Geotech Geol Eng
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-019-00935-9 (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)
ORIGINAL PAPER
Rock Slope Analysis with Nonlinear Hoek–Brown Criterion
Incorporating Equivalent Mohr–Coulomb Parameters
Vinay Kumar . Navneet Himanshu . Avijit Burman
Received: 18 February 2019 / Accepted: 26 April 2019
Ó Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
Abstract In the present work, the results of rock
slope analyses incorporating nonlinear Hoek–Brown
yield criterion with equivalent Mohr–Coulomb
strength parameters to simulate rock mass behaviour
are presented. The factor of safety (FOS) of rock
slopes are calculated using Morgenstern–Price and
Spencer’s method. A simplified method of generating
non-circular segmented failure surface is proposed.
The search of minimum FOS and associated critical
non-circular failure mass for rock slopes is performed
by Particle swarm optimization (PSO) technique.
A MATLAB code is developed incorporating nonlin-
ear Hoek–Brown criteria with equivalent Mohr–
Coulomb strength parameters and coupled with PSO
to analyze stability of rock slopes. The efficiency and
accuracy of the developed MATLAB code is estab-
lished by comparing the obtained results with those
from existing literatures. Furthermore, the analyses of
slopes are performed with varying height and slope
angle for an intact rock slope with varying material
parameters such as Hoek–Brown constant mi and
uniaxial compressive strength rci for rock material. It
V. Kumar  N. Himanshu  A. Burman (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Geotechnical
Engineering, NIT Patna, Patna, Bihar, India
e-mail: vinay.ce18@nitp.ac.in
N. Himanshu
e-mail: navneet.ce2014@nitp.ac.in
A. Burman
e-mail: avijitburman@yahoo.com
is found that the FOS value follows a decreasing
pattern if height and the slope angles are increased.
Keywords Nonlinear Hoek–Brown yield criterion 
Linear equivalent Mohr–Coulomb strength
parameters  Geological strength index  Morgenstern–
Price method  Spencer’s method  Particle swarm
optimization technique
1 Introduction
Rock slope stability analyses are important in mining,
design of excavated slopes (e.g. road cuts, open pit
mining etc.) and other civil engineering project such as
construction of dam. Analysis of any slopes requires
evaluation of factor of safety (FOS) for sliding mass.
For determination of FOS of any slopes against failure,
limit equilibrium techniques (Fellenius 1936; Janbu
1954; Bishop 1955; Lowe and Karafiath 1960; Mor-
genstern and Price 1965; Spencer 1967) are most
popular among the researchers. The formulation of
limit equilibrium techniques usually depends on linear
Mohr–Coulomb (MC) criteria which includes two
strength parameters i.e. Cohesion ðcÞ and angle of
internal friction ðuÞ: Experimental studies regarding
shear failure pattern of rock mass (Hoek 1983; Hoek
and Brown 1997) conclude that rock mass Nonlinear
stress–strain behavior. These studies have proved that
it would be inappropriate to employ the linear Mohr–
123

Coulomb (MC) strength criteria in rock slope stability
analyses.
From experimental studies conducted on rock, an
empirical Hoek–Brown (HB) strength criterion for
estimating shear strength parameter for hard rock mass
(Hoek 1983). Later, nonlinear Hoek–Brown (HB)
strength criterion for entire classes of rock mass was
developed (Hoek and Brown 1997). Generalized
Hoek–Brown (GHB) failure criterion (Bieniawski
1974) is widely acceptable among the geotechnical
engineers to estimate the Nonlinear shear strength as
well as equivalent Mohr–Coulomb (MC) strength
parameters of various types of intact and fractured
rock masses (Priest 2005). The Nonlinear equivalent
Mohr–Coulomb (EMC) strength parameters (i.e.
equivalent angle of internal friction and equivalent
cohesion) obtained from Generalized Hoek–Brown
(GHB) failure criterion are suitable for description of
material behaviour of any general rock mass. The
approach for determining instantaneous angle of
internal friction ðuÞ as well as instantaneous cohesion
ðcÞ corresponding to an effective base normal stress
ðrn Þ employs empirical expressions developed by
(Bieniawski 1974). It also requires Hoek–Brown curve
between shear stress ðsÞ and normal stress ðrn Þ. The
aforementioned approach (Bieniawski 1974) provides
a methodology for evaluating EMC strength param-
eters but the exact computational strategy utilized to
obtain angle of internal friction ðuÞ as well as cohesion
ðcÞ was not discussed. Many investigators (Kumar
1998; Carranza-Torres 2004; Priest 2005; Shen et al.
2012) have discussed different calculation strategies
for evaluating EMC strength parameters used in
Generalized Hoek–Brown (GHB) failure criterion
(Bieniawski 1974).
In slope stability analysis, it is necessary to search
the critical failure surface (CFS) with minimum factor
of safety (FOS). This necessitates application of some
optimization technique because CFS with minimum
FOS must be found out of all possible failure surfaces.
The method of variation (Baker 1980); Simplex
method (Chen and Shao 1988) and another application
of Simplex method (Nguyen 1985) are some tech-
niques used to solve the optimization problem related
to soil slope stability.
In the present work, particle swarm optimization
(PSO) technique is used to determine the critical
failure surface with global minimum FOS for a few
benchmark rock slope stability problems. The authors
123
Geotech Geol Eng
have proposed a simple technique of generation of
noncircular trial failure surface as a combination of
curved and linear segments. The proposed method is
simpler than other techniques (Cheng et al. 2007a, b)
used for generating non-circular, segmented failure
surfaces and yields excellent results. Extensive con-
vergence studies of variation of minimum FOS with
various parameters such as swarm size, number of
iterations and number of slices are presented to
investigate the quality of solution. These studies are
also helpful in validating the MATLAB code devel-
oped for solution of rock slopes incorporating Gener-
alized (Bieniawski 1974) material behaviour.
In the present paper, the authors have used the Hoek–
Brown parameter a = 0.50. It is an analytical solution
developed by Bray and reported by Hoek (1983) which
gives correct results for intact rock with the geological
strength index (GSI) equal to 100. In the present scope
of work, limit equilibrium technique based on Morgen-
stern and Price (1965) method using Nonlinear Hoek–
Brown strength criterion is utilized to evaluate the FOS
of slopes against failure. The particle swarm optimiza-
tion (PSO) technique-based MATLAB code is devel-
oped to evaluate the minimum factor of safety
corresponding to critical failure surface.
2 Methodology and Modeling
2.1 Generation of Trial Failure Surface
To find the critical failure surface (CFS), it is required
to create a general trial failure surface. Different
researchers (Malkawi et al. 2001; McCombie and
Wilkinson 2002; Zolfaghari et al. 2005; Cheng et al.
2007a, b) proposed methods of generating trial non-
circular failure surface. The generation of any non-
circular failure surfaces requires that the potential trial
failure surface must be kinematically admissible as
well as concave upward in nature. This criterion is
represented by Eq. (1). A new and simple technique of
generation of non-circular failure surface as a combi-
nation of linear segments is discussed herein. The
failure surface should be composed of discrete number
of slices with linear segmented base. The development
of failure surface requires predefined number of slices
nsls. The requirement of kinematically admissible and
concave upward failure surface is governed by the
following relation:
Geotech Geol Eng

