ENGEO-03801; No of Pages 12

Engineering Geology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Determining the unique direction of sliding in three-dimensional slope

stability analysis
Roohollah Kalatehjari a, Ahmad Safuan A Rashid a,⁎, Mohsen Hajihassani a, Mehrdad Kholghifard b, Nazri Ali a
a
Department of Geotechnics and Transportation, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Yasouj Branch, Yasouj, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present study developed a new method to calculate the unique direction of sliding. In addition, a computer
Accepted 2 June 2014 code was written to generate a realistic three-dimensional model of slopes and perform slope stability analysis.
Available online xxxx The application of the presented method was verified by re-analyzing two benchmark slope stability problems
from the literature and a hypothetical slope stability problem including four different slopes. This method is
Keywords:
suitable for geometrically complex slopes since there is no need to define a symmetrical plane for the slope.
Slope stability
Factor of safety
Moreover, the automatic process of the presented method makes it suitable for use in advanced search
Direction of sliding algorithms to determine the critical slip surface of slopes. These outcomes may contribute to managing the
Limit equilibrium method problems of conventional two-dimensional and three-dimensional slope stability analyses in terms of complex
Slip surface slopes and resolve the shortcomings of the previous methods in determining the direction of sliding.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
New analytical methods and the integration of new technologies
and instruments in slope stability analysis have provided advanced
analysis, monitoring, and precautionary methods for landslides and
slope failures (e.g. Dai et al., 2002; Donati and Turrini, 2002; Jing and
Hudson, 2002; Lee et al., 2004; Terhorst and Kreja, 2009; Jiao et al.,
2012; Zhang et al., 2012; Jiang et al., 2013; Jiao et al., 2013; Lowry
et al., 2013; Massey et al., 2013). However, the limit equilibrium method
(LEM) has remained a popular slope stability analysis method because
of its simple principles, understandable approach, and reliable results
(Kahatadeniya et al., 2009; Mendoza et al., 2009; Di Maio et al., 2010;
Ferrari et al., 2011; Zheng, 2012; Huang, 2013; Kalatehjari and Ali,
2013; Thiebes et al., 2013). Assessment of the stability of slopes by
LEM is applied in two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D)
analyses. Both of the methods have limitations in terms of modeling
and analyzing the shape of slopes and real sliding procedure. Particular-
ly, two-dimensional analyses mainly reduce the problem to the plain-
strain condition. All of these 2D methods ignore the third dimension
of the problem by considering infinite width for the slope. Obviously,
slopes are generally limited in the third dimension and involve some
changes in the longitudinal direction. Therefore, performing a 3D anal-
ysis may best present the slope condition including the changes in its
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kjroohollah2@live.utm.my (R. Kalatehjari), ahmadsafuan@utm.my,
ahmadsafuanutm@gmail.com (A.S. A Rashid), mohsen_hajihassani@yahoo.com
(M. Hajihassani), kholghifard.m@gmail.com (M. Kholghifard), nazriali@utm.my (N. Ali).
longitudinal direction, especially when the geometry and other charac-
teristics of the slope are complex in the third dimension. One of the
main features of a 3D analysis is the 3D shape of the slip surface,
which has been studied by several researchers. This parameter can
significantly affect the result of analysis by increasing the value of the
factor of safety (FOS) as a result of the end effect of the slip surface in
3D analysis (Baligh and Azzouz, 1975; Chen and Chameau, 1983;
Leshchinsky et al., 1985; Liang et al., 1999; Rassam and Williams,
1999; Arellano and Stark, 2000; Huang and Tsai, 2000). The other signif-
icant feature of 3D analysis of slope stability is the direction of sliding
(DOS). The nature of 2D analysis requires the sliding body to move
through an assumed direction, but it is possible to calculate the DOS in
a 3D problem. The DOS is an angle calculated anticlockwise from the
positive x-axis to the route of sliding which shows the direction of
movement of the sliding mass in the x–y plane (Figure 1). This param-
eter was introduced by Huang and Tsai (2000) when calculating the
3D FOS. The importance of this parameter should be addressed as it
affects the value of the FOS and eventually the determined critical slip
surface (CSS). Disregarding the DOS in the calculation of 3D FOS may
cause miscalculations in the stability analysis of slopes.
Starting with Anagnosti (1969), several 3D methods based on LEM
have been established to analyze the stability of slopes by considering
the third dimension. The majority of these methods are limited in prac-
tice, however, because of their assumptions and limitations. Adopting a
plane of symmetry for the sliding mass is a common assumption in 3D
methods which is equal to assuming the DOS (e.g. Hovland, 1977;
Chen and Chameau, 1983; Dennhardt and Forster, 1985; Leshchinsky
et al., 1985; Ugai, 1985; Leshchinsky and Baker, 1986; Baker and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.06.002
0013-7952/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Kalatehjari, R., et al., Determining the unique direction of sliding in three-dimensional slope stability analysis, Eng. Geol.
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.06.002
2 R. Kalatehjari et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Discretizing of a sliding mass by using square grid.
Leshchinsky, 1987; Hungr, 1987; Leshchinsky and Mullet, 1988; Ugai,
1988; Xing, 1988; Hungr et al., 1989; Cavounidis and Kalogeropoulos,
1992; Leshchinsky and Huang, 1992; Lam and Fredlund, 1993; Jiang
and Yamagami, 2004; Zheng, 2012). Consequently, the sliding body is
bound to move along the plane of symmetry to keep the force/moment
equations in balance. This assumption eases analysis and speeds up
calculations by assuming that the sliding mass is a symmetrical body
and replacing the whole sliding mass with its half. However, there is
no guarantee of a true estimate of the DOS, since some asymmetric
parameters (such as different layers and local loads) may be engaged
with the slope. Moreover, the assumption of such planes is not applica-
ble in complex slopes with asymmetric geometry. Therefore, the practi-
cal application of a large number of 3D methods is limited to symmetric
problems.
Some researchers have tried to calculate the DOS in asymmetric
problems to generalize the application of 3D methods (Yamagami and
Jiang, 1996; Huang and Tsai, 2000; Huang et al., 2002; Cheng and Yip,
2007). These methods also have limitations in basic theories and prac-
tice. As an instance, Yamagami and Jiang (1996) proposed the first
method to calculate the DOS which was restricted to gentle slopes
with an inclination of up to 45°. This method was called into question
by Cheng and Yip (2007), because of its extremely time-consuming pro-
cess to find the DOS. They concluded that the limitations of this method
excluded it from being generally applicable in practice. Another method
belongs to Huang and Tsai (2000), who included the DOS in their 3D
analysis without proposing a practical calculation method. In addition
to this, this method ignored horizontal forces, which resulted in unreli-
able results for laterally highly asymmetrical slopes as reported by Chen
et al. (2003). Huang et al. (2002) proposed a method to calculate the
DOS by considering the equations of directional factors of safety
(DFOS) for a sliding mass divided into a series of columns. This method
assumed different directions of sliding for column bases at the verge of
failure. Although this assumption accelerated the calculation of the
overall DOS, it meant that the soil columns were detached on the
verge of failure. This assumption is in contrast with one of LEM's basic
definitions for the rigidity of the failure mass. Cheng and Yip (2007)
also observed some convergence problems with this method in analyz-
ing highly asymmetric slopes as well as slopes under transverse loads.
They proposed a complicated procedure to analyze the stability of
general slopes and calculate the DOS. This method used several inter-
connected iterative processes to determine its unknown variables and
applied a discrete interval of angles to determine the DOS. Major disad-
vantages of this method were its reliance on the interval of the DOS and
the increased calculation time required to improve the accuracy of the
DOS. Consequently, none of the existing methods could calculate the
DOS successfully.
Please cite this article as: Kalatehjari, R., et al., Determining the unique direction of sliding in three-dimensional slope stability analysis, Eng. Geol.
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.06.002
An improvised 3D method of slope stability analysis was developed
and introduced in this paper to calculate the unique DOS for general
slopes. This method is based on LEM as an eclectic method able to calcu-
