Slope Stability Analysis Based on Experimental Design

Srdan Kostic, Ph.D.1; Nebojša Vasovic, Ph.D.2; Duško Sunaric, Ph.D.3

Abstract: In this paper, the authors propose an analytical model for the prediction of the slope safety factor as a function of basic geometrical
parameters (slope height H and slope angle b ) and soil factors (bulk density g , cohesion c, angle of internal friction w , and pore water pressure
coefficient ru). Research was performed by applying the statistical technique of experimental design, for which the input data were provided by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

stability analyses of different homogeneous slopes with a circular slip surface using the Spencer limit equilibrium method. The proposed model
represents a nonlinear equation of a simpler form and higher prediction accuