of data, they may even define site-specific
values.) It is therefore important that users contribute to the
maintenance and extension of the database, sharing their experi-
ences with MSII in open-pit mines worldwide.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Emeritus Professor John A. Hudson of
the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial
College, London, UK (and the originator of the RES system approach)
for his interest and advice during the work described in this paper.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in
the online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.01.012.
References
[1] Franz J. An investigation of combined failure mechanisms in large scale
open pit slopes. PhD thesis, School of Mining Engineering, The University of
New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; 2009, 387 p.
13
[2] Lilly P.A. Open pit mine slope engineering: a 2002 perspective. In: 150 years
of mining, Proceedings of the AusIMM annual conference, Auckland, New
Zealand; 2002.
[3] Wyllie DC, Mah CW. Rock slope engineering, civil and mining. 4th ed.
London: Spon Press; 2004 431 p.
[4] Sjöberg J. Large scale slope stability in open pit mining – a review. PhD thesis,
Lulea University of Technology; 1999. 790 p.
[5] Hoek E, Read J, Karzulovic A, Chen ZY. Rock slopes in civil and mining
engineering. In: GeoEng2000, Proceedings of the international conference on
geotechnical & geological engineering, Melbourne, Australia. Technomic
Publishing; 2000.
[6] Hudson JA. Rock engineering systems, theory and practice. Chichester: Ellis
Horwood; 1992.
[7] Jiao Y, Hudson JA. The fully-coupled model for rock engineering systems. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1995;32(5):491–512.
[8] Jiao Y, Hudson JA. Identifying the critical mechanisms for rock engineering
design. Geotechnique 1998;48:319–35.
[9] Smith GJ. The engineering geological assessment of shallow mine workings
with particular reference to chalk. Dissertation, University of London; 1994.
[10] Mazzoccola DF, Hudson JA. A comprehensive method of rock mass character-
ization for indicating natural slope instability. Q. J. Eng. Geol. 1996;29:37–56.
[11] Castaldini D, Genevois R, Panizza M, Puccinelli A, Berti M, Simoni A. An
integrated approach for analyzing earthquake-induced surface effects: a case
study from the Northern Apennins, Italy. J Geodyn 1998;26(2–4):413–41.
[12] Zhang LQ, Yang ZF, Liao QL, Chen J. An application of the rock engineering
systems (RES) methodology in rockfall hazard assessment on the Chengdu-
Lhasa highway, China. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41(3):833–8.
[13] Shang Y, Park HD, Yang Z. Engineering geological zonation using interaction
matrix of geological factors: an example from one section of Sichuan-Tibet
Highway. Geosci J 2005;9(4):375–87.
[14] Ding J, Yang Z, Shang Y, Zhou S, Yin J. A new method for spatio-temporal
prediction of rainfall-induced landslide. Sci China Ser D Earth Sci
2006;49(4):421–30.
[15] Ferentinou M, Sakellariou M. Computational intelligence tools for the pre-
diction of slope performance. Comput Geotech 2007;34:362–84.
[16] Ceryan N, Ceryan S. An application of the interaction matrices method for
slope failure susceptibility zoning: Dogankent settlement area (Giresun, NE
Turkey). Bull Eng Geol Environ 2008;67(3):375–85.
[17] Rozos D, Pyrgiotis L, Skias S, Tsagaratos P. An implementation of rock engineer-
ing system for ranking the instability potential of natural slopes in Greek
territory: an application in Karditsa County. Landslides 2008;5(3):261–70.
[18] Rozos D, Bathrellos GD, Skillodimou HD. Comparison of the implementation
of rock engineering system and analytic hierarchy process methods, upon
landslide susceptibility mapping, using GIS: a case study from the Eastern
Achaia County of Peloponnesus, Greece. Environ Earth Sci 2011;63:49–63.
[19] Budetta P, Santo A, Vivenzio F. Landslide hazard mapping along the coastline
of the Cilento region (Italy) by means of a GIS-based parameter rating
approach. Geomorphology 2008;94:340–52.
[20] KhaloKakaie R, Zare Naghadehi M. Ranking the rock slope instability
potential using the Interaction Matrix (IM) technique; a case study in Iran.
Arab J Geosci 2012;5(2):263–73.
[21] Zare Naghadehi M, Jimenez R, KhaloKakaie R, Jalali SME. A probabilistic
systems methodology to analyze the importance of factors affecting the
stability of rock slopes. Eng Geol 2011;118:82–92.
[22] Shang YJ, Wang SJ, Li GC, Yang ZF. Retrospective case example using a
comprehensive suitability index (CSI) for siting the Shisan-Ling power station
China. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37:839–53.
[23] Benardos AG, Kaliampakos DC. A methodology for assessing geotechnical
hazards for TBM tunnelling – illustrated by the Athens Metro, Greece. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41(6):987–99.
[24] Shin H, Kwon Y, Jung Y, Bae G, Kim Y. Methodology for quantitative hazard
assessment for tunnel collapses based on case histories in Korea. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 2009;46(6):1072–87.