late the unique DOS and its corresponding FOS for general slopes with
external forces, different layers, different water conditions, and complex
geometries.
2. The proposed three-dimensional method
Almost all generalized 3D slope stability analysis methods based on
LEM apply the method of columns (Yamagami and Jiang, 1996; Huang
and Tsai, 2000; Huang et al., 2002; Cheng and Yip, 2007). The first
step in this method is to discretize the selected sliding mass into a num-
ber of “columns”. A typical 3D column system is formed by applying a
square net on the sliding mass. The grid lines are usually parallel with
the horizontal axes and the grid width value determines the spacing
between grid lines as well as the width of columns. A column requires
slope material above the slip surface. All sides of the column are
assumed to be planar which is practically appropriate if grid width
values are small enough. The “active columns” are defined as the col-
umn central points which are inside the boundaries of the sliding
mass. The columns outside the sliding mass are ignored in the calcula-
tions as “inactive columns”. Consequently, the discretized sliding mass
is defined as the sum of active columns. A system of classification is
used to indicate each column by its location in x- and y-directions.
Fig. 1 illustrates the typical discretization of a sliding mass by means
of a square grid. The following steps were designed and coded in the
computer program to discretize the sliding mass.
1. The maximum and minimum boundaries of the slope model in x
and y directions are provided by the user as [xmin, xmax] and
[ymin, ymax].
2. The available 3D data of the slope surface are entered by the user as
(x, y, z).
3. The square grid width is provided by the user (d).
4. A square grid is generated in the x–y plane by dividing the distance
between minimum and maximum boundaries by the grid width
in both x and y directions as [n = (xmax − xmin) / d] and [m =
(ymax − ymin) / d].
5. Matrices of x and y coordinates of grid points are generated for later
use as [xg] and [yg]. The dimension of these matrices is (n × m).
6. The height of each grid point is obtained by either interpolation or
extrapolation between the available 3D data of the slope surface
and the obtained z values are recorded in a new matrix as [zs].
7. Consequently each point of the square grid in slope surface can be
addressed by its x, y and z coordinates as (xg, yg, zs).
8. A 3D equation of slip surface is assumed. This equation can apply to
ellipsoidal, spherical, or cylindrical shapes depending on the
problem conditions and requirements. For instance, the radius (r)
and coordinates of the central point of the spherical slip surface
(x0, y0, z0) are assumed in Eq. (1).
2 2 2 2
ðx−x0 Þ þ ðy−y0 Þ þ ðz−z0 Þ ¼ r ð1Þ
9. The height of each point of the slip surface (z = zss) on the square
grid is obtained by solving the equation of the slip surface for x = xg
and y = yg and the obtained z values are recorded in a new matrix
as [zss].
10. Consequently each point of the square grid in slip surface can be
addressed by its x, y and z coordinates as (xg, yg, zss).
11. Finally, the produced matrices of [xg], [yg], [zx], and [zss] are used to
generate soil columns inside the sliding mass.
After discretization of the sliding mass, the force and moment equa-
tions can be applied for the columns. Fig. 2 illustrates the internal and
external forces acting on a typical column, where Wi,j is the weight of
 R. Kalatehjari et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2. Internal and external forces acting on a typical column.
the soil column, Lzi,j is the external vertical load, Lxi,j and Lyi,j are the
external horizontal loads in the x- and y-directions, Fevi,j is the vertical
force induced by seismic force, Fehxi,j and Fehyi,j are the horizontal forces
induced by seismic force in the x- and y-directions, Exi − 1,j and Exi,j
are the intercolumn normal forces in the x- and y-directions, Eyi,j − 1
and Exi,j are the intercolumn normal forces in the y-direction, Xxi − 1,j
and Xxi,j are the vertical intercolumn shear forces in the x-direction,
X yi,j − 1 and X xi,j are the vertical intercolumn shear forces in the
y-direction, Hxi − 1,j and Hxi,j are the horizontal intercolumn shear
forces in the x-direction, Hyi,j − 1 and Hxi,j are the horizontal inter-
column shear forces in the y-direction, and Si,j and Ni,j are the shear
force mobilized and the total normal force at the base of the column, re-
spectively. The points of action of forces are clarified in the formulation
procedure and the convention signs of forces are positive when they act
in the positive direction of axes.
3. Calculation of the unique direction of sliding
This paper utilizes the definition of DFOS introduced by Huang and
Tsai (2000) to obtain different values of FOS in different directions.
This is possible by calculating the corresponding resisting and mobiliz-
ing forces in each direction. A similar procedure to Huang et al.'s
(2002) was employed to calculate the directional FOS in the x- and
y-directions. In order to discretize the acting forces in the x- and
y-directions, the DOS and its space angle on the base of each column
are needed. Three different assumptions can be made for a DOS on the
verge of failure in a 3D slope stability analysis based on the column
method. First, soil columns move in the same order and have a unique
DOS. The second assumption states that soil columns move towards
each other and the third one is that soil columns move away from
each other. If the first assumption is taken into account, the DOS is
Please cite this article as: Kalatehjari, R., et al., Determining the unique direction of sliding in three-dimensional slope stability analysis, Eng. Geol.
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.06.002
3
unique on the horizontal plane for all columns, but different angles
are produced as projections of the DOS on the base of columns.
Conversely, in the second and third assumptions the DOS is not a unique
angle on the horizontal plane and can be calculated as the mean angle of
directions of sliding of different columns. In this case, the space sliding
angles on the base columns can be either different or equal. Fig. 3
depicts the three assumptions.
As a basic principle of LEM, the sliding mass is assumed to be a rigid
body on the verge of failure. This principle is repealed if the soil columns
move towards or away from each other. Also, the sum of forces and
moments in static equations is no longer valid in the mentioned cases
(Cheng and Yip, 2007). Consequently, the first assumption is the only
true option which can obtain a unique DOS. The definition of FOS as
the ratio of resisting forces to driving forces and the Mohr–Coulomb
failure criterion can be used to calculate the value of FOS at the base of
each column.
Sfi; j C0i; j þ N0i; j tan ϕ0i; j
Fsi; j ¼ ¼ ð2Þ
Si; j Si; j
0 0
Ci; j ¼ ci; j Ai; j ð3Þ
0
Ni; j ¼ Ni; j −Ui; j ð4Þ
Ui; j ¼ ui; j Ai; j ð5Þ
where at the base of column (i,j) Fsi,j is the value of FOS, Sfi,j is the shear
strength, N′i,j is the effective normal force, C′i,j and c′i,j are the total and
average effective cohesion of the soil, respectively, Ui,j and ui,j are the
total and average pore water pressure, respectively, Ai,j is the true
area, and ϕ′i,j is the effective friction angle.
The shear and effective normal forces at the base of column are
vectors and can be expressed by their components in three main direc-
tions as follows.
n o n o
Si; j ¼ Sxi; j ; Syi; j ; Szi; j ¼ Si; j f 1ij ; f 2ij ; f 3ij ð6Þ
n o n o
0 0 0 0 0
Ni; j ¼ Nxi; j ; Nyi; j ; Nzi; j ¼ Ni; j g1ij ; g2ij ; g3ij ð7Þ
where the components of each force are described in the x-, y-, and
z-directions as Sxi,j, Syi,j, and Szi,j for Si,j and N′xi,j, N′yi,j, and N′zi,j for
N′i,j, respectively. Moreover, the unit vectors of force are described in
the x-, y-, and z-directions as f1, f2, and f3 for base shear force and g1,
g2, and g3 for base normal force, respectively.
Fig. 4 shows different angles and shear forces at the base plane of a
typical column. The base inclinations in the x- and y-directions are
calculated at the center of the base of the column and the unique DOS
is calculated anticlockwise from the positive x-direction in the direction
of S′i,j.
Where for column (i,j), a′ is the unique DOS on the x–y plane, ai,j is
the projection of DOS on the base plane, θi,j is the angle between the
sides of the column on its base plane, axi,j is the inclination of the base
of the column calculated in the x-direction at its center, ayi,j is the
inclination of the base of the column calculated in the y-direction at
its center, Sxzi,j and Syzi,j are the components of Si,j in the x–z and y–z
planes, respectively, and S′i,j is the projection of Si,j on the x–y plane.
The definition of directional FOS was introduced by Huang and Tsai
(2000). Based on this concept, the value of FOS can be calculated in
any direction as the ratio of components of resisting forces to deriving
4 R. Kalatehjari et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Fig. 3. Three assumptions of the DOS: (a) soil columns move in the same order, (b) soil columns move towards each other, and (c) soil columns move away from each other.