a1 \a2 \: ::::\ansls1 \ansls ð1Þ derived from the known equation of ysurf 1 ð xÞ. In
summary, the total numbers of randomly generated
where ai = inclination of the base of slice ðiÞ.
control variables are four i.e. ½xl ; xr ; al ; ar . The
The formulation of slope geometry requires the
variable ½xl ; xr ; al ; ar  generated randomly require
coordinates of different nodal points ðXi ; Yi Þ of slope
lower bound (lb) and upper bound (ub) discussed in
be defined. The geometric layout of different layers is
Eq. (2). The selection of lower and upper bound of
defined by using the function ysurf i ð xÞ. The upper most variables depend on the experience of the practicing
ground surface is represented by the function ysurf 1 ð xÞ. engineer. Moreover, first two variables ðxl ; xr Þ lie on
The subsequent inner layers are represented by the the upper surface of the slope i.e. ysurf 1 ð xÞ with
functions ysurf surf surf
2 ð xÞ; y3 ð xÞ; . . .; ynl ð xÞ. Where, the ub
constraint xl \xr . lb
index ðnlÞ represents total numbers of layers. The
phreatic surface is expressed by the function ypwp ðxÞ. xlb ub
l  xl  xl ð2aÞ
An illustrative slope with trial failure surface is shown
in Fig. 1. xlb ub
r  xr  xr ð2bÞ
In the next phase, the failure surface is generated 
based on the control variables ½xl ; yl ; xr ; yr ; al ; ar . alb
l ¼ 30
o
alb  al  aub or ð2cÞ
Here, ðxl ; yl Þ denotes the coordinate of the leftmost or
l l aub
l ¼ þ30 o

the initial/beginning point of the trial failure surface. 

alb
l ¼ 45
o
Similarly, ðxr ; yr Þ represents the coordinate of the alb  ar  aub or ð2dÞ
r r
aub
l ¼ 75 o
rightmost or the terminating point of the trial failure
surface. The angles al and ar denote the inclination of The limit equilibrium method adopted in this paper
the initial and termination point on the trial failure is based on division of failure mass into discrete
surface with the horizontal direction. The variables number of vertical slices with linear segmented base.
½xl ; xr ; al ; ar  are generated randomly. Two dependent Here the suffix nsls represents total number of slices
variables ðyl ; yr Þ are calculated based on the randomly inside the failure mass. The failure mass with nsls
generated values of ðxl ; xr Þ from the equation of the number of slices is represented by a set of nsls þ 1
upper surface of the slope i.e. ysurf 1 ð xÞ. Therefore, vertices ðVi ¼ V1 ; V2 ; V3 ; . . .; Vnsls ; Vnslsþ1 Þ and slice
ðyl ; yr Þ are not treated as control variables as they are base angle ðai ¼ a1 ; a2 ; a3 ; . . .; ansls1 ; ansls Þ. Each

Fig. 1 Trial non-circular failure surface

123

individual vertex corresponds to a subset of coordi-
nates ðxi ¼ x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; . . .; xnslsþ1 Þ and
ðyi ¼ y1 ; y2 ; y3 ; . . .; ynslsþ1 Þ. In other words, the
ðxi ; yi Þ represents ðx; yÞ coordinates of the points used
to define the failure mass. In this procedure of slice
division, all the slices are of equal width. To generate
non-circular failure surface in ðx; yÞ plane, four
randomly generated control variables ½xl ; xr ; al ; ar 
and two dependent variables ðyl ; yr Þ are used. The
procedure adopted is as follows:
V1 ¼ ðxl ; yl Þ ð3aÞ
Vnslsþ1 ¼ ðxr ; yr Þ ð3bÞ
a1 ¼ al ð3cÞ
ansls ¼ ar ð3dÞ
To obtain ðxi Þ coordinates of the remaining vertices
ðVi Þ of failure surface, the following equations are
used:
x1 ¼ xl ð4aÞ
xnslsþ1 ¼ xr ð4bÞ
xr  xl
xiþ1 ¼ xi þ 8i ¼ 1; 2; 3. . .; nsls ð4cÞ
nsls
Next, the ðyi Þ coordinates corresponding to each
ðxi Þ coordinate values should be determined. Two
straight line segments are extended from the end
points i.e. end vertices V1 & Vnslsþ1 having slice base
angles of a1 &ansls which intersect each other at a point
IP1 . The line V1 IP1 with base angle a1 corresponding
to ðxi ¼ x2 Þ gives ðyi ¼ y2 Þ and line Vnslsþ1 IP1 with
base angle ansls corresponds to ðyi ¼ ynsls Þ for
ðxi ¼ xnsls Þ. The calculation of coordinates of vertices
V1 ; V2 ; Vnsls ; Vnslsþ1 as shown in Fig. 1 fulfills the
requirement of generation of two end slices of the
failure surface. The remaining number of slices to be
constructed is equal to nsls  2. The line segment
obtained by joining Vnsls and IP1 is subdivided into
nsls  2 equal divisions. The nsls  2 equal segments
correspond to a total number nsls  1 equally spaced
point with endpoint IP1 and Vnsls are shown in Fig. 1.
These points are represented using notation
IPi ¼ IP1 ; IP2 ; . . .; IPnsls2 ; IPnsls1 .
A line V2 IP2 is obtained by joining a previously
known vertex V2 and IP2 . The coordinates ðyi ¼ y3 Þ of
third vertex V3 is obtained by using the equation of line
123
Geotech Geol Eng
V2 IP2 corresponding to ðxi ¼ x3 Þ. Similarly, the
coordinates of remaining vertices to generate the
failure surface are obtained by repeating previously
discussed procedure. The generated failure surface as
shown in Fig. 1 is concave upward and also satisfies
the requirement of kinematic admissibility as defined
in Eq. (1). Thus, each individual failure surface
contains two set of coordinate vectors ðXÞ and ðYÞ
representing ðxi ; yi Þ coordinates respectively.
X ¼ ½x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; . . .; xnsls1 ; xnsls ; xnslsþ1  ð5aÞ
Y ¼ ½y1 ; y2 ; y3 ; . . .; ynsls1 ; ynsls ; ynslsþ1  ð5bÞ
2.2 The Objective Function of PSO
The objective function for slope problem is a math-
ematical function that may not be continuous over
whole solution domain. The solution of the objective
function is restricted within the boundaries of search
space. The scope of optimization technique in slope
stability problem is to minimize the objective function
(f) with defined variables. In the present scope of work,
limit equilibrium technique based on Morgenstern and
Price (1965) method is utilized to evaluate the FOS of
slopes against failure. The formulation of objective
function using Morgenstern and Price (1965) method
is based on satisfying force equilibrium linked with
individual slice as well as satisfying moment equilib-
rium for sliding failure mass as a whole. Recently, Zhu
et al. (2005) proposed a concise algorithm based on
Morgenstern–Price method for implementation in
computer programming. In the present work, a mod-
ified form of the same algorithm is adopted for
developing a MATLAB code to analyze slope stability
problems.
An analysis of slope is governed by the assumption
that downward force acting on the failure mass is the
mobilizing force and upward force is the resisting
forces. The stability of slope is defined as the ratio of
the summation of shear resistance and mobilized shear
force for each individual slice ðiÞ:
P
Sri
f ¼ FOS ¼ P ð6Þ
Smi
Shear strength ðresistanceÞ of ith slice: Sri
¼ c0i li þ Ni0 tan u0i ð7Þ
Geotech Geol Eng

