Engineering with Computers (2022) 38 (Suppl 3):S1755–S1766

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-01374-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Improving the performance of LSSVM model in predicting the safety

factor for circular failure slope through optimization algorithms
Fan Zeng1 · Menad Nait Amar2 · Ahmed Salih Mohammed3 · Mohammad Reza Motahari4 · Mahdi Hasanipanah5

Received: 8 January 2021 / Accepted: 29 January 2021 / Published online: 8 March 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd. part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Circular failure can be seen in weak rocks, the slope of soil, mine dump, and highly jointed rock mass. The challenging
issue is to accurately predict the safety factor (SF) and the behavior of slopes. The aim of this study is to offer advanced and
accurate models to predict the SF of slopes through machine learning methods improved by optimization algorithms. To
this view, three different methods, i.e., trial and error (TE) method, gravitational search algorithm (GSA), and whale opti-
mization algorithm (WOA) were used to investigate the proper control parameters of least squares support vector machine
(LSSVM) method. In the constructed LSSVM-TE, LSSVM-GSA and LSSVM-WOA methods, six effective parameters on
the SF, such as pore pressure ratio and angle of internal friction, were used as the input parameters. The results of the error
criteria indicated that both GSA and WOA can improve the performance prediction of the LSSVM method in predicting
the SF. However, the LSSVM-WOA method, with root mean square error of 0.141, performed better than the LSSVM-GSA
with root mean square error of 0.170.

Keywords Safety factor · LSSVM · Whale optimization algorithm · Prediction models

1 Introduction Spencer’s method, ordinary method of slices, force equilib-

Engineers generally tend to analyze the slope stability
for the purpose of predicting the stability of river train-
ing works, excavations, road embankments, embankment
dams, and retaining walls. Literature, including the major-
ity of textbooks published in regard to soil mechanics,
introduce numerous methods of analyzing slope stability
[1]. For instance, Duncan [2] reviewed in detail the equilib-
rium methods of slope stability analysis, which include the
* Mahdi Hasanipanah
hasanipanahmahdi@duytan.edu.vn
1
Zhengzhou Technology College, Zhengzhou 450000, Henan,
China
2
Département Études Thermodynamiques, Division
Laboratoires, Sonatrach, Boumerdes, Algeria
3
College of Engineering, Civil Engineering Department,
University of Sulaimani, Sulaimaniyah, Kurdistan Region,
Iraq
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Arak University, Arak, Iran
5
Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University,
Da Nang 550000, Vietnam
rium methods, Morgenstern and Price’s method, Bishop’s
modified method, and Janbu’s generalized procedure of
slices. Generally, these methods need to divide soil mass
into some slices [1]. The direction of forces that act upon
each slice in the slope is assumed. This is worth mentioning
that this assumption has impact on distinguishing one limit
equilibrium method from another.
In the limit equilibrium methods, a continuous surface
is needed to pass the soil mass. Such surface is necessary
when computing the minimum safety factor (SF) against the
sliding or shear failure [1, 3–5]. In addition, literature is
consisted of several other methods for the calculation of the
SF of earth dams or natural slopes, e.g., the finite element
method [6, 7], coupled Markov chain model [8], material
point method [9], strength reduction finite element method
[10], finite difference method (FDM) [11], boundary element
method [12], numerical limit analysis methods [13], slope
stability probability classification method [14], finite ele-
ment limit analysis [15], finite element method-based shear
strength reduction [16] and numerical back analysis [17].
Numerous already-published studies in this field have
confirmed the high complexity of the slope stability prob-
lem. Remember that the intrinsic properties of the soil layers