forces at the base of column along that direction. Consequently, the Sfi; j
Fsy ¼ ð9Þ
FOS in the x- and y-directions can be obtained by calculating the Syzi; j
components of resisting and driving forces at the base of the columns
in the x–z and y–z planes, respectively. The resultant values of FOS
On the other hand, the following equations can be obtained by using
in the x- and y-directions are known as DFOS and are obtained by
the law of sines for the force polygons of Si,j and S′i,j at the base of the
substituting the components of forces in the FOS equation. The DFOS
column and the x–y plane, respectively.
can be calculated by the following equations as Fsx and Fsy, respectively.
Since LEM assumes that the sliding mass is a rigid body, the values of Sxi; j
DFOS have to be the same for all columns in each direction to simulta- Sxzi; j ¼ ð10Þ
cos axi; j
neously drive the columns to the verge of failure.

Sfi; j
Fsx ¼ ð8Þ Syi; j
Sxzi; j Syzi; j ¼ ð11Þ
cos ayi; j

0 0
Sxi; j ¼ cos a S i; j ð12Þ

0 0
Syi; j ¼ sin a S i; j ð13Þ

 
Sxzi; j sin θi; j S sin a
Si; j ¼   ¼ yzi; j  i; j ð14Þ
sin θi; j −ai; j sin θi; j

Then, Eqs. (8) and (9) can be revised on the basis of the unique DOS
with the help of Eqs. (10) to (13) as follows.