Shear stress ðmobilizedÞ of ith slice: Smi horizontal force equilibrium, the mobilized shear Smi
¼ ðc0i li þ Ni0 tan u0i Þ=f ð8Þ is defined as:

Here, c0i and u0i are effective cohesion and effective
angle of internal friction applicable for i th slice. Also,
li and Ni0 are the length of the base of i th slice and the
effective normal force on it respectively.
Moreover, evaluation of factor of safety for non-
circular failure surface, involves a comprehensive
computer-based computation. The evaluation of factor
of safety using Morgenstern and Price (1965) method
utilizes both inter-slice normal force ðEnÞ and inter-
slice shear force ðEs ¼ f n k EnÞ with variable force
function f n along the slice as shown in Fig. 2. Here, f n
Smi ¼ ðc0i li þ Ni0 tan u0i Þ=fi
¼ ðWi þ Esiþ1  Esi Þ sin ai  ðkh Wi  Eniþ1 þ Eni Þ cos ai
ð10Þ
One of the key variables in both equations is
effective base-normal Ni0 , the normal force at the base
of each individual slice. The equation is obtained by
substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (10) and utilizing the
relationship Es ¼ f n k En yields:
 
n
Eniþ1 ðsin ai  fiþ1 k cos ai Þtanu0i þ ðcos ai þ fiþ1
n
k sin ai Þf  Sri0
 
¼ Eni ðsin ai  fi k cos ai Þtanui þ ðcos ai þ fi k sin ai Þf  Sm0i
n 0 n

represent inter-slice force function and k is defined as ð11Þ

scaling factor. In the present work, author uses a Half-
Here,Sri0 and Sm0i correspond to the sum of shear
sine force function f n while evaluating FOS.
resistance and mobilized shear contributed by forces
Morgenstern and Price (1965) of evaluating FOS value
acting on the slice except inter-slice normal and shear
against slope failure requires the failure mass to be divided
forces. In equation form, the Sri0 and Sm0i is defined as:
into discrete number of vertical slices ðiÞ. A typical slice
having width wi , height hi and base angle ai is shown Sri0 ¼ ðWi cosai  kh Wi sinai  Ui Þtanu0i þ c0i li ð12Þ
in Fig. 2. The base-normal Ni0 is obtained by making
summation of all vertical forces acting on i th slice. In Sm0i ¼ Wi sinai þ kh Wi cosai ð13Þ
equation form, the base-normal is defined as:
Rearrange Eq. (11) as:
Ni0 ¼ ðWi þ Esiþ1  Esi Þ cos ai þ ðkh Wi  Eniþ1
Eniþ1 viþ1 giþ1 ¼ Eni vi  f Sm0i þ Sri0 ð14aÞ
þ Eni Þ sin ai  Ui
ð9Þ vi ¼ ðsin ai  fin k cos ai Þtanu0i þ ðcos ai
þ fin k sin ai Þf ð14bÞ
In the above equation, Wi is the weight of the ith
slice, kh is the horizontal coefficient of earthquake n
viþ1 ¼ ðsin aiþ1  fiþ1 k cos aiþ1 Þtanu0iþ1 þ ðcos aiþ1
acceleration and Ui is the total pore water pressure n
þ fiþ1 k sin aiþ1 Þf
acting on the ith slice. Consequently, after satisfying
ð14cÞ
n
giþ1 ¼ ½ðsin ai  fiþ1 k cos ai Þtanu0i
n
 ð14dÞ
þðcos ai þ fiþ1 k sin ai Þf  viþ1
In Eq. (14a), the boundary values of inter-slice
normal force at left-most and the rightmost slice are
En1 ¼ Ennslsþ1 ¼ 0. The expression for the factor of
safety (FOS or f ) derived from the force equilibrium
equation is defined as:
P  Q 
Sr10 þ i¼nsls
i¼2 Sri0 j¼i
j¼2 gj
FOS ¼ f ¼ P  Q  ð15Þ
Sm01 þ i¼nsls
i¼2 Sm0i j¼i
j¼2 gj

The FOS value is estimated by Eq. (15) under static

condition as well as under lateral pseudo-static
Fig. 2 Forces acting on ith slice earthquake acceleration, which is also utilized as

123

fitness function or objective function for optimization
purpose. The factor of safety equation is nonlinear
because FOS or f appears on both sides of Eq. (15) and
an iterative procedure is required to compute the factor
of safety FOS.
Other equations are also required to satisfy moment
equilibrium of the slice ðiÞ. This is established by
taking moments of all forces acting on the slice about
Geotech Geol Eng
stresses and normal and shear stresses. (Hoek and
Brown 1990) also discussed the relation between
empirical constant (mb ; s; a) and rock mass classifica-
tion based Geological Strength Index (GSI). Hoek and
Brown (1997) expressed failure criterion and applied
successfully for wide range of intact and fractured
rock types of rock masses.