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
S1756
are variable in time and this adds even further complicated-
ness to the problem [18]. To deal with this challenge, engi-
neers utilize nonlinear artificial intelligent systems. Many
researchers have applied the artificial neural network (ANN)
techniques to estimate the slope stability [19, 20]. For exam-
ple, Choobbasti et al. [21] made use of the ANN technique
for the purpose of predicting the slope stability in Noabad,
Iran. Their input parameters in this procedure were slope
angle (β), effective stress, total stress, the cohesion coeffi-
cient, horizontal coefficient of the earthquake, and angle of
internal friction (ϕ), whereas their output was the SF of the
slope against stability. To evaluate the ANN performance
quality, the obtained results were compared to those of dif-
ferent traditionally-used limit equilibrium techniques. The
final comparative results confirmed the superiority of their
proposed ANN-based model in terms of predicting the slope
stability. In another study, rigid finite elements and nonlinear
programming were used by Chen et al. [22] to investigate
the slope stability. They also made use of the upper bound
limit analysis. Their study was mainly aimed at exploring the
minimum SF and formulating the slope stability problem.
Kaunda et al. [23] attempted to examine how the ANN
can be effectively applied to the slope stability problem.
Their objective was exploring a dependable position/geom-
etry for the slip surface (e.g., more on the problem of land-
slides) and assessing the slope displacements with respect to
the changes occurred in recent years to climate and ground
water resources. Their finding showed that an optimized ver-
sion of ANN has the capacity of predicting the slip surface
even with a higher accuracy compared to the limit equilib-
rium method. On the other hand, Zhang et al. [24] intro-
duced a vector machine approach to solution of the slope
stability problem. In their study, the ANN technique was
again adopted to address the uncertainty level in the slope
stability problems. They suggested three main categories
as effective parameters on every slope: the slope geometry,
materials of the slope, and the pore pressure impact. Lit-
erature has confirmed that a machine learning technique
has the capability of providing an output of a higher quality
and precision in comparison with a non-machine learning
technique like support vector machine. The application of
ANN to the slope stability problems was also investigated by
Aghajani et al. [25]. In addition, they examined the relation-
ship between the sand anisotropic ϕ and the SF of the slopes.
The sensitivity analyses resulted in exploration of the effects
of consolidation history and intrinsic soil properties, includ-
ing soil strength, permeability, hydrological and mechanical
properties, upon the improvement of the anisotropy consid-
erations in the slope stability. Gordan et al. [26] made use
of a hybrid optimization algorithm of particle swarm opti-
mization (PSO) and ANN and proved the viability of slope
stability exposed to seismic loading. Commercial computer
software of Geostudio (i.e., the implementation of the limit
13
Engineering with Computers (2022) 38 (Suppl 3):S1755–S1766
equilibrium technique in the slope stability problem) was
applied to the measurement of 699 values of SF for vari-
ous slope conditions. They fixed the following parameter as
inputs to their model: cohesion (C), gradient, slope height
(H), ϕ, and peak ground acceleration. The results attained
from both PSO and ANN were satisfactory, since both were
found capable to estimate the measured values with the
range of 0.99 for the coefficient of determination (R2). Qi
and Tang [27] offered several machine learning methods
such as support vector machine (SVM) and ANN methods
to predict slope stability. They integrated the proposed meth-
ods with firefly algorithm, and showed the acceptability of
reliability of the proposed SVM. Additionally, the cohesion
was found as the most effective parameter upon slope stabil-
ity in their study. A gradient boosting machine method was
employed to predict slope stability for circular mode failure
in study conducted by Zhou et al. [28]. They concluded the
acceptability of gradient boosting machine in predicting
slope stability. Furthermore, they indicated a high effects
of C and H parameters in the modeling of slope stability.
In another study, Sari et al. [29] developed a neuro-fuzzy
system to predict SF of slope. They proved the effective-
ness of the neuro-fuzzy system in this field. For the same
purpose, the use of an ANN optimized by PSO algorithm
was tested by Rukhaiyar et al. [30]. They demonstrated that
the ANN-PSO was a useful and practical model to predict
SF of slopes. In Noroozi Ghaleini et al. [31], the ANN was
combined with another optimization algorithm, namely arti-
ficial bee colony (ABC) and used to predict SF of retain-
ing walls. According to their results, the ANN-ABC model
predicted the SF with an acceptable performance. Recently,
Koopialipoor et al. [32] reported the application of several
optimization algorithms such as the PSO, ABC, genetic
algorithm and imperialist competitive algorithm to improve
ANN performance with the aim of slope stability prediction.
From the results, the hybrid PSO-ANN model predicted the
slope stability better that the others.
In the present study, three different methods, i.e.,
trial and error (TE) method, gravitational search algo-
rithm (GSA), and whale optimization algorithm (WOA)
are used to investigate the proper control parameters of
least squares support vector machine (LSSVM) method.
In other words, three hybrid models, including LSSVM-
WOA, LSSVM-TE and LSSVM-GSA models are used to
predict SF. The remnant of this article is formed as fol-
lows: the research significance, material and methods have
been presented in Sects. 2 and 3. Next, the development
of the proposed models are explained in Sect. 4, and their
results and performances are discussed in Sect. 5. Finally,
the conclusions described in Sect. 6.
Engineering with Computers (2022) 38 (Suppl 3):S1755–S1766 S1757

2 Research significance machine learning methods, i.e., LSSVM-WOA, LSSVM-

Study of slope stability for the purpose of predicting the
stability of river training works, excavations, road embank-
ments, embankment dams, and retaining walls is a neces-
sary work in the geotechnical field. In the weak rocks and
highly jointed rock mass, the circular failure can be seen,
and the challenging subject is to accurately predict the SF
of these cases. Therefore, the precise prediction of SF is
a very important issue in this field, especially for safety
issues. The application of machine learning methods for
prediction aims has been highlighted in some geotechni-
cal fields with an acceptable performance [33–57]. To this
view, the present study aimed to propose three efficient
TE and LSSVM-GSA to predict SF.
3 Materials and Methods
In this section, firstly, a brief explanation regarding the used
database is presented. Next, the background of the proposed
models is explained.
3.1 Material
To construct the proposed models, a database given in the
literature [1, 58–60] is borrowed. Totally, 66 sets of data
including six input parameters, i.e., C (kPa), β (°), ϕ (°),
unit weight (𝛾 ) (kN/m3), H (m) and pore pressure ratio (ru)

Fig. 1  View of database includ-

ing (i): unit weight; (ii): C; (iii):
β; (iv): ϕ; (v): H (m); (vi): ru;
(vii): SF

13
S1758 Engineering with Computers (2022) 38 (Suppl 3):S1755–S1766

Fig. 1  (continued)

13
Engineering with Computers (2022) 38 (Suppl 3):S1755–S1766 S1759

were used in the modeling of SF. In this regard, 53 and 13
data, respectively, were used for training and testing phases.
A view of the aforementioned parameters is shown in Fig. 1.
Furthermore, Table 1 gives more details regarding the data-
base used in this study.
function that transforms the data into a higher-dimension-
ality space.
The values of w and b are gained by transforming the
above-problem into a Lagrangian function using the so-
called Lagrangian multipliers 𝛼i . The following equation
shows this transformation [64]:

3.2 Methods 1 ∑ ( 2) ∑ ( T ( ) )
n n
1 T
L(w, b, 𝛼, e) = w w+ 𝛾 ei − 𝛼i w 𝜑 xi + b + ei − yi .
2 2 i=1 i=1
In this study, the LSSVM method is combined with WOA (2)
and GSA to predict SF. A brief background of the proposed The final solution of the Lagrangian function L is
models is explained in this section. achieved by solving simultaneously the following equations
that formulate the vanishing of the partial derivatives of L
3.2.1 Least squares support vector machine (LSSVM) with respect to e, w, b, and 𝛼:
∑n � �
⎧ 𝜕L(w,b,𝛼,e)
= 0 ⇒ w = i=1 𝛼i 𝜑i xi
The LSSVM is one of the advanced soft-computing ⎪ 𝜕w
𝜕L(w,b,𝛼,e) ∑n
approaches. LSSVM can be regarded as an improved version ⎪ 𝜕b
= 0 ⇒ i=1 𝛼i = 0
⎨ 𝜕L(w,b,𝛼,e) .
of the well-known SVM technique. In this context, SVM ⎪
= 0 ⇒ 𝛼i = 𝛾ei , i = 1,2, … , n
𝜕ei � �
is known to be a method demanding calculability efforts, ⎪ 𝜕L(w,b,𝛼,e) T
= 0 ⇒ w 𝜑 xi + b + ei − yi = 0, i = 1,2, … , n
⎩ 𝜕𝛼i
mainly when using some specific algorithms such as quad-
(3)
ratic programming to deal with inequality constraints of
the mathematical formulation of SVM. However, LSSVM The system of linear equations illustrated in Eq. (3) can
turned into a low-parameter approach as the number of the be written in a matrix form as follows:
control-parameters is reduced and only equality constraints [ ][ ] [ ]
0 1Tn b 0
are present in its mathematical formulation [61, 62]. 1n Ω + 𝛾 −1 In 𝛼
=
y
, (4)
To investigate the proper relationship that{correlates a set}
of data described by input parameters X = x1 , x2 , … , xn w h e r e 1n ]= [1,1, … , 1]T ,
[
that xi ∈ Rd and n is the number
{ of points in} the set, and the
T
𝛼= [𝛼1 , 𝛼2 , … , 𝛼n ] , y = y1 , y2 , … , yn , IN denotes the
T