Sfi; j cos axi; j

Fsx ¼ ð15Þ
cos a0 S0 i; j

Sfi; j cos ayi; j

Fsy ¼ ð16Þ
sin a0 S0 i; j
Fig. 4. Angles and forces at the base plane of a typical column.

Please cite this article as: Kalatehjari, R., et al., Determining the unique direction of sliding in three-dimensional slope stability analysis, Eng. Geol.
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.06.002
 R. Kalatehjari et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 5

Fig. 5. Vertical cut of example 1.

Moreover, by means of the definitions of DFOS in Eqs. (8) and (9) and
substitution of the equivalents of Si,j from Eq. (14) into Eq. (2), Eqs. (17)
and (18) are obtained. Fsi,j is the value of FOS in DOS at the base of each
column. Noticeably, this value has to be unique for each column
base whether it is calculated by Eq. (17) or by Eq. (18) in the x- and y-
directions, respectively. Eq. (19) is achieved by equalizing the third
parts of Eqs. (17) and (18) which are used to find the satisfactory
value of ai,j.

   
Sfi; j sin θi; j −ai; j Fsx sin θi; j −ai; j
Fsi; j ¼   ¼   ð17Þ
Sxzi; j sin θi; j sin θi; j

Sfi; j sin ai; j F sin ai; j

Fsi; j ¼   ¼ sy   ð18Þ
Syzi; j sin θi; j sin θi; j

0  1
F
−1 @ sx
sin θi; j −ai; j
ai; j ¼ sin A ð19Þ
Fsy

Since the calculation process is iterative, it is started by adopting

initial values of directional factors of safety (Fsx, and Fsy) and sliding
direction (a′). These values should be selected properly for each prob-
lem to save the calculation time and avoid the convergence problem.
It was shown in the literature that the initial value of 1 is suitable for
Fsx, and Fsy in general cases of symmetrical slope stability problems
(Huang et al., 2002). In addition, based on the experience of the authors,
initial a′ may affect the convergence of the method. In fact, this param-
eter is a starting point of the Secant method, which is used to calculate
the DOS and it is sensitive to its starting points. However, to the knowl-
edge of the authors there is no mathematical method that recommends
a general set of these initial values. Consequently, these values should
be selected based on the conditions of each problem.
Table 1
Properties of soil of example 1.
Layer c′ (kN/m2) ϕ′ (°)
Slope material 24.5 20
Fig. 6. Generated models for example 1.
After adopting the initial parameters, the value of θi,j is directly
achieved by Eq. (20) for all columns. Then, values of ai,j are calculated
for the base of different columns by Eq. (21). After the calculation of
new values of Fsx and Fsy from Eqs. (8) and (9), new values of ai,j are cal-
culated by using the Secant method and iterative calculation of Eq. (19).
Finally, a new trial value for unique DOS is calculated by Eq. (22) where
ac is the total number of columns. The previous values of a′, Fsx, and Fsy
are replaced with the new values in the next cycle of calculation. The
main difference between the proposed method and the methods of
γ (kN/m3)
Huang and Tsai (2000) and Huang et al. (2002) is Eq. (22). This new
equation provides a unique DOS for all columns in each step of the
17.64
iterative calculation process. Consequently, the rigidity of the sliding

Please cite this article as: Kalatehjari, R., et al., Determining the unique direction of sliding in three-dimensional slope stability analysis, Eng. Geol.
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.06.002
6 R. Kalatehjari et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 2
Results of different studies for example 1.

3D method FOS

Present study Huang and Tsai (2000) Difference (%) Cheng and Yip (2007) Difference (%)

Simplified Bishop 1.776 1.766 0.57 1.801 1.39

Simplified Janbu 2.745 – – 2.782 1.33

body is maintained during the analysis as a principle of LEM and the Considering Eqs. (15) and (16), the values of DFOS in the x- and y-
unique DOS is directly calculated at the end. directions tend to infinity in the following cases:

  1. in Eq. (15) if a′ = π/2 then cos a′ = 0 and Fsx = ∞

−1
θi; j ¼ cos sin axi; j sin ayi; j ð20Þ 2. in Eq. (16) if a′ = 0, π then sin a′ = 0 and Fsy = ∞.

2 3 When Eq. (23) is satisfied, the overall FOS is obtained by dividing the
−1 4 sin θi; j sum of resisting forces (Sfi,j) by the sum of driving forces (Si,j) for all
ai; j ¼ tan   5 ð21Þ
cos θi; j þ cos ayi; j = tan a0 cos axi; j active columns. Based on Eq. (23), Fsi,j is unique in both directions.
Consequently, the values of Sfi,j and Si,j are unique for each column
whether they are calculated in the x- or the y-direction. Therefore the
0 2 31 overall FOS is calculated by Eq. (24) with the values of Sfi,j and Si,j from
m X
X
0
n
−1 sin ai; j cos ayi; j the x- or y-direction. In the case of infinite DFOS, however, the calcula-
a ¼ @ tan 4   5A=ac ð22Þ
j¼1 i¼1 sin θi; j −ai; j cos axi; j tion of overall FOS can be applied by using the forces in the direction of
finite DFOS.

A termination criterion is required to break the calculation cycle Xm Xn

Sfi; j
when the required solution is found. As mentioned before, the calculat- j¼1
FOS ¼ Xm Xn
i¼1
ð24Þ
ed value of Fsi,j has to be unique for each column base whether it is j¼1
S
i¼1 i; j
calculated from the x- or from the y-direction. Consequently, the differ-
ence between calculated values of Fsi,j for each column in the x- and y-
Through the proposed method, the unique DOS, and its correspond-
directions has to be smaller than an epsilon (ε) which is sufficiently
ing FOS are calculated with high accuracy for 3D slopes. Consequently,
close to zero. This condition is used to define a termination criterion
the minimum FOS and probable DOS can be predicted for possible
with ε smaller than 0.001 for the iterative process in Eq. (23).
slope mass failure.
Xm Xn  

F
i¼1 si; jðin x‐directionÞ
− Fsi; jðin y‐directionÞ  ¼ ε ð23Þ
j¼1 4. Numerical examples

The main parameters which account for the accuracy of the result
are the 3D method applied to find the FOS, the applied grid width, the
strategy for discretizing the sliding mass, and the shape of the slip
surface. In order to verify the results of the current study, several 3D
benchmark examples were analyzed by the proposed method and the
results were compared with those of previous studies. It should be
noted that a computer code was written in Matlab by the authors to
be used for a 3D model of the slope, generating 3D probable slip
surfaces, and performing the calculations.