 a
mb r3
center of base. r1 ¼ r3 þ rci þs ð19Þ
rci
 wi  hi
Eniþ1 zeiþ1 þ tan ai þ kh Wti where r1 = maximum effective stress at failure.
 2  2
wi wi  n n
r3 = minimum effective stress at failure. rci = uniax-
¼ Eni zei  tan ai þ k f Eni þ fiþ1 Eniþ1
2 2 i ial compressive strength of the intact rock material.
ð16Þ Here, mb is a material constant. It depends on its
initial value mi . The other two constants s and a are
The terms Mni ¼ Eni  zei and Mniþ1 ¼ Eniþ1  dependent on the proportion, structure and surface of
zeiþ1 are known as inter-slice moments. Substituting the rock masses. The Hoek–Brown input parameter
Mni and Mniþ1 in Eq. (16) results: mb ,s and a depend on the geological strength index
wi hi (GSI) of the rock mass. Geological strength index
Mniþ1 þ ðEni þ Eniþ1 Þ tan ai þ kh Wti (GSI) describes the degree of interlocking of the
2 2 ð17Þ
wi  n n
blocks in the rock mass and the surface quality of the
¼ Mni þ k f Eni þ fiþ1 Eniþ1
2 i discontinuities in the rock mass (Hoek and Brown
In Eq. (17), the boundary value of moment at left- 1997). The relations between these parameters are as
most and rightmost slice are Mn1 ¼ En1  ze1 ¼ 0 follows:
and Mnnslsþ1 ¼ Ennslsþ1  zenslsþ1 ¼ 0 respectively.

GSI  100
The expression based on moment equilibrium mb ¼ mi exp ð20Þ
28
becomes an explicit form of scaling factor (k) and is


evaluated as: GSI  100
Pi¼nsls s ¼ exp and a ¼ 0:5 for GSI [ 25
½wi ðEni þ Eniþ1 Þ tan ai þ kh Wti hi  9
k ¼ i¼1Pi¼nsls   ð18Þ ð21Þ
i¼1 wi ðfin Eni þ fiþ1
n En
iþ1 Þ

2.3 Generalized Hoek–Brown Failure Criterion
The Hoek–Brown strength criterion is developed for
evaluating the strength of hard rock masses. Hoek and
Brown (1980) introduced their failure criterion and
developed empirical relationships. The empirical
failure makes use of the rock mass rating by Beniawski
based on observation of geological characteristics of
the available rock mass. Joint rock masses consist
block of brittle material separated by discontinuous
surfaces. The strength of joint rock masses depends on
the orientation, spacing, and shear strength of discon-
tinuities. Hoek (1983) utilized approximate method
for estimating the strength of joint rock masses. (Hoek
and Brown 1990) updated the empirical failure
criterion and related it to major and minor principal
GSI
s ¼ 0 and a ¼ 0:65  for GSI\25 ð22Þ
200
Bieniawski (1974) popularized a disturbance factor
D for the determination of mb and s. The disturbance
factor defines the amount of disturbance caused by
stress relaxation and damage. The values of distur-
bance factor D depend upon the quality of blasting.
The value of factor D started from 0 for rock adjacent
to machine mined underground openings, 0.7 for civil
engineering and 1.0 for open pit mine slopes depend-
ing on the quality of blasting. Hoek et al. (2002)
proposed the following revised empirical expressions
for mb ,s and a.

123
Geotech Geol Eng
GSI  100
mb ¼ mi exp ð23Þ
28  14D
GSI  100
s ¼ exp ð24Þ
9  3D
eð Þ  eð20
3 Þ
GSI
15
a ¼ 0:5 þ ð25Þ
6
The revised empirical relationships (Eqs. 23–25)
are capable of covering the entire range of geological
strength index (GSI) in a single group of expression.
Limit equilibrium based rock slope analysis employ-
ing method of slices uses effective Coulomb shear
strength parameters such as cohesion ðcÞ and angle of
internal friction ðuÞ on some known or anticipated
shear surface subjected to an effective normal stress
ðrn Þ: Because of nonlinear nature of Hoek–Brown
criterion, it is necessary to estimate equivalent
Coulomb shear strength parameters for the specified
level of effective normal stress. The values of
cohesion ðcÞ and angle of internal friction ðuÞ will
change as the effective normal stress will vary from
one slice to another. Coulomb shear strength param-
eters at specified level of effective normal stress are
referred to as instantaneous cohesion (ci ) and angle of
internal friction ðui Þ where subscript i denote the
strength parameter at one specified normal stress level.
Hoek and Brown (1997) developed an expression
for instantaneous cohesion (ci ) and internal friction
angle ðui Þ for shear surface subjected to an effective
normal stress ðrn Þ for the case when GSI [ 25 and
parameter a ¼ 0:5: The equations of the shear strength
sf for a given effective normal stress ðrn Þ is as follows:
mb rci
sf ¼ ðcot ui  cos ui Þ ð26Þ
8
The instantaneous friction angle ðui Þ can be estimated
from Eq. (27);
1 the parameter a becomes equal to 0.5 in the rare case
ui ¼ arctan pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð27Þ
4h cos2 h  1
where rci is the uniaxial compressive strength of the
intact rock material, mb is the value of the Hoek–
Brown constant mi for the fractured rock mass given
by Eq. (20), s and a are the Hoek–Brown parameters
given by Eq. (21). h and h are the intermediate
parameters which are as follows;
16ðmb r þ src Þ
h¼1þ ð28Þ
3m2b rc
1 p 1
h¼ þ arctan pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð29Þ
3 2 h3  1
Finally, instantaneous cohesion is calculated as
ci ¼ s  rn tan ui ð30Þ
The value of cohesion (ci ) are relatively large at
large value of effective normal stress ðrn Þ while the
value of internal friction angle ðui Þ is relatively small.
The relation of normal stress to internal angle of
friction and cohesion reflect the graphical nature of
Hoek–Brown criterion, which is the plot of normal
stress versus shear stresses. The instantaneous equiv-
alent Mohrs Coulomb strength parameters are calcu-
lated by drawing tangent on the Hoek–Brown
envelope at the specified normal stress ðrn Þ. The
intercept on the y axis (i.e. shear stress) gives cohesion
and slope of the tangent to the Hoek–Brown failure
envelope gives internal angle of friction. Correct
modeling of this behaviour is crucially important for
slope stability analysis where stress levels are gener-
ally low.
It is observed from Hoek and Brown (1997)
criterion, the value of Hoek–Brown Parameter a will
be greater than 0.5 when GSI \ 25 and increases up to
theoretical value of 0.65 when GSI is zero. The
Coulomb strength parameters in Eqs. (26–30) are
based on the assumption that a = 0.5 and these
equations will not be applicable when GSI \ 25.
When a 6¼ 0:5, alternative strategies are required
(Priest 2005; Shen et al. 2012) for determining
equivalent Coulomb parameters while using Hoek–
Brown rock mass failure criterion. (Bieniawski 1974)
modified empirical expressions of Hoek and Brown
(1997) criterion and they are adopted for determining
mb , s and a in the present work. The minimum value of
when GSI = 100. Otherwise, it varies continuously
with GSI, rising to a maximum value of 0.6665 when
GSI is zero. However, in the present work, all analyses
are carried out with a ¼ 0:50.
2.4 Particle Swarm Optimization
Among many natures inspired meta-heuristic opti-
mization algorithms, particle swarm optimization
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