targets y defined on R as y = y1 , y2 , … , yn using LSSVM, identity matrix of n × n size, and Ω is the kernel matrix and
the task is formulated as an optimization problem as follows its elements are specified as follows:
[63]: ( ) ( ) ( )
Ωi,k = 𝜑 xi 𝜑 xk = K xi , xk , (5)
1 ∑ ( 2)
n
1
minimize wT w + 𝛾 e (1) where K is the kernel function. For the case of Gaussian
2 2 i=1 i
radial basis function (RBF), this latter is defined as shown
( ) below:
s.t.yi = wT 𝜑 xi + b + ei , i = 1,2, … , n. � �
� � −‖xi , xk ‖
In the above-equation, w and b represent the weight and K xi , xk = exp (6)
𝜎2
bias factors, respectively, ei and 𝛾 point out the regression
error and the regularization parameter, and 𝜑 is a nonlinear where 𝜎 2 is the control parameter of the RBF.

Table 1  More details regarding Descriptive statistics Parameters

the database used in this study
𝛾(kN/m3) C (kPa) ϕ (°) β (°), H (m) ru SF

Mean 19.828 22.585 26.168 32.275 44.755 0.203 1.282

St. Error 0.389 3.336 1.313 1.171 5.950 0.022 0.050
St. Deviation 3.160 27.102 10.668 9.514 48.344 0.182 0.406
Kurtosis 1.698 9.409 0.059 − 0.904 3.678 − 1.475 − 0.350
Skewness − 0.081 2.754 − 0.524 0.215 1.926 0.155 0.619
Minimum 12 0 0 16 3.66 0 0.625
Maximum 28.44 150.05 45 53 214 0.5 2.31

13
S1760 Engineering with Computers (2022) 38 (Suppl 3):S1755–S1766

Lastly, the resulted LSSVM model for estimating the Fit

investigated relationship is gained as follows: ai = , (11)
Mit
∑
n
( )
f (x) = 𝛼i K xi , xk + b, (7) where Mi denotes the inertia mass of the element i. Mi is
i=1 calculated using the following expression:
where (𝛼i , b) are the resulted solution from Eqt. (4). mt
To obtain suitable performance, the control parameters Mit = ∑n i , (12)
mtk
of LSSVM, i.e., 𝜎 2 and 𝛾 , should be well-investigated. In k=1

this study, three techniques were applied for finding the and
proper control parameters of LSSVM. These methods
include trial and error (TE) technique, and two nature- fitti − worstt
mti = , (13)
inspired algorithms, viz. gravitational search algorithm bestt − worstt
(GSA) and whale optimization algorithm (WOA).
where fit represents the fitness value associated with the
particle i at the actual iteration, best and worst denote for
3.2.2 Optimization techniques the best and worst fitness values in the population, respec-
tively. Lastly, the velocity and the position of the particles
3.2.2.1 Gravitational search algorithm (GSA) GSA is a rig- are updated as per following equations:
orous optimization algorithm which is inspired from one of vt+1 = 𝜇2i vti + ati , (14)
the famous physics laws, namely the Newton’s law of grav- i

ity [61]. This algorithms was proposed Rashedi et al. [65].

As a population-based algorithm, GSA begins the searching xit+1 = vt+1
i
+ xit , (15)
process by generating a set of possible solution denoted as
the population X , of a size n. During each iteration of the where 𝜇2i is a random generated uniformly from [0,1], v and
optimization, the elements of the population, known also as x denote the velocity and position of particles, respectively.
particles, are changing their positions imitated by a vector x The above-described steps are repeated until a stopping con-
in a D-dimensional space. The existing force between parti- dition is satisfied.
cles i and k for an iteration t , is given below [65]: Whale optimization algorithm (WOA).
The WOA is one of the recent nature-inspired algo-
Mit Mkt ( ) rithms proposed by Mirjalili and Lewis [66]. This algo-
Fikt = Gt xit − xkt , (8) rithm is inspired from the back whales hunting process
Rtik +𝜀
[61]. This latter involves some main steps, namely encir-
where 𝜀 is a small constant, and G is the gravitational con- cling prey, spiral bubble-net feeding manoeuvre and the
stant expressed as follows: look for prey [66].
WOA proceeds an optimization problem by creating
t0𝜗 randomly an initial population of possible solutions. The
Gt = Gt0 𝜗 < 1, (9)
t individuals of the population are assessed using a fitness
function, and hence, their positions are dependent on this
where Gt0 points out the initial value of the gravitational
evaluation. At a given iteration (t + 1) , the positions are
constant, and R is the Euclidian distance between the two
updated as follows [66]:
elements. The total force that can be applied on each particle
{
i is calculated using the following equation [65]: X ∗ t − ADifp < 0.5
X t+1 = � bl
D e cos(2𝜋t) + X ∗ t ifp ≥ 0.5
, (16)
∑
n
Fit = 𝜇1k Fikt . (10)
k∈Kbest ,j≠i where p points out a random number from [0,1] and it rep-
resents the probability of updating the shape of the position
In the above-equation, 𝜇1k is a random obtained uni- as circular or spiral, and X ∗ is the fittest individual which
formly from [0,1] and Kbest is the set of best elements, reflects the prey. D = ||X ∗ − Xi || denotes the distance between
�

with size set to n0 (in this case n0 = n ) at t0 and decreased the prey and the whale i , b and l are a constant for defining
linearly over iterations. the spiral shape, a random number from [− 1, 1], respec-
Afterwards, GSA passes through the law of motion by tively. The other parameters of Eq. (16) are expressed as
calculating the acceleration of mass ai [65]: follows [66]:

13
Engineering with Computers (2022) 38 (Suppl 3):S1755–S1766 S1761

D = ||CX ∗ − Xi ||, (17)

A = 2ar − a, (18)

C = 2r, (19)
where r is a random from [0,1] and a is a number decreasing
linearly from 2 to 0 over the distance. If the value of A is
not with the interval [-1, 1], the position will be updated in
a circular scheme using a randomly picked individual Xrandt
.
This process is formulated using the below equation:

X t+1 = Xrand (20)

t
− AD.

After performing the described steps, the new resulted posi-

tions are evaluated using the fitness function. In this context,
if an improvement is noticed in the fittest individual, this lat-
ter will move to this newly position, otherwise, the best prior
position will be kept. Finally, the steps of WOA are reiterated
until a stopping condition is fulfilled.

4 Development of the models

As mentionned earlier, three different methods were applied

to investigate the proper control parameters of LSSVM when
modeling SF. These methods includes TE, GSA, and WOA.
Before performing this optimization step, the collected data
was processed through preliminary steps. In this context, a
normalization of the input and output data was done using the
below-equation:
( )
2 Xi − XMIN
XNOR = ( ) − 1. (21)
XMAX − XMIN

In the above-equation, XMIN andXMAX are the minimum and

maximum values of the variable Xi, respectively, and XNOR is
its normalized value.
Afterwards, the data was split into training and testing sets
Fig. 2  Workflow of the proposed LSSVM-GSA and LSSVM-WOA
with the ratio 80:20, respectively. TE technique consisted of models
changing the values 𝜎 2 and 𝛾 iteratively until a good perfor-
mance in the evaluation function was achieved. However, the
main steps followed for implementing GSA and WOA for opti-
mizing the control parameters of LSSVM are summarized in
the flowchart of Fig. 2. Besides, the main setting considered Table 2  Final control parameters of GSA and WOA
in the optimization steps using these algorithms are cited in
Algorithm Parameter Value
Table 2.
GSA 𝜇1k and 𝜇2k [0,1]
Number of iterations 50
5 Results and discussion Number of particles 30
WOA a 2 to 0
As mentioned in modelling section, there are two control r [0,1]
parameters, namely 𝜎 2 and 𝛾 , that should be optimized in Number of iterations 50
LSSVM. After applying the described steps in the previous Number of whales 30

13
S1762 Engineering with Computers (2022) 38 (Suppl 3):S1755–S1766

Table 3  Final control parameters of the established LSSVM hybrid where the subscripts exp and pred point −out the SF meas-
models ured and predicted values, respectively, SF is the average
Control LSSVM-TE LSSVM-GSA LSSVM-WOA value of SF, and n denotes the number of points. The most
parameters accurate model has the highest values of R2, VAF and NSE,
and the lowest values of AARD, RMSE and MAPE.
𝜎2 1842.150 1259.698 406.840
As a graphical assessment, Fig. 3 exhibits the real and
𝛾 39,367,579.900 36,257,342.589 60,640,574.002
predicted SF values by the implemented LSSVM hybrid
models at both training and testing stages in comparative
data index plots. According to the subplots of this figure,
sections, the final LSSVM hybrid models were obtained. it can be said that a close match between the predicted SF
These latter were denoted LSSVM-TE, LSSVM-GSA, and and the real SF is noticed in both training and testing stages
LSSVM-WOA, respectively. The final control parameters for all the proposed paradigms. These figures demonstrate
for each of these aforementioned paradigms are reported in the relevant integrity of the implemented LSSVM hybrid
Table 3. According to this table, it can be said that all of the models.
models cover high and somewhat medium values for 𝛾 and 𝜎 2, In another visual comparison, the regression plots that
respectively. shows the comparison between the real and predicted SF
The performance of the generated LSSVM hybrid models at training and testing phases for the whole models are
were assessed using statistical and graphical error criteria. The displayed in subplots of Fig. 4. In this kind of plot, the
considered statistical indexes are defined as follows [67–86]:

1. Average Absolute Relative Deviation (AARD). 2.5

LSSVM-TE

1 ∑ || SF iexp − SF ipred ||
n 2

AARD% = | | × 100 (22)

n i=1 || SF iexp |
|
1.5
SF

2. Coefficient of Determination (R2).

1

∑n � �2 0.5 Training data - Measured SF Training data - Predicted SF

i=1
SF iexp − SF ipred Test data - Measured SF Test data - Predicted SF
0
R2 = 1 − � �2 (23) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
∑n −
Data index
i=1
SF ipred − SF
2.5
LSSVM-GSA
3. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). 2

√
√ n ( )2
1.5
√1 ∑
RMSE = √
SF

SF iexp − SF ipred (24) 1

n i=1
0.5 Training data - Measured SF Training data - Predicted SF
4. Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). Test data - Measured SF Test data - Predicted SF
0

1 ∑ || SF iexp − SF ipred ||
n 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

MAPE = | | (25) Data index

n i=1 || SF iexp |
| 2.5
LSSVM-WOA
5. Variance account for (VAF). 2
[ ]
var(SF iexp − SF ipred ) 1.5
VAF = 1 − × 100 (26)
SF

var(SF iexp ) 1

6. Nash and Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE): 0.5 Training data - Measured SF Training data - Predicted SF
Test data - Measured SF Test data - Predicted SF
∑n � �2 0

i=1
SF iexp − SF ipred 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

NSE = 1 − Data index

� �2 (27)
∑n −
SF − SF
i=1 iexp Fig. 3  Comparison between the predictions of the proposed LSSVM
hybrid models and the real values of SF according to the data indexes