4.1. Example 1

Fig. 7. Geometry and properties of example 2.
Huang and Tsai (2000) applied a sample model to test the perfor-
mance of its two-directional method in finding the DOS and 3D FOS.
Cheng and Yip (2007) re-analyzed the same model by extending 3D
methods based on simplified 2D methods (Janbu, 1954; Bishop, 1955)
to verify their study. Fig. 5 shows the geometry of the corner of a vertical
cut. This example was used especially to verify the performance of the
current study to find the DOS. This was because the corresponding
sliding mass has a symmetrical shape about an axis with inclination of
45° to the x-axis. This direction was predicted to be the DOS.
The example 1 included a five-meter-high vertical cut slope with a
spherical slip surface. The center point of the sliding surface was placed
at the corner of the vertical cut with a radius of 5 m. Table 1 shows the
properties of slope material in example 1.
The 3D model of the example was generated by the presented code.
Fig. 6 illustrates the generated models of example 1, where the vertical
cut, the sliding body, and the failure model are presented as a, b, and c,
respectively. In order to compare the results of the present study with
those of the previous studies, two simplified methods including 3D

Please cite this article as: Kalatehjari, R., et al., Determining the unique direction of sliding in three-dimensional slope stability analysis, Eng. Geol.
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.06.002
 R. Kalatehjari et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 7

simplified Bishop and 3D simplified Janbu were employed to re-analyze
the example. The two methods applied in the present study achieved a
DOS exactly equal to 45°, which was the same as Huang and Tsai's
(2000) and Cheng and Yip's (2007). Moreover, this DOS was found
similar to the predicted direction of the axis of symmetry. These result
demonstrated the ability of the present study to find the DOS.
Table 2 presents 3D FOS obtained in different studies for example 1.
The applied methods of the present study produced results close
to those of Huang and Tsai (2000) and Cheng and Yip (2007). The
difference between the results of this study and the previous results
for the 3D simplified Bishop method were 0.57% and 1.39%, respectively.
Moreover, the difference between the results of the current study and
Cheng and Yip's (2007) for the 3D simplified Janbu method was 1.33%.
Although the same analysis methods were employed, the small dif-
ferences between the results could be the effect of applying different
methods of discretization and/or different grid widths. Such differences
were also reported by Huang et al. (2002). Nevertheless, the similar
results of this study and the previous methods together with the same
DOS in all studies demonstrated the accuracy of the current study.
4.2. Example 2
In order to examine the performance of the presented method
for calculating the unique DOS, a hypothetical slope stability problem
was generated. Fig. 7 shows the geometry of this example with its
geomechanical properties. This example involves four different slopes
with spherical sliding surface. The boundaries of slopes were constant
and the face was rotated 10° clockwise in each step of the example.
Consequently, four different directions of sliding were predicted.
All models were generated using the computer code. The top views
of generated models of slope and slip surfaces are shown in Fig. 8, which
illustrates the intersection area between slope surface and slip surface.
The sliding models are shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen that the shape
and volume of sliding changed when the slope face angle altered. The

Fig. 8. Generated models of slopes with face angles of (a) 90, (b) 80, (c) 70, and (d) 60° from y-axis.

Please cite this article as: Kalatehjari, R., et al., Determining the unique direction of sliding in three-dimensional slope stability analysis, Eng. Geol.
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.06.002
8 R. Kalatehjari et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Fig. 9. Generated models of sliding for slopes with face angles of (a) 90, (b) 80, (c) 70, and (d) 60° from y-axis.

calculated unique DOS and its corresponding 3D FOS for all conditions by sufficiently small grid width. The high accuracy in determining
are stated in Table 3. the unique DOS and the small difference ratios in calculated FOS
Clearly, the rotation of the slope face caused the unique DOS to demonstrate the ability of the proposed method and the computer
change. Expected and obtained DOS in Table 3 represent logically code to significantly contribute to calculating the unique DOS.
estimated DOS due to the rotation of the slope face and calculated
DOS by the proposed method, respectively. A maximum difference 4.3. Example 3
ratio of 0.4% between the expected and obtained angles of DOS shows
the accuracy of the presented method. According to this finding, the In order to compare the results of FOS between this current study
most unsafe downhill slope can be predicted, which is important for and the study of Huang et al. (2002) an extensive example of slope
both short-term and long-term neighboring engineering activities. As stability was employed. This example had been initially created by
predicted, the value of FOS was equal in all the models with a difference Baligh and Azzouz (1975) before being converted to 3D by Xing
ratio of less than 1.5%. This difference was because of the minor dissim-
ilarity in the modeling of the sliding body caused by the applied column
method. Since the column sides were parallel with the x–z and y–z
planes, any rotation of the slope face could cause a slight change in
the accuracy of the modeling. This problem can be minimized, however,

Table 3
Results of example 2.

Model Slope face angle FOS DOS to x-axis (°) Difference (%)
to y-axis (°)
Expected Obtained

1 90 2.44 90.00 90.00 0.00

2 80 2.46 80.00 79.88 0.15
3 70 2.47 70.00 69.72 0.40
4 60 2.47 60.00 59.81 0.32
Fig. 10. Geometry and properties of example 3.