(PSO) method has gained popularity in the research Velocity of each individual particle in the swarm is
community. The method was originally proposed by denoted as:
Kennedy and Eberhart (1995). The term meta-heuris-  T
tic means a set of iterative strategies capable of Vik ¼ vki1 ; vki2 ; vki3 ;vki4 i ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4;. . .; N ð35Þ
guiding the search operation to find quality solution. The particle position (Xik ) and velocity (Vik ) are
PSO simulates social and cooperative behavior of updated systematically with respect to particle per-
population (i.e. fish schooling and flocking of birds) k
sonal best position (Xpbest ) and particle swarm best
displayed during search of food. In PSO, each k
position (Xsbest ). The best position ever visited by each
individual inside the population is called as particle
particle during its search at the end of kth iteration is
and the population is termed as swarm. The swarm is k
defined as a set: called particle personal best position (Xpbest ). Simi-
larly, the best position ever visited by all particles
S ¼ fP1 ; P2 ; P3 ; . . .. . .; PN g ð31Þ during search at the end of kth iteration is known as
k
of ðNÞ particles (candidate solutions), defined as: particle swarm best position (Xsbest ). Mathematically,
k
Pi ¼ ðpi1 ; pi2 ; pi3 ; . . .pim ÞT 2 A; Xpbest ¼ arg min fik ð36Þ
ð32Þ
i ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4;. . .; N
k k
Xsbest ¼ arg min f ðXpbest Þ ð37Þ
Here, Pi represents individual particle in defined
swarm ðSÞ inside the search space A. Each Pi contains In order to obtain the optimum/minimum of the
required number of dimension/control variables des- objective function, each particle mutually share their
ignated by ðpi1 ; pi2 ; . . .; pim ÞT . Indices are arbitrarily information to update their velocity (Vikþ1 ) and the
assigned to particles, while N is referred to as the position (Xikþ1 ). In the early form of PSO, each particle
number of user defined particles used in swarm. The employs Eqs. (38) and (39) to update their velocity
term m represents total number of variables which and position (Kennedy and Eberhart 1995; Eberhart
require random generation. Generation of a failure et al. 1996).
surface in slope stability analysis requires four control  
variables (i.e.xl ; xr ; al ; ar ). The first particle refers to Vikþ1 ¼ Vik þ c1  rand1  Xpbest k
 Xik þ c2
 k
the left most x-coordinate ðxl Þ of failure surface. The  rand2  Xsbest  Xik ð38Þ
second particle refers the rightmost x-coordinate ðxr Þ
of failure surface. The next two particles al and ar Xikþ1 ¼ Xik þ Vikþ1 ð39Þ
correspond to inclination of the base of left-most and
After evaluating updated velocity Vikþ1 of each
right-most slice respectively.
individual particle for k ? 1th iteration using
Pi ¼ ðxil ; xir ; ail ; air ÞT 2 A; i ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4; . . .; N Eq. (38), the following restriction are applied (as
ð33Þ shown in Eq. 40) prior to position update Xikþ1 using
Eq. (39).
The particles are characterized by their position  kþ1 
(Xik )
and velocity (Vik ) as they move within the search V   Vmax i ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4; . . .; N ð40Þ
i
space A. Index k denotes the number of iteration steps
If the evaluated velocity component of individual
in PSO algorithm. Xik Contains the current positions of particle exceeds the applied bounds of maximum
the particles and is denoted as: velocity, then the corresponding velocity component

Xik ¼ xki1 ; xki2 ; xki3 ; xki4 2 A, i ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4;. . .; N is set directly to the closest velocity bound, i.e.,
8
ð34Þ < Vmax ; if Vikþ1 [ Vmax
kþ1 kþ1
Vi ¼ V ; if  Vmax  Vikþ1  Vmax
Here, the term Vik represents the velocity of the : i
 Vmax ; if Vikþ1 \  Vmax
particle which is adapted iteratively to make particles
capable of potentially visiting any region of A. ð41Þ