13
Engineering with Computers (2022) 38 (Suppl 3):S1755–S1766
reliability of a model is deduced based on the quality of
distribution of its predictions around the unit-slope line that
mimics the perfect paradigm. In this regard, it can be said
that a model has a good fit if its predictions are too close
to this reference line. As can be seen in subplots of Fig. 4,
LSSVM-TE shows the worst distribution around the unit-
slop line, followed by LSSVM-GSA, while LSSVM-WOA
exhibits the best fit. To extend the comparison, subplots of
Fig. 5 illustrate the distribution of prediction errors associ-
ated with each of LSSVM hybrid models for the considered
data in a histogram form. The histograms of this figures
demonstrate that although the proposed models can estimate
SF values with low-error values, LSSVM-WOA model can
predict the greatest part of the data with zero-error value,
and hence, it exhibits a normal distribution with center close
to zero-error values. This figure confirms again the high reli-
ability of LSSVM-WOA compared to LSSVM-GSA and
LSSVM-TE models.
For a deepen evaluation and comparison, Table 4 lists the
considered statistical indexes, namely AARD, R2, RMSE,
MAPE, VAF and NSE of the training, testing, and over-
all data sets for the implemented LSSVM hybrid methods.
For a better understanding, the obtained RMSE and MAPE
values from the predictive methods related to testing data
is shown in Fig. 6. Table 4 and Fig. 6 reveal that LSSVM-
WOA outperforms the two other LSSVM hybrid models in
all of the data sets. LSSVM-WOA has R2 values of 0.9757,
0.9364, and 0.9678 for the training, test and overall data,
respectively.
Fig. 4  Cross plots of the imple- 2.5
mented LSSVM hybrid methods LSSVM-TE
2 2
Predicted SF
1.5
1 Training data
0.5
0.5 1 1.5
Measured SF
2.5
2
Predicted SF
1.5
1 Training data
0.5
0.5
S1763
6 Conclusions
The evaluation and precise prediction of SF is a very
important issue in the different engineering subjects such
as excavations, retaining walls, and embankment dams.
In the present study, the applicability of three advanced
machine learning methods, i.e., LSSVM-TE, LSSVM-
GSA, and LSSVM-WOA methods were explored to pre-
dict SF. In other words, the TE, GSA, and WOA were
employed to find the proper control parameters of LSSVM.
To construct the proposed models, a database presented an
open-source [1, 58–60] was used. The data was split into
training and testing sets with the ratio 80:20, respectively.
Then, the accuracy of models was checked through AARD,
RMSE, VAF, NSE, MAPE, and R 2 criteria. According
to the results, the R2 values equal to 0.936, 0.903, and
0.918 were obtained when the LSSVM-WOA, LSSVM-
TE, and LSSVM-GSA, respectively, were applied. The
mentioned values indicated that the performances of the
proposed models herein were in the acceptable ranges.
Among the three models, the lowest AARD, MAPE and
RMSE, and the highest NSE, VAF and R2 were obtained
for the LSSVM-WOA method. Accordingly, it was found
that the WOA could successfully improve the perfor-
mance of LSSVM, and the proposed hybrid model could
be useful to predict the different subjects in mining and
civil works. For future works, the LSSVM method can
be optimized with other metaheuristic algorithms such as
2.5
LSSVM-GSA
Predicted SF
1.5
1 Training data
Test data Test data
Slope 1 Slope 1
0.5
2 2.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Measured SF
LSSVM-WOA
Test data
Slope 1
1 1.5 2 2.5
Measured SF
13
S1764 Engineering with Computers (2022) 38 (Suppl 3):S1755–S1766

20 Table 4  Performance evaluation of the established LSSVM hybrid

LSSVM-TE methods
15
Sorting of Indices LSSVM-TE LSSVM- LSSVM-WOA
Frequency

data GSA
10
Training data AARD 8.1459 5.9468 3.2597
5 2
R 0.9028 0.9364 0.9757
RMSE 0.1206 0.0952 0.0608
0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 MAPE 0.0814 0.0594 0.0325
Error VAF (%) 90.2833 93.6370 97.5557
25 NSE 0.9028 0.9363 0.9755
LSSVM-GSA Test data AARD 8.4872 11.0503 7.2903
20
R2 0.9179 0.9028 0.9364
Frequency

15 RMSE 0.1345 0.1703 0.1412

10 MAPE 0.0848 0.1105 0.0729
VAF (%) 91.5581 90.1372 91.3101
5
NSE 0.9029 0.8813 0.9048
0 Overall data AARD 8.2131 6.952 4.0536
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
R2 0.9058 0.9297 0.9678
Error
30
RMSE 0.1234 0.1139 0.0831
LSSVM-WOA MAPE 0.0821 0.0695 0.0405
25
VAF (%) 90.7048 92.1501 95.8067
20
NSE 0.9064 0.9203 0.9576
Frequency

15

10

5
RMSE MAPE
0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Error

Fig. 5  Histogram of errors associated with the predictions of SF

VALUES

using the proposed LSSVM hybrid methods

variable neighborhood search (VNS), league Champion-

L SSV M-TE L SSV M-GSA L SSV M-W O A
ship algorithm (LCA), harmony search (HS), water waves MODELS
optimization (WWO), Tabu search algorithm (TS) and ant
colony optimization. Fig. 6  RMSE and MAPE values obtained from predictive methods
using testing data