Please cite this article as: Kalatehjari, R., et al., Determining the unique direction of sliding in three-dimensional slope stability analysis, Eng. Geol.
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.06.002
 R. Kalatehjari et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 9

Table 4 of the slopes and perform the complicated calculations of 3D slope

Properties of soil layers of example 3.
Layer c′ (kN/m2) ϕ′ (°) γ (kN/m3)
Slope material 29 20 18.80
Weak layer 0 10 18.80
a equations of DFOS in x–z and y–z planes for a mutual DOS. Then,
Applicable for cases 3 and 4.
(1988) (Figure 10). Table 4 shows the properties of slope materials in
example 3. In this example, a 3D, symmetrical, circular failure surface
in a cohesive slope was used. Six different 3D slope models were gener-
ated to analyze all cases of the example. Table 5 shows the properties of
the models for different cases. Different lengths of the sliding surface
(Rx) were assigned to each case to evaluate the end effect or the effect
of the third dimension on the value of FOS. The range of Rx was selected
from the minimum applicable length to the maximum efficient length
of the slip surface. Fig. 11 illustrates the generated models by the current
study for case 6 as the most complex case. Huang et al. (2002) re-
analyzed four out of six possible cases of this example.
Two methods were applied to calculate the value of FOS including
simplified Bishop and the rigorous methods, based on the applied
methods in Huang et al. (2002). Table 6 shows the ranges of FOS for
all the six cases. It should be noted that the unique DOS was calculated
by the presented method as 90° from x-axis for all the cases, however
Huang et al. (2002) did not report the sliding direction for this case.
Table 7 shows the results of the different 3D simplified methods.
Xing (1988) applied a simplified 3D method to analyze six different
cases of the slope stability. As mentioned above, Huang et al. (2002)
analyzed four of the cases using the simplified Bishop method. Hungr
et al. (1989) and Lam and Fredlund (1993) re-analyzed the second
and the sixth cases using the simplified Bishop method. This current
study re-analyzed all the six cases.
Table 8 shows the results of the different 3D rigorous methods.
Huang et al. (2002) analyzed four cases of this example by the rigorous
method. Chen et al. (2001, 2003), and Xie et al. (2006) re-analyzed
the first two cases using their own rigorous methods. The current
study re-analyzed all the six cases.
The results of both simplified and rigorous methods of the current
study were close to the findings of the previous studies. The maximum
difference of 7.67% between the results of the current study and Huang
et al.'s (2002) is believed to be due to the different assumptions in
discretizing strategies and internal calculations of the methods. Sarma
(1973) showed that the mentioned factors might produce differences
as large as 18% in 2D analyses. By adding the third dimension to the
problems, there is a possibility that this difference grow larger. In
addition, the different assumptions on intercolumn forces, the number
of columns, and the method of assigning soil columns may also affect
the mentioned difference, as stated by Huang et al. (2002). Consequent-
ly, the existence of difference is considered tolerable.
5. Discussion and conclusion
stability analysis. The definition of DFOS proposed by Huang et al.
rua (2002) was used as the foundation of the present paper. Moreover, a
new relationship was introduced to calculate the unique DOS. The
0.25
0.25 force and moment equilibriums of static forces were used to establish
the value of FOS along the DOS was calculated for each column base
by means of the relevant forces from the x- and y-directions. If
they reach the true sliding angle, the values of FOS calculated from the
x- and y-directions for each column base must be equal at the verge
of sliding to comply with the LEM principle. Consequently, the objective
was to minimize the difference of FOS calculated from x- and y-
directions. Through this iterative process, the unique DOS and the
overall 3D FOS were calculated. The main advantages of the presented
method are as follows.
1. In contrast to the majority of the existing 3D methods, there was no
need to define a symmetrical plane for the slope. Thus, the method
was applicable for geometrically complex slopes.
2. A global coordinate system was used in the analysis to reduce the
complexity of the formulation.
3. The unique DOS was calculated with high accuracy without the use
of estimated, assumed, or interval values.
4. The corresponding 3D FOS of the sliding body was calculated with
high accuracy through an understandable process within a main
iteration.
5. The convergence of the method was not associated with the initial
values of variables such as initial DOS or initial DFOS.
6. The overall process was controlled by a logical termination criterion
to prevent immature and late convergence.
7. The overall process was completely automatic and no interference by
the user was required in the solving process.
The presented method was verified by re-analyzing two benchmark
slope stability examples from the literature and a hypothetical slope
stability problem including four different slopes. The results shows the
significant success of the presented method in an integrated work
with the prepared computed code to generate the 3D model of slope
and slip surface, determine the unique DOS, and calculate the FOS in
all the examples. The superiority of the presented method compared
with two of the most general 3D slope stability methods (Huang et al.,
2002; Cheng and Yip, 2007) are as follows.
1. The conflict of Huang et al.'s (2002) method with the rigidity princi-
ple of LEM was removed by introducing the equation of unique DOS.
2. The accuracy of determined DOS and the solving time were signifi-
cantly improved compared with the method of Cheng and Yip
(2007). These enhancements were achieved by calculating the DOS
rather than using an interval of sliding directions.
3. The difficulty of determining FOS when DOS met one of the main
axes was resolved by a simple solution.

This paper developed a new method to calculate the unique DOS. In By avoiding the problematic situations and automation of the pro-
addition, a computer code was written to generate a realistic 3D model cess, the presented method is able to find the DOS and its corresponding

Table 5
Properties of produced models in different tests of example 3.

Case no. Slip surface Slip surface properties (m) Weak layer Water condition
length (m)
Xc Yc Zc Rx Ry Rz

1 100 50 13.4 27.4 10–67 24.4 24.4 – –

2 160 80 13.4 27.4 10–105 24.4 24.4 Yes –
3 200 100 13.4 27.4 10–130 24.4 24.4 – ru
4 250 125 13.4 27.4 10–160 24.4 24.4 Yes ru
5 160 80 13.4 27.4 10–100 24.4 24.4 – ps
6 160 80 13.4 27.4 10–107 24.4 24.4 Yes ps

Note: ps = piezometric surface and ru = coefficient of pore water pressure for both materials.

Please cite this article as: Kalatehjari, R., et al., Determining the unique direction of sliding in three-dimensional slope stability analysis, Eng. Geol.
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.06.002
10 R. Kalatehjari et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Fig. 11. Generated models for case 6 of example 3.

Please cite this article as: Kalatehjari, R., et al., Determining the unique direction of sliding in three-dimensional slope stability analysis, Eng. Geol.
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.06.002
 R. Kalatehjari et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 11

Table 6 References
The ranges of calculated FOS for all cases of example 3.