123
Geotech Geol Eng

3 Results and Discussion

There is possibility that the evaluated particle
position obtained using Eq. (39) with the restricted/-
In this section, results of stability analyses of rock
clamped velocity component exceeds the applied
masses are presented. The minimum FOS and the
bound of particle position as stated in Eq. (2).
corresponding critical failure surface (CFS) are
Therefore, restriction is applied on corresponding
searched amongst several trial failure surfaces using
particle position as follows:
8 PSO method. Evaluation of objective function of
< Xmax ; if Xikþ1 [ Xmax failure surface i.e. FOS values is based on Morgen-
kþ1 kþ1
Xi ¼ Xi ; if Xmin  Xikþ1  Xmax ð42Þ stern and Price (1965) and Spencer (1967) method.
:
Xmin ; if Xikþ1 \Xmin The failure criteria proposed by Bieniawski (1974) is
adopted to represent the material behavior of rock
where the upper and lower bounds i.e. restriction
mass. The convergence of the solution is studied with
applied on particle position is defined as Xmax ¼
 ub ub ub ub  respect to relevant parameters i.e. no of slices and no.
x l ; x r ; al ; a r and Xmin ¼ xlb lb lb lb
l ; x r ; al ; ar of population. In order to validate the developed
respectively. MATLAB code, a problem from existing literature
Clerc and Kennedy (2002) proposed another PSO (Deng et al. 2017) is chosen for analysis purpose.
model. This PSO is identical to its early variants of
PSO model proposed by Kennedy and Eberhart (1995) Problem 1 The considered rock slope has been
and Eberhart and Shi (1998). Clerc and Kennedy’s previously analyzed by Deng et al. (2017). The
analysis led to the development of contemporary geometric layout of the analyzed rock slope is
standard PSO (CS-PSO) variant. The mathematical presented in Fig. 3. In this problem rock slope height
formulation employed in (CS-PSO) for evaluating the H ¼ 20 m and slope angle b ¼ 45 . The material
particle velocity and position is as follows: properties of the rock slope are shown in Table 1. The
  stability analyses of the rock slope against failure are
Vikþ1 ¼ g  Vik þ c1  rand1  Xpbestk
 Xik þ c2 performed for four different numbers of slices (nsls).
 k The location of optimum failure surface correspond-
 rand2  Xsbest  Xik
ing to minimum FOS for different number of slices
ð43Þ
(i.e. nsls = 25, 50, 75, 100) are shown in Fig. 3. The
demonstrated critical failure surfaces are obtained
Xikþ1 ¼ Xik þ Vikþ1 ð44Þ
using swarm size N = 10, 25, 50 for an iteration count
The CS-PSO variant utilizes a constant constriction kmax = 100.
coefficient ðgÞ. Clerc and Kennedy (2002) has sug-
Figure 3 shows the critical failure surface (CFS)
gested following equation to determine the constric-
with minimum FOS obtained by applying PSO
tion coefficient:
method. The CFS shown in Fig. 3 are found out using
2 Morgenstern–Price method. The corresponding values
g ¼  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð45Þ
2  u  u2  4u of minimum FOS are presented in Table 2 along with
the values of FOS reported by Deng et al. (2017). Deng
where u ¼ c1 þ c2 et al. (2017) has not mentioned whether the FOS
The other parameter remains unaltered as expressed values reported by him are global minimum or not. It is
Eq. (38). The cognitive ðc1 Þ and social ðc2 Þ parame- observed that calculated minimum factor of safety
ters in Eq. (43) of population in CS-PSO variant is (FOS) by authors in the present study by using PSO
equals to 2.05. In this present work, contemporary optimization technique for non-circular slope is less
standard PSO with or without velocity clamping is than those reported by Deng et al. (2017) for circular
used. shape of slip surface.
The study of sensitivity analysis of different
parameter (i.e. maximum number of iterations, swarm
size) demonstrates the performance of the PSO in the
search of global optimum. The convergence of the
solution with respect to different swarm size indicates

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 3 Geometric layout of

rock mass for Problem 1 and
associated critical failure
surface

Table 1 Material properties of rock mass
Geological strength index
Hoek–Brown constant
Uniaxial compressive strength
Disturbance factor
Hoek–Brown parameter
Unit weight of rock mass
that global minimum FOS value is achieved. Figure 4
shows the convergence study of calculated FOS values
GSI 100
with iteration count for different swarm size (N) and
mi 10
no of slices (nsls = 25, 50, 75, 100) using Morgen-
rci ðkN=m2 Þ 184
stern–Price method. It is observed that convergence
D 0.0
towards global minimum is achieved near iteration
a 0.5
count k = 20. The results of similar analyses with
c ðkN=m3 Þ 23
Spencer method are presented in Fig. 5. The results
presented in Fig. 5 indicates that convergence is

Table 2 Minimum FOS value for analyzed slope problem

Limit equilibrium techniques No of slices Nature of failure Factor of safety
(nsls) surface (FOS)

Deng et al. Nonlinear HB with EMC strength criterion, Deng et al. 100 Circular 1.976
(2017) (2017)
Present study Nonlinear HB with EMC strength criterion, Morgenstern– 25 Non-circular 1.8800
Price method (1965)
Nonlinear HB with EMC strength criterion, Morgenstern– 50 Non-circular 1.8787
Price method (1965)
Nonlinear HB with EMC strength criterion, Morgenstern– 75 Non-circular 1.8785
Price method (1965)
Nonlinear HB with EMC strength criterion, Morgenstern– 100 Non-circular 1.8784
Price method (1965)
Nonlinear HB with EMC strength criterion, Spencer’s 25 Non-circular 1.8953
method (1967)
Nonlinear HB with EMC strength criterion, Spencer’s 50 Non-circular 1.8940
method (1967)
Nonlinear HB with EMC strength criterion, Spencer’s 75 Non-circular 1.8936
method (1967)
Nonlinear HB with EMC strength criterion, Spencer’s 100 Non-circular 1.8935
method (1967)
*HB stands for Hoek–Brown criterion

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 4 Minimum FOS (Morgenstern–Price method) versus Iteration number in PSO for Problem 1

achieved earlier approximately near iteration count
k = 20 if Spencer’s method is used. It is observed that
the minimum factor of safety decreases with increase
in the number of slice (nsls).
Problem 2 This problem presents the rock slope
stability analysis based on the variation of material
parameter mi at the fixed height H = 25 m. Li et al.
(2008) solved this slope problem with following
parameters: c ¼ 23 ðkN=m3 Þ, Hoek–Brown parame-
ter (a) = 0.5, Geological strength index (GSI) = 100
and distribution factor = 0.5. In the solution, they
considered variation of uniaxial compressive strength
and the slope angle and presented their results in a
tabular form Table 3. The considered problem has also
been previously analyzed by Deng et al. (2017) using
Nonlinear Hoek–Brown strength criterion. The
authors have performed rock slope stability analysis
for this problem with slice number (nsls) = 100,
swarm size N = 25 and iteration count k = 100.
Nonlinear Hoek–Brown material model is incorpo-
rated in the present analyses to calculate instantaneous
cohesion ðc0i Þ and instantaneous angle of internal
friction ðu0i Þ varying along slices. Limit equilibrium-