References
1. Fattahi H (2017) Risk assessment and prediction of safety factor
for circular failure slope using rock engineering systems. Environ
Earth Sci 76:224
2. Duncan JM (1996) Soil slope stability analysis. Landslides, inves-
tigation and mitigation, vol 247. Transportation Research Board
Special Report, US National Research Council, pp 337–371
3. Zhang J-F, Ding H (2005) Generalized 3D limit-equilibrium
method for slope stability analysis and its application. Chin J Rock
Mech Eng 3:1–12
4. Cheng Y, Lansivaara T, Wei W (2007) Two-dimensional slope
stability analysis by limit equilibrium and strength reduction
methods. Comput Geotech 34:137–150
5. Gu T, Wang J, Fu X, Liu Y (2015) GIS and limit equilibrium in
the assessment of regional slope stability and mapping of land-
slide susceptibility. Bull Eng Geol Environ 74:1105–1115
6. Xu J (2011) Debris slope stability analysis using three-dimen-
sional finite element method based on maximum shear stress
theory. Environ Earth Sci 64:2215–2222
7. Luo N, Bathurst RJ, Javankhoshdel S (2016) Probabilistic sta-
bility analysis of simple reinforced slopes by finite element
method. Comput Geotech 77:45–55
8. Li D-Q, Qi X-H, Cao Z-J, Tang X-S, Phoon K-K, Zhou C-B
(2016) Evaluating slope stability uncertainty using coupled
Markov chain. Comput Geotech 73:72–82
9. Bhandari T, Hamad F, Moormann C, Sharma KG, Westrich
B (2016) Numerical modelling of seismic slope failure using
MPM. Comput Geotech 75:126–134
10. Jiang Q, Qi Z, Wei W, Zhou C (2015) Stability assessment of
a high rock slope by strength reduction finite element method.
Bull Eng Geol Environ 74:1153–1162