Case no. Length of slip Range of FOS Anagnosti, P., 1969. Three-dimensional stability of fill dams. Proceedings of 7th. In-
surface (m) ternational Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico,
3D simplified 3D rigorous pp. 275–280.
Bishop method method Arellano, D., Stark, T.D., 2000. Importance of three-dimensional slope stability analyses in
1 10–67 2.438–2.085 2.707–2.344 practice. Geotechnical Special Publication, pp. 18–32.
Baker, R., Leshchinsky, D., 1987. Stability analysis of conical heaps. Soils Found. 27 (4),
2 10–105 1.979–1.568 2.142–1.758
99–110.
3 10–130 2.172–1.817 2.412–2.050
Baligh, M.M., Azzouz, A.S., 1975. End effects on stability of cohesive slopes. J. Geotech. Eng.
4 10–160 1.797–1.348 1.970–1.518 Div. 101 (11), 1105–1117.
5 10–100 2.288–1.913 2.563–2.186 Bishop, A.W., 1955. The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of earth slope.
6 10–107 1.873–1.454 2.047–1.656 Geotechnique 5 (1), 7–17.
Cavounidis, S., Kalogeropoulos, H., 1992. End effects on the stability of cuts in normally
consolidated clays. Riv. Ital. Geotech. 2, 85–93.
FOS without any need for monitoring by users. This allows the method Chen, R., Chameau, J., 1983. Three-dimensional limit equilibrium analysis of slopes.
to be used in an automatic search for the CSS. It is hoped that with the Geotechnique 32 (1), 31–40.
Chen, Z., Wang, X., Haberfield, C., Yin, J., Wang, J., 2001. A three-dimensional slope
presented methods some of the problems owed to asymmetry of slopes stability analysis method using the upper bound theorem. Part I: theory and
can be addressed by a more realistic slope stability analysis. As a result, methods. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 38, 369–378.
generating a 3D model of complex slopes, finding their unique DOS to- Chen, Z., Mi, H., Zhang, F., Wang, X., 2003. A simplified method for 3D slope stability
analysis. Can. Geotech. J. 40, 675–683.
gether with the corresponding 3D FOS, and describing the 3D shape of Cheng, Y., Yip, C., 2007. Three-dimensional asymmetrical sloe stability analysis extension
slip surfaces can be a practical endeavor. Consequently, overestimated of Bishop's, Janbu's, and Morgenstern–Price's techniques. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 133
and underestimated results of conventional slope stability analyses (12), 1544–1555.
Dai, F.C., Lee, C.F., Ngai, Y.Y., 2002. Landslide risk assessment and management: an over-
owed to estimated or assumed DOS can be corrected by using the pro-
view. Eng. Geol. 64 (1), 65–87.
posed method. Dennhardt, M., Forster, W., 1985. Problems of three-dimensional slope stability. Proceed-
The presented method is an innovative way to remove the limita- ings of the 11th International Conference in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing, San Francisco, pp. 427–431 (Part 2).
tions of previous methods in calculating the unique direction of sliding.
Di Maio, C., Vassallo, R., Vallario, M., Pascale, S., Sdao, F., 2010. Structure and kinematics of
It is able to improve 3D slope stability analysis and provide safer results a landslide in a complex clayey formation of the Italian southern Apennines. Eng.
by predicting the direction of sliding. Moreover, it can remove the con- Geol. 116, 311–322.
flicts of previous methods with the basic limit equilibrium methods Donati, L., Turrini, M.C., 2002. An objective method to rank the importance of the factors
predisposing to landslides with the GIS methodology: application to an area of the
which commonly produce instability in analysis convergence over a log- Apennines (Valnerina; Perugia, Italy). Eng. Geol. 63 (3–4), 277–289.
ical FOS. Therefore, its framework can be applied in other 3D methods Ferrari, A., Ledesma, A., Gonzalez, D.A., Corominas, J., 2011. Effects of the foot evolution on
based on limit equilibrium principles. Overall, it can be considered as the behaviour of slow-moving landslides. Eng. Geol. 117, 217–228.
Hovland, H., 1977. Three-dimensional slope stability analysis method. J. Geotech. Eng. Div.
an innovative solution to improve the existing methods of 3D slope sta- 103 (9), 971–986.
bility analysis. Huang, C.C., 2013. Developing a new slice method for slope displacement analyses. Eng.
Geol. 157, 39–47.
Huang, C.C., Tsai, C.C., 2000. New method for 3D and asymmetrical slope stability analysis.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 126 (10), 917–927.
Acknowledgment Huang, C.C., Tsai, C.C., Chen, Y.H., 2002. Generalized method for three-dimensional slope
stability analysis. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 128 (10), 836–848.
Hungr, O., 1987. An extension of Bishop's simplified method of slope stability analysis to
This study was conducted as part of a post-doctoral fellowship
three dimensions. Geotechnique 37 (1), 113–117.
scheme funded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) (PY/2014/ Hungr, O., Salgado, F., Byrne, P., 1989. Evaluation of a three-dimensional method of slope
01476). stability analysis. Can. Geotech. J. 26, 679–686.

Table 7
Comparison between the results of 3D simplified methods for example 3.

Case no. Sliding mass 3D simplified method Difference (%) between

volume the current study and
Xing Hungr Lam and Fredlund Huang and Tsai Huang Current
(m3)a Huang et al. (2002)
(1988) et al. (1993) (2000) et al. study
(1989) (2002)

1 11,106 2.122 – – – – 2.092 –

2 13,032 1.553 1.620 1.607 1.665 1.645 1.574 4.31
3 18,360 1.790 – – – 1.781 1.820 2.19
4 22,806 1.278 – – – 1.384 1.352 2.31
5 14,791 1.831 – – – 2.072 1.913 7.67
6 16,290 1.441 1.540 1.511 – – 1.461 –
a
Comparison volume is based on Xing (1988).

Table 8
Comparison between the results of 3D rigorous methods for example 3.