[25] Latham J-P, Lu P. Development of an assessment system for the blastability of
rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:41–55.
[26] Anderiux P, Hadjigeorgiou J. The destressability index methodology for the
assessment of the likelihood of success of a large-scale confined destress blast
in an underground mine pillar. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2008;45(3):407–21.
[27] Hudson JA, Harrison JP. A new approach to studying complete rock engineer-
ing problems. Q J Eng Geol 1992;25:93–105.
[28] Yang Y, Zhang Q. A new method for the application of artificial neural
networks to rock engineering system (RES). Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1998;35(6):727–45.
[29] Cai JG, Zhao J, Hudson JA. Computerization of rock engineering systems using
neural networks with an expert system. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1998;31(3):135–52.
[30] Feng XT, Hudson JA. Rock engineering design. London: Taylor & Francis;
2011.
[31] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classifications. New York: Wiley;
1989 251 p.
[32] Romana M. New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski classifica-
tion to slopes. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on role of rock
mechanics, Zacatecas, Mexico; 1985. p. 49–53.
[33] Robertson AM. Estimating weak rock strength. In: Proceedings of the SME
annual meeting, phoenix; 1988. p. 1–5.
[34] Laubscher DH. A geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock
mass in mine design. J S Afr Inst Min Metall 1990;90(10):257–73.
14 M. Zare Naghadehi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 61 (2013) 1–14
[35] Chen Z. Recent developments in slope stability analysis. In: Proceedings of
the 8th international congress ISRM, Tokyo; 1995. p. 1041–48.
[36] Nicholson DT. Identification of deterioration hazard potential for quarried
rockslopes. Quarry Manage 2002;29(1):43–52.
[37] Nicholson DT. Hazard assessment for progressive, weathering-related break-
down of excavated rockslopes. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 2004;37:327–46.
[38] Alejano LR, Stockhausen HW, Alonso E, Bastante FG, Ramirez Oyanguren P.
ROFRAQ: A statistics-based empirical method for assessing accident risk
from rockfalls in quarries. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2008;45(8):1252–72.
[39] Lu P, Latham J-P. A continuous quantitative coding approach to the interac-
tion matrix in rock engineering systems based on grey systems approaches.
In: Proceedings of the 7th international congress IAEG. Rotterdam: Balkema;
1994. p. 4761–70.
[40] Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ. Learning internal representation by
error propagation parallel distributed processing: exploration in the micro-
structure of cognition, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1986.
[41] Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL. The PDP research group, parallel distributed
processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press; 1988.
[42] Hecht-Nielson R. Theory of the backpropagation neural network. In: Proceed-
ings of the international joint conference neural networks. New York: IEEE
Press; 1989. p. 593–611.
[43] Zupan J, Gasteiger J. Neural networks for chemists – an introduction.
Weinheim: VCH; 1993.
[44] Hecht-Nielson R. Neurocomputing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1990.
[45] Yang Y, Rosenbaum MS. Artificial neural networks linked to GIS for deter-
mining sedimentology in harbours. J Petrol Sci Eng 2001;29:213–20.
[46] Beale MH, Hagan MT, Demuth HB. Neural Network ToolboxTM 7 user’s guide.
Natick, MA: The MathWorks; 2011.
[47] Mavroulidou M, Hughes SJ, Hellawell EE. A qualitative tool combining an
interaction matrix and a GIS, to map vulnerability to traffic induced air
pollution. J Environ Manage 2004;70(4):283–9.
[48] Mavroulidou M, Hughes SJ, Hellawell EE. Developing the interaction matrix
technique as a tool assessing the impact of traffic on air quality. J Environ
Manage 2007;84:513–22.
[49] Hudson JA. Atlas of rock engineering mechanisms: Part 2 – slopes. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 1992;29(2):157–9.
[50] Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF. Support of underground excavations in hard
rock. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1995.
[51] Kliche C. Rock slope stability. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration
(SME) 1999.
[52] Hoek E. Putting numbers to geology- an engineer’s viewpoint. Q J Eng Geol
1999;32(1):1–19.
[53] Marinos P, Hoek E. Estimating the geotechnical properties of heterogeneous
rock masses such as flysch. Bull Eng Geol Environ 2001;60(2):85–92.
[54] Hoek E, Carranza-Torres CT, Corkum B. Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002
edition. In: Proceedings of the 5th North American rock mechanics sympo-
sium, vol. 1; 2002. p. 267–73.
[55] Karzulovic A. Fundamentals of geomechanics. Lecture notes, Universidad de
los Andes; 2006 [in Spanish].
[56] Koukis G, Rozos D, Hatzinakos I. Relationship between rainfall and landslides
in the formations of Achaia County, Greece. In: Proceedings of the interna-
tional symposium on IAEG in engineering geology and the environment,
AA Balkema, Rotterdam, vol. 1; 1997. p. 793–98.