13
Engineering with Computers (2022) 38 (Suppl 3):S1755–S1766
11. Sun S, Sun H, Wang Y, Wei J, Liu J, Kanungo DP (2014) Effect
of the combination characteristics of rock structural plane on
the stability of a rock-mass slope. Bull Eng Geol Environ
73:987–995
12. Martel SJ, Muller JR (2000) A two-dimensional boundary element
method for calculating elastic gravitational stresses in slopes. Pure
Appl Geophys 157:989–1007
13. Lim K, Li AJ, Lyamin AV (2015) Three-dimensional slope stabil-
ity assessment of two-layered undrained clay. Comput Geotech
70:1–17
14. Li XZ, Xu Q (2016) Application of the SSPC method in the stabil-
ity assessment of highway rock slopes in the Yunnan province of
China. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75:551–562
15. Tschuchnigg F, Schweiger HF, Sloan SW (2015) Slope stability
analysis by means of finite element limit analysis and finite ele-
ment strength reduction techniques. Part II: back analyses of a
case history. Comput Geotech 70:178–189
16. Kaya A (2016) Geotechnical assessment of a slope stability
problem in the Citlakkale residential area (Giresun, NE Tur-
key). Bull Eng Geol Environ. doi:https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1006​
4-016-0896-0
17. Salmi EF, Hosseinzadeh S (2015) Slope stability assessment using
both empirical and numerical methods: a case study. Bull Eng
Geol Environ 74:13–25
18. Bui XN, Muazu MA, Nguyen H (2019) Optimizing Levenberg–
Marquardt backpropagation technique in predicting factor of
safety of slopes after two-dimensional OptumG2 analysis. Eng
Comput. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0036​6-019-00741​-0
19. Cao MS, Qiao PZ (2008) Neural network committee-based sen-
sitivity analysis strategy for geotechnical engineering problems.
Neural Comput Appl 17:509–519
20. Binh Thai P, Manh Duc N, Kien-Trinh Thi B, Prakash I, Chapi K,
Dieu Tien B (2019) A novel artificial intelligence approach based
on multi-layer perceptron neural network and biogeography-based
optimization for predicting coefficient of consolidation of soil.
CATENA 173:302–311
21. Choobbasti AJ, Farrokhzad F, Barari A (2009) Prediction of slope
stability using artificial neural network (case study: Noabad,
Mazandaran, Iran). Arab J Geosci 2:311–319
22. Chen J, Yin J-H, Lee CF (2003) Upper bound limit analysis of
slope stability using rigid finite elements and nonlinear program-
ming. Can Geotech J 40:742–752
23. Kaunda RB, Chase RB, Kehew AE, Kaugars K, Selegean JP
(2010) Neural network modeling applications in active slope sta-
bility problems. Environ Earth Sci 60:1545–1558
24. Zhang ZF, Liu ZB, Zheng LF, Zhang Y (2014) Development of
an adaptive relevance vector machine approach for slope stability
inference. Neural Comput Appl 25:2025–2035
25. Aghajani HF, Salehzadeh H, Shahnazari H (2015) Application
of artificial neural network for calculating anisotropic friction
angle of sands and effect on slope stability. J Central South Univ
22:1878–1891
26. Gordan B, Armaghani DJ, Hajihassani M, Monjezi M (2016) Pre-
diction of seismic slope stability through combination of particle
swarm optimization and neural network. Eng Comput 32:85–97
27. Qi C, Tang X (2018) Slope stability prediction using integrated
metaheuristic and machine learning approaches: a comparative
study. Comput Ind Eng 118:112–122
28. Jian Z, Li E, Yang S, Wang M, Shi X, Yao S, Mitri HS (2019)
Slope stability prediction for circular mode failure using gradient
boosting machine approach based on an updated database of case
histories. Saf Sci 118:505–518
29. Sari PA, Suhatril M, Osman N et al (2020) Developing a hybrid
adoptive neuro-fuzzy inference system in predicting safety of fac-
tors of slopes subjected to surface eco-protection techniques. Eng
Comput 36:1347–1354
S1765
30. Rukhaiyar S, Alam MN, Samadhiya NK (2018) A PSO-ANN
hybrid model for predicting factor of safety of slope. Int J Geotech
Eng 12(6):556–566
31. Ghaleini EN, Koopialipoor M, Momenzadeh M et al (2019)
A combination of artificial bee colony and neural network for
approximating the safety factor of retaining walls. Eng Comput
35:647–658
32. Koopialipoor M, Jahed Armaghani D, Hedayat A et al (2019)
Applying various hybrid intelligent systems to evaluate and pre-
dict slope stability under static and dynamic conditions. Soft
Comput 23:5913–5929
33. Sun Y, Li G, Zhang N, Chang Q, Xu J, Zhang J (2020) Develop-
ment of ensemble learning models to evaluate the strength of coal-
grout materials. Int J Min Sci Technol. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst​.2020.09.002
34. Zhang J, Wang Y, Sun Y, Li G (2020) Strength of ensemble learn-
ing in multiclass classification of rockburst intensity. Int J Numer
Anal Meth Geomech 44:1833–1853
35. Zhang J, Sun Y, Li G, Wang Y, Sun J, Li J (2020) Machine-
learning-assisted shear strength prediction of reinforced con-
crete beams with and without stirrups. Eng Comput. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s0036​6-020-01076​-x
36. Zhang J, Wang Y (2020) An ensemble method to improve predic-
tion of earthquake induced soil liquefaction: a multi-dataset study.
Neural Comput Appl. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0052​1-020-05084​
-2
37. Sun Y, Li G, Zhang J, Sun J, Xu J (2020) Development of an
ensemble intelligent model for assessing the strength of cemented
paste backfill. Adv Civil Eng. https:​ //doi.org/10.1155/2020/16435​
29
38. Zhang J, Li D, Wang Y (2020) Toward intelligent construction:
prediction of mechanical properties of manufactured-sand con-
crete using tree-based models. J Clean Prod 258:120665
39. Sun Y, Li G, Zhang J (2020) Developing hybrid machine learning
models for estimating the unconfined compressive strength of jet
grouting composite: a comparative study. Appl Sci 10(5):1612
40. Sun Y, Zhang J, Li G, Wang Y, Sun J, Jiang C (2019) Optimized
neural network using beetle antennae search for predicting the
unconfined compressive strength of jet grouting coalcretes. Int J
Numer Anal Meth Geomech 43(4):801–813
41. Zhou J, Shi X, Li X (2016) Utilizing gradient boosted machine for
the prediction of damage to residential structures owing to blasting
vibrations of open pit mining. J Vib Control 22(19):3986–3997
42. Zhou J, Li X, Mitri HS (2015) Comparative performance of six
supervised learning methods for the development of models of
hard rock pillar stability prediction. Nat Hazards 79:291–316
43. Armaghani DJ, Asteris PG (2020) A comparative study of ANN
and ANFIS models for the prediction of cement-based mortar
materials compressive strength. Neural Comput Appl. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s0052​1-020-05244​-4
44. Asteris PG, Douvika MG, Karamani CA, Skentou AD, Chlich-
lia K, Cavaleri L, Daras T, Armaghani DJ, Zaoutis TE (2020) A
novel heuristic algorithm for the modeling and risk assessment of
the COVID-19 pandemic phenomenon. Comput Model Eng Sci
125(2):815–828. https​://doi.org/10.32604​/cmes.2020.01328​0
45. Zhou J, Li X, Mitri HS (2016) Classification of rockburst in under-
ground projects: comparison of ten supervised learning methods.
J Comput Civil Eng 30(5):04016003
46. Sun J, Zhang J, Gu Y, Huang Y, Sun Y, Ma G (2019) Prediction
of permeability and unconfined compressive strength of pervious
concrete using evolved support vector regression. Constr Build
Mater 207:440–449
47. Zhou J, Shi X, Du K, Qiu X, Li X, Mitri HS (2017) Feasibil-
ity of random-forest approach for prediction of ground settle-
ments induced by the construction of a shield-driven tunnel. Int J
Geomech 17(6):04016129
13
S1766
48. Huang J, Duan T, Zhang Y, Liu J, Zhang J, Lei Y (2020) Predicting
the permeability of pervious concrete based on the beetle anten-
nae search algorithm and random forest model. Adv Civil Eng
2020:8863181
49. Armaghani DJ, Asteris PG, Askarian B, Hasanipanah M, Tarinejad