Case no. Sliding mass 3D rigorous method Difference (%) between

volume current study and
Chen Xie Chen Huang Current
(m3)a Huang et al. (2002)
et al. et al. et al. et al. study
(2001) (2006) (2003) (2002)

1 11,106 2.262 2.302 2.187 – 2.356 –

2 13,032 1.717 1.711 1.640 1.757 1.772 0.85
3 18,360 – – – 1.908 2.054 7.65
4 22,806 – – – 1.478 1.529 3.45
5 14,791 – – – 2.215 2.189 1.17
6 16,290 – 1.620 – – 1.669 –
a
Comparison volume is based on Xing (1988).

Please cite this article as: Kalatehjari, R., et al., Determining the unique direction of sliding in three-dimensional slope stability analysis, Eng. Geol.
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.06.002
12 R. Kalatehjari et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Janbu, N., 1954. Application of composite slip surface for stability analysis. Proceedings of
the Conference on Stability of Earth Slopes, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 43–49 (Part 3).
Jiang, J.C., Yamagami, T., 2004. Three-dimensional slope stability analysis using an extended
Spencer method. J. Japan. Geotech. Soc. Soils Found. 44 (4), 127–135.
Jiang, Q.H., Liu, X.H., Wei, W., Zhou, C.B., 2013. A new method for analyzing the stability of
rock wedges. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 60, 413–422.
Jiao, Y.Y., Zhang, X.L., Zhao, J., 2012. A two-dimensional DDA contact constitutive model
for simulating rock fragmentation. J. Eng. Mech. ASCE 138 (2), 199–209.
Jiao, Y.Y., Wang, Z.H., Wang, X.Z., Adoko, A.C., Yang, Z.X., 2013. Stability assessment of an
ancient landslide crossed by two coal mine tunnels. Eng. Geol. 159, 36–44.
Jing, L.R., Hudson, J.A., 2002. Numerical methods in rock mechanics. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. 39 (4), 409–427.
Kahatadeniya, K.S., Nanakorn, P., Neaupane, K.M., 2009. Determination of the critical
failure surface for slope stability analysis using ant colony optimization. Eng. Geol.
108, 133–141.
Kalatehjari, R., Ali, N., 2013. A review of three-dimensional slope stability analyses based
on limit equilibrium method. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 18 (A), 119–134.
Lam, L., Fredlund, D., 1993. A general limit equilibrium model for three-dimensional slope
stability analysis. Can. Geotech. J. 30, 905–919.
Lee, S., Ryu, J.H., Won, J.S., Park, H.J., 2004. Determination and application of the weights
for landslide susceptibility mapping using an artificial neural network. Eng. Geol. 71
(3–4), 289–302.
Leshchinsky, D., Baker, R., 1986. Three-dimensional slope stability: end effects. Soils
Found. 26 (4), 98–110.
Leshchinsky, D., Huang, C.C., 1992. Generalized three-dimensional slope stability analysis.
J. Geotech. Eng. 118 (11), 1748–1764.
Leshchinsky, D., Mullet, T., 1988. Stability of vertical corner cuts. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Innsbruck,
Austria, pp. 1249–1256.
Leshchinsky, D., Baker, R., Silver, M., 1985. Three-dimensional analysis of slope stability.
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 9, 199–223.
Liang, R.Y., Nusier, O.K., Malkawi, A.H., 1999. A reliability based approach for evaluating
the slope stability of embankment dams. Eng. Geol. 54 (3), 271–285.
Please cite this article as: Kalatehjari, R., et al., Determining the unique direction of sliding in three-dimensional slope stability analysis, Eng. Geol.
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.06.002
Lowry, B., Gomez, F., Zhou, W., Mooney, M.A., Held, B., Grasmick, J., 2013. High resolution
displacement monitoring of a slow velocity landslide using ground-based radar
interferometry. Eng. Geol. 166, 160–169.
Massey, C.I., Petley, D.N., McSaveney, M.J., 2013. Patterns of movement in reactivated
landslides. Eng. Geol. 159, 1–19.
Mendoza, F.J.C., Gisbert, A.F., Izquierdo, A.G., Bovea, M.D., 2009. Safety factor nomograms
for homogeneous earth dams less than ten meters high. Eng. Geol. 105, 231–238.
Rassam, D.W., Williams, D.J., 1999. 3-Dimensional effects on slope stability of high waste
rock dumps. Int. J. Surf. Min. Reclam. Environ. 13 (1), 19–24.
Sarma, S.K., 1973. Stability analysis of embankments and slopes. Geotechnique 23 (3),
423–433.
Terhorst, B., Kreja, R., 2009. Slope stability modelling with SINMAP in a settlement area of
the Swabian Alb. Landslides 6, 309–319.
Thiebes, B., Bell, R., Glade, T., Jäger, S., Anderson, M., Holcombe, L., 2013. A WebGIS
decision-support system for slope stability based on limit-equilibrium modelling.
Eng. Geol. 158, 109–118.
Ugai, K., 1985. Three-dimensional stability analysis of vertical cohesive slopes. Soils
Found. 25 (3), 41–48.
Ugai, K., 1988. Three-dimensional slope stability analysis by slice methods. Proceedings of
the International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Innsbruck,
Austria, pp. 1369–1374.
Xie, M., Esaki, T., Cai, M., 2006. GIS-based implementation of three-dimensional limit
equilibrium approach of slope stability. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 132 (5), 656–660.
Xing, Z., 1988. Three-dimensional stability analysis of concave slopes in plan view. J.
Geotech. Eng. 114 (6), 658–671.
Yamagami, T., Jiang, J.C., 1996. Determination of the sliding direction in three-dimensional
slope stability analysis. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Soft Soil
Engineering. Hohai University Press, Nanjing, pp. 567–572 (Part 1).
Zhang, D., Wang, G., Yang, T., Zhang, M., Chen, S., Zhang, F., 2012. Satellite remote sensing-
based detection of the deformation of a reservoir bank slope in Laxiwa Hydropower
Station, China. Landslides 10 (2), 231–238.
Zheng, H., 2012. A three-dimensional rigorous method for stability analysis of landslides.
Eng. Geol. 145, 30–40.