123

Fig. 5 Minimum FOS (Spencer’s method) versus Iteration number in PSO for Problem 1
based Morgenstern–Price method is utilized to eval-
uate the objective function (i.e. FOS value). The
minimum factor of safety (FOS) calculated by the
authors using PSO in the present study are presented in
Table 3. The results obtained are compared with those
reported by Deng et al. (2017) and Li et al. (2008).
The MATLAB code developed for rock slope
stability analysis employing PSO to search for min-
imum FOS is used for analysis purpose. Two limit
equilibrium method namely Morgenstern and Price
(1965) and Spencer (1967) methods incorporating
123
Geotech Geol Eng
nonlinear Hoek–Brown strength criteria have been
utilized to evaluate the factor of safety of the rock
slope. From Table 3, it is observed that results from
present analysis satisfactorily compare with those
reported by Li et al. (2008) and Deng et al. (2017)
employing nonlinear Hoek–Brown strength criterion
with EMC strength parameters. However, it is to be
noted that Deng et al. (2017) used a circular failure
surface Li et al. (2008) used SLIDE software to
calculate the reported results using Bishop’s method.
Li et al. (2008) did not mention about the shape the
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 3 Minimum FOS for analyzed rock slope

Slope Hoek–Brown Uniaxial compressive Equivalent Mohr–Coulomb (EMC) strength criteria
angle constant (mi ) strength rci ðkN=m2 Þ
bð Þ Nonlinear HB with EMC strength criterion
Method proposed by Bishop’s method Spencer’s M–P method
Deng et al. (2017) Li et al. (2008) method (present (present study)
study)

30 5 40.25 0.992 1.014 1.0105 1.0056

15 14.95 1.003 1.020 1.0256 1.0205
25 9.2 1.010 1.023 1.0331 1.0279
35 6.325 0.994 1.024 1.0292 1.0118
45 5 77.62 0.989 1.000 0.9933 0.9840
15 33.35 0.990 1.005 1.0043 0.9966
25 20.7 0.990 1.012 1.0055 0.9981
35 14.95 0.991 1.015 1.0074 0.9988
60 5 133.4 1.006 1.001 0.9882 0.9748
15 74.75 0.995 1.004 0.9971 0.9892
25 50.6 0.991 1.004 0.9996 0.9942
35 37.95 0.990 1.004 0.9999 0.9976

Table 4 Minimum FOS for analyzed rock slope

Limit equilibrium technique Slope Slope height (H) meter
angle bð Þ
15 m 17.5 m 20 m 22.5 m 25 m 27.5 m 30.0 m

Nonlinear HB with EMC strength criterion Deng 30 2.570 2.411 2.284 2.178 2.088 2.010 1.942
et al. (2017) 45 1.905 1.780 1.680 1.598 1.529 1.470 1.418
60 1.482 1.378 1.296 1.229 1.172 1.124 1.083
Nonlinear HB with EMC strength criterion, 30 2.597 2.4384 2.3107 2.2048 2.1148 2.0371 1.9691
Spencer’s method (Present study) 45 1.9055 1.7829 1.6851 1.6045 1.5366 1.4782 1.4273
60 1.4607 1.3626 1.2849 1.2214 1.1682 1.1227 1.0832
Nonlinear HB with EMC strength criterion, M-P 30 2.588 2.4301 2.3028 2.1972 2.1076 2.0301 1.9628
method (Present study) 45 1.8898 1.7685 1.6717 1.5918 1.5245 1.4666 1.4162
60 1.4418 1.3443 1.2667 1.2032 1.1498 1.1042 1.0646

failure surface used in their analyses. But, in the
present work, the slip surfaces are generated as
combinations of line segments as discussed in
Sect. 2.1. It is evident from the present study that the
FOS values obtained using Spencer’s method are little
higher than those obtained using Morgenstern–Price
method. It is because the interslice force function
along the slices is constant (unity for present analysis)
for Spencer’s method whereas it varies for Morgen-
stern–Price method.
Problem 3 Deng et al. (2017) presented stability
analysis of another set of rock slopes with varying
height H and slope angle b. The authors also applied
PSO technique to find out the minimum FOS value for
these rock slopes. The material behavior of the rock
slope is modelled by Hoek–Brown strength criterion
with equivalent Mohr–Coulomb strength parameters.
The value of the associated parameters are as follows:
Geological strength index (GSI) = 100 (i.e. intact rock
mass), Hoek–Brown parameter a = 0.5, uniaxial

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 6 Minimum FOS 3

(Spencer’s method) versus Slope Angle (degree)
slope height (H) 30 45 60
2.5

Factor of Safety
1.5

0.5

0
15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30
Slope Height (meter)

Fig. 7 Minimum FOS 3

(Morgenstern–Price Slope Angle (degree)
method) versus slope height 30 45 60
(H) 2.5

2
Factor of Safety

1.5

0.5

0
15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30
Slope Height (meter)

compressive strength rc = 140 ðkN=m2 Þ, unit weight
c ¼ 23 ðkN=m3 Þ and material constant mi = 10. The
minimum factor of safety (FOS) corresponding to
height H is 15.0 m, 17.5 m, 20.0 m, 22.5 m, 25.0 m,
27.5 m, 30.0 m and slope angle b is 30°, 45°, 60° are
presented in Table 4.
The MATLAB code is developed incorporating
non-linear Hoek–Brown strength criterion with EMC
strength parameters. The slope surfaces are generated
as per the methodology presented in Sect. 2.1. Mor-
genstern–Price method and Spencer’s method are used
in the present analyses to evaluate the FOS values of
the rock slopes for any particular slip surface and PSO
is used to find the global minimum FOS value. The
results are presented along with the results obtained by
Deng et al. (2017) in Table 4.
Figures 6 and 7 presents the variation of minimum
FOS values with respect to slope height using
Spencer’s and Morgenstern–Price method for various
values of slope angle b. As expected, the FOS value of
the rock slope follow a decreasing trend with increase
in the slope height (H). Figures 8 and 9 show the

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 8 Minimum FOS 3

(Spencer’s method) versus Slope Height (meter)
slope angle ðbÞ 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30
2.5

Factor of Safety
1.5

0.5

0
30 45 60
Slope Angle (degree)

Fig. 9 Minimum FOS 3

(Morgenstern–Price Slope Height (meter)
15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30
method) versus slope angle
ðbÞ 2.5

2
Factor of Safety

1.5

0.5

0
30 45 60
Slope Angle (degree)

variation of minimum FOS value with respect to slope
angle b for various slope heights (H). It is observed
that the FOS value decreases as the slope angle is
increased.
4 Conclusion
In the present work, rock slope analyses have been
performed using Nonlinear Hoek–Brown criterion
with Equivalent Mohr–Coulomb (EMC) strength
parameters. The search of minimum factor of safety
(FOS) of rock slopes against failure is performed by
Particle swarm optimization (PSO) technique. Limit
equilibrium technique-based Morgenstern–Price and
Spencer’s method have been used as objective func-
tion to find out the FOS of the slopes. A MATLAB
code is developed, and the validity of the code is tested
by comparing the results of three problems chosen
from existing literatures. Sensitivity analyses of
different parameters such as FOS versus no of
iterations to obtain converged results for different