R (2020) Huynh VV (2020) Examining Hybrid and Single SVM
Models with Different Kernels to Predict Rock Brittleness. Sustain-
ability 12:2229
50. Yang H, Rad HN, Hasanipanah M, Amnieh HB, Nekouie A (2020)
Prediction of vibration velocity generated in mine blasting using
support vector regression improved by optimization algorithms. Nat
Resour Res 29(2):807–830
51. Yang H, Wang Z, Song K (2020) A new hybrid grey wolf optimizer-
feature weighted multiple kernel-support vector regression technique
to predict TBM performance. Eng Comput. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s0036​6-020-01217​-2
52. Apostolopoulou M et al (2020) Mapping and holistic design of natu-
ral hydraulic lime mortars. Cem Concr Res 136:106167. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cemco​nres.2020.10616​7
53. Asteris PG et al. (2020) On the metaheuristic models for the
prediction of cement metakaolin mortars compressive strength.
Metaheuristic Comput Appl 1(1): 63–99. https​://doi.org/10.12989​/
mca.2020.1.1.063
54. Yang H, Koopialipoor M, Armaghani DJ, Gordan B, Khorami M,
Tahir MM (2020) Intelligent design of retaining wall structures
under dynamic conditions. Steel Compos Struct 31(6):629–640
55. Asteris PG, Apostolopoulou M, Skentou AD, Antonia Moro-
poulou A (2019) Application of artificial neural networks for the
prediction of the compressive strength of cementbased mortars.
Comput Concr 24(4):329–345
56. Asteris PG, Armaghani DJ, Hatzigeorgiou Karayannis CG, Pila-
koutas K (2019) Predicting the shear strength of reinforced con-
crete beams using Artificial Neural Networks. Comput Concr
24(5):469–488
57. Hasanipanah M, Keshtegar B, Thai DK et al (2020) An ANN adap-
tive dynamical harmony search algorithm to approximate the flyrock
resulting from blasting. Eng Comput. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0036​
6-020-01105​-9
58. Sah N, Sheorey P, Upadhyaya L (1994) Maximum likelihood estima-
tion of slope stability. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 31:47–53
59. Lin P, Su M, Lin M, Lee T (1990) Investigation on the failure of a
building constructed on a hillslope. In: Proceedings of the 2nd inter-
national symposium on field measurements in geomechanics, Kobe,
6–9 April 1987 V1. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp P547–P555. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 2:A114
60. Madzic E (1988) Stability of unstable final slope in deep open iron
mine landslides, vol 1. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 455–458
61. Hemmati-Sarapardeh A, Larestani A, Nait Amar M, Hajirezaie S
(2020) Applications of artificial intelligence techniques in the petro-
leum industry. Gulf Professional Publishing. https​://doi.org/10.1016/
C2018​-0-04421​-7
62. Hemmati-Sarapardeh A, Nait Amar M, Soltanian MR et al (2020)
Modeling CO2 solubility in water at high pressure and temperature
conditions. Energy Fuels 34:4761–4776
63. Suykens JAK, Vandewalle J (1999) Least squares support vector
machine classifiers. Neural Process Lett 9:293–300
64. Forrester AIJ, Sóbester A, Keane AJ (2008) Engineering Design via
Surrogate Modelling: A practical Guide. J. Wiley
65. Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-Pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a gravita-
tional search algorithm. Inf Sci (Ny) 179:2232–2248
66. Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2016) The Whale Optimization Algorithm.
Adv Eng Softw 95:51–67
67. Hasanipanah M, Armaghani DJ, Amnieh HB, Majid MZA, Tahir
MMD (2017) Application of PSO to develop a powerful equa-
tion for prediction of flyrock due to blasting. Neural Comput Appl
28(1):1043–1050
13
Engineering with Computers (2022) 38 (Suppl 3):S1755–S1766
68. Hasanipanah M, Bakhshandeh Amnieh H, Arab H, Zamzam
MS (2018) Feasibility of PSO–ANFIS model to estimate rock
fragmentation produced by mine blasting. Neural Comput Appl
30(4):1015–1024
69. Ye J, Dalle J, Nezami R et al (2020) Stochastic fractal search tuned
ANFIS model to predict blast-induced air overpressure. Eng Com-
put. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0036​6-020-01085​-w
70. Zhang W, Zhang R, Wu C, Goh ATC, Wang L (2020) Assessment
of basal heave stability for braced excavations in anisotropic clay
using extreme gradient boosting and random forest regression.
Underground Space. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp​.2020.03.001
71. Hasanipanah M, Bakhshandeh HA (2020) A fuzzy rule-based
approach to address uncertainty in risk assessment and prediction
of blast-induced flyrock in a quarry. Nat Resour Res. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1105​3-020-09616​-4
72. Huang J, Zhang J, Ren J, Chen H (2021) Anti-rutting performance
of the damping asphalt mixtures (DAMs) made with a high content
of asphalt rubber (AR). Constr Build Mater 271:121878
73. Chen Z, Li H, Goh ATC, Wu C, Zhang W (2020) Soil liquefac-
tion assessment using soft computing approaches based on capac-
ity energy concept. Geosciences 10(9):330. https​://doi.org/10.3390/
geosc​ience​s1009​0330
74. Fattahi H, Hasanipanah M (2021) An integrated approach of ANFIS-
grasshopper optimization algorithm to approximate flyrock distance in
mine blasting. Eng Comput. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0036​6-020-01231​-4
75. Zhou J, Nekouie A, Arslan CA, Pham BT, Hasanipanah M (2019)
Novel approach for forecasting the blast-induced AOp using a
hybrid fuzzy system and firefly algorithm. Eng Comput. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s0036​6-019-00725​-0
76. Zhou J, Li C, Arslan CA, Hasanipanah M, Amnieh HB (2021) Per-
formance evaluation of hybrid FFA-ANFIS and GA-ANFIS models
to predict particle size distribution of a muck-pile after blasting. Eng
Comput 37:265–274
77. Zhang W, Zhang R, Wu C, Goh ATC, Lacasse S, Liu Z, Liu H
(2020) State-of-the-art review of soft computing applications in
underground excavations. Geosci Front 11:1095–1106
78. Hasanipanah M, Zhang W, Armaghani DJ, Rad HN (2020) The
potential application of a new intelligent based approach in predict-
ing the tensile strength of rock. IEEE Access 8:57148–57157
79. Goh ATC, Zhang RH, Wang W, Wang L, Liu H, Zhang WG (2020)
Numerical study of the effects of groundwater drawdown on ground
settlement for excavation in residual soils. Acta Geotech 15:1259–1272
80. Ding X, Hasanipanah M, Rad HN, Zhou W (2020) Predicting the
blast-induced vibration velocity using a bagged support vector
regression optimized with firefly algorithm. Eng Comput. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s0036​6-020-00937​-9
81. Wang L, Wu C, Tang L, Zhang W, Lacasse S, Liu H, Gao L (2020)
Efficient reliability analysis of earth dam slope stability using
extreme gradient boosting method. Acta Geotech 15:3135–3150
82. Nikafshan Rad H, Hasanipanah M, Rezaei M, Eghlim AL (2019)
Developing a least squares support vector machine for estimating
the blast-induced flyrock. Eng Comput 34(4):709–717
83. Huang J, Kumar GS, Sun Y (2021) Evaluation of workability and
mechanical properties of asphalt binder and mixture modified with
waste toner. Constr Build Mater 276:122230
84. Hasanipanah M, Amnieh HB (2020) Developing a new uncertain
rule-based fuzzy approach for evaluating the blast-induced back-
break. Eng Comput. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0036​6-019-00919​-6
85. Huang J, Asteris PG, ManafiKhajeh Pasha S et al (2020) A new auto-
tuning model for predicting the rock fragmentation: a cat swarm
optimization algorithm. Eng Comput. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0036​
6-020-01207​-4
86. Hasanipanah M, Meng D, Keshtegar B, Trung NT, Thai DK (2020)
Nonlinear models based on enhanced Kriging interpolation for pre-
diction of rock joint shear strength. Neural Comput Appl. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s0052​1-020-05252​-4