[57] Deere DU, Hendron AJ, Patton FD, Cording EJ. Design of surface and near
surface construction in rock. In: Fairhurst C., editor. Proceedings of the 8th US
symposium on rock mechanics, failure and breakage of rock. New York:
Soc Min Engrs Am Inst Min Metall Pet Engrs; 1967. p. 237–302.
[58] Deere DU, Deere DW. The rock quality designation (RQD) index in practice.
In: Kirkaldie L, editor. Rock classification systems for engineering purposes,
984. Philadelphia: ASTM Special Publication; 1988. p. 91–101.
[59] Giani GP. Rock slope stability analysis. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1992.
[60] Calcaterra D, Parise M. Weathering as a predisposing factor to slope move-
ments. The Geological Society, London; 2010. 248 p.
View publication stats
[61] ISRM. The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization
testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. In: Ulusay R., Hudson J.A., editors.
Suggested methods prepared by the commission on testing methods, ISRM
Turkish National Group, Turkey; 2007. 628 p.
[62] Read J, Stacey P, editors. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing; 2009.
[63] WSM-World Stress Map. Release 2008 of the world stress map; 2008
(Available online at /www.world-stress-map.orgS).
[64] Zoback ML. First- and second-order patterns of stress in the lithosphere: the
World Stress Map Project. J Geophys Res 1992;97(B8):11761–82.
[65] Jimenez R, Sitar N. A spectral method for clustering of rock discontinuity sets.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2006;43(7):1052–61.
[66] Jimenez R. Fuzzy spectral clustering for identification of rock discontinuity
sets. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2008;41(6):929–39.
[67] Tokhmechi B, Memarian H, Moshiri B, Rasouli V, Ahmadi Noubari H.
Investigating the validity of conventional joint set clustering methods. Eng
Geol 2011;118(3–4):75–81.
[68] Jimenez-Rodriguez R, Sitar N. Influence of stochastic discontinuity network
parameters on the formation of removable blocks in rock slopes. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 2008;41(4):563–85.
[69] Einstein HH, Veneziano D, Baecher GB, O’Reilly KJ. The effect of discontinuity
persistence on rock sloe stability. Int J Rock Mech Sci Geomech Abstr
1983;20:227–36.
[70] Park H, West TR, Woo I. Probabilistic analysis of rock slope stability and
random properties of discontinuity parameters, Interstate Highway 40,
Western North Carolina, USA. Eng Geol 2005;79:230–50.
[71] Jimenez-Rodriguez R, Sitar N, Chacon J. System reliability approach to rock
slope stability. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2006;43(6):847–59.
[72] Jimenez-Rodriguez R, Sitar N. Rock wedge stability analysis using system
reliability methods. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2007;40(4):419–27.
[73] Hoek E, Bray JW. Rock slope engineering. 3rd edition London: The Institution
of Mining and Metallurgy; 1981 358 p.
[74] Maerz NH, Youssef A, Fennessey TW. New risk-consequence rockfall hazard
rating system for Missouri highways using digital image analysis. Environ
Eng Geosci 2005;11:229–49.
[75] Hoek E. Practical rock engineering. Course notes, Hoek Corner; 2007 /http://
www.rocscience.comS.
[76] Barton NR. Review of a new shear strength criterion for rock joints. Eng Geol
1973;7:287–322.
[77] Bandis S, Lumsden AC, Barton NR. Experimental studies of scale effects on the
shear behaviour of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Sci Geomech Abstr
1981;18:1–21.
[78] Liu Y-C, Chen C-S. A new approach for application of rock mass classification
on rock slope stability assessment. Eng Geol 2007;89:129–43.
[79] Goodman RE, Shi G. Block theory and its application to rock engineering.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1985.
[80] Hustrulid WA, McCarter MK, van Zyl DJA, editors. Littleton, Colorado: Society
for Mining, Metallurgical and Exploration (SME); 2000.
[81] Hagan TN, Bulow B. Blast designs to protect pit walls. In: Hustrulid WA,
McCarter MJ, Van Zyl DJA, editors. Slope stability in surface mining. Littleton:
Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc.; 2000. p. 125–30.
[82] Hustrulid WA. Blasting principles for open-pit mining. Vol. 2 Theoretical
foundations. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1999.
[83] Goodman RE, Kieffer DS. Behavior of rock in slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2000;126(8):675–84.
[84] Varnes DJ. Slope movement types and processes. In: Schuster R.L., Krizek R.J.,
editors. Landslides analysis and control. Transportation Research Board
Special Report 176. National Academy of Sciences, Washington; 1978.
[85] Kozyrev AA, Reshetnyak SP, Maltsev VA, Rybin VV. Analysis of stability loss in
open-pit slopes and assessment principles for hard, tectonically stressed rock
masses. In: Hustrulid WA, McCarter MJ, Van Zyl DJA, editors. Slope stability
in surface mining. Littleton: Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration
Inc.; 2000. p. 251–6.