123

slice counts and swarm size (N) are also presented for
the first problem. These sensitivity results are useful in
establishing the efficiency and effectiveness of the
developed MATLAB code. The convergence studies
show that convergence occurs earlier if Spencer’s
method is used. It is so because the magnitude of
interslice force remains constant for Spencer’s method
whereas it varies for Morgenstern–Price method. Also,
the convergence studies establish that PSO is able to
find out the global minimum FOS value for the
analyzed slope with sufficient accuracy.
In the second problem, the minimum FOS is
calculated for an intact rock slope (i.e. GSI value
equal to 100) with varying material properties (i.e.
material parameter mi and uniaxial compressive
strength rci ). Nonlinear Hoek–Brown yield criterion
with EMC strength parameters are used to model the
rock mass. The FOS value is determined by both
Morgenstern–Price and Spencer’s method and PSO is
applied to find out the global minimum FOS. It is
observed that the minimum FOS values determined
for various slope angles b match well with those
reported by earlier researchers. In the third problem,
the analysis is extended for different slope geometries
with different slope angle (b) and slope height (H). It is
observed that FOS value of the rock slope decreases
with increase of either of two slope parameters i.e.
slope angle b and slope height (H).
References
Baker R (1980) Determination of the critical slip surface in slope
stability computations. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geo-
mech 4:333–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610040405
Bieniawski ZT (1974) Estimating the strength of rock materials.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 11:A160. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(74)91782-3
Bishop AW (1955) The use of the slip circle in the stability
analysis of slopes. Géotechnique 5:7–17. https://doi.org/
10.1680/geot.1955.5.1.7
Carranza-Torres C (2004) Elasto-plastic solution of tunnel
problems using the generalized form of the Hoek–Brown
failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:629–639.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.03.111
Chen Z, Shao C-M (1988) Evaluation of minimum factor of
safety in slope stability analysis. Can Geotech J
25:735–748. https://doi.org/10.1139/t88-084
Cheng YM, Li L, Chi S, Wei WB (2007a) Particle swarm
optimization algorithm for the location of the critical non-
circular failure surface in two-dimensional slope stability
123
Geotech Geol Eng
analysis. Comput Geotech 34:92–103. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compgeo.2006.10.012
Cheng YM, Li L, Chi SC (2007b) Performance studies on six
heuristic global optimization methods in the location of
critical slip surface. Comput Geotech 34:462–484. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2007.01.004
Clerc M, Kennedy J (2002) The particle swarm: explosion,
stability, and convergence in a multidimensional complex
space. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6:58–73. https://doi.org/
10.1109/4235.985692
Deng D, Zhao L, Li L (2017) Limit equilibrium analysis for rock
slope stability using basic Hoek–Brown strength criterion.
J Cent South Univ 24:2154–2163. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11771-017-3624-4
Eberhart RC, Shi Y (1998) Comparison between genetic algo-
rithms and particle swarm optimization. In: Evolutionary
programming VII. Berlin, pp 611–616
Eberhart R, Simpson PK, Dobbins RW (1996) Computational
Intelligence PC tools. Academic Press, New York. ISBN
0-12-228630-8
Fellenius W (1936) Calculation of stability of earth dams. In:
Proceedings of the second congress of large dams, vol 4,
pp 445–463
Hoek E (1983) Strength of jointed rock masses. Géotechnique.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1983.33.3.187
Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground excavations in rock.
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London, p 527
Hoek E, Brown ET (1990) Hoek-Brown failure criterion: a 1988
update. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 27:A138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(90)94394-9
Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass
strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34:1165–1186. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(97)80069-X
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B (2002) Hoek-Brown cri-
terion – 2002 edition. In: Proceedings of the 5th North
American rock mechanics symposium (NARMS-TAC 2002)
Janbu N (1954) Applications of composite slip surfaces for
stability analyses. In: Proceedings of the European con-
ference of stability of earth slopes, stock, vol 3, pp 39–43
Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In:
Proceedings of ICNN’95: international conference on
neural networks. IEEE, pp 1942–1948
Kumar P (1998) Shear failure envelope of Hoek–Brown criterion
for rockmass. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 13:453–458.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-7798(98)00088-1
Li AJ, Merifield RS, Lyamin AV (2008) Stability charts for rock
slopes based on the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.08.010
Lowe L, Karafiath L (1960) Stability of earth dams upon
drawdown. In: Proceedings of the first PanAmerican con-
ference on soil mechanics and fundation engineering
Malkawi AIH, Hassan WF, Sarma SK (2001) Global search
method for locating general slip surface using Monte Carlo
techniques. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127:688–698.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:
8(688)
McCombie P, Wilkinson P (2002) The use of the simple genetic
algorithm in finding the critical factor of safety in slope
stability analysis. Comput Geotech 29:699–714. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0266-352X(02)00027-7
Geotech Geol Eng
Morgenstern NR, Price VE (1965) The analysis of the stability
of general slip surfaces. Géotechnique 15:79–93. https://
doi.org/10.1680/geot.1965.15.1.79
Nguyen VU (1985) Determination of critical slope failure sur-
faces. J Geotech Eng 111:238–250. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:2(238)
Priest SD (2005) Determination of shear strength and three-
dimensional yield strength for the Hoek–Brown criterion.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 38:299–327. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00603-005-0056-5
Shen J, Priest SD, Karakus M (2012) Determination of Mohr–
Coulomb shear strength parameters from generalized
Hoek–Brown criterion for slope stability analysis. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 45:123–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00603-011-0184-z
Spencer E (1967) A method of analysis of the stability of
embankments assuming parallel inter-slice forces.
Géotechnique 17:11–26. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.
1967.17.1.11
Zhu DY, Lee CF, Qian QH, Chen GR (2005) A concise algo-
rithm for computing the factor of safety using the Mor-
genstern Price method. Can Geotech J 42:272–278. https://
doi.org/10.1139/t04-072
Zolfaghari AR, Heath AC, McCombie PF (2005) Simple genetic
algorithm search for critical non-circular failure surface in
slope stability analysis. Comput Geotech 32:139–152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2005.02.001
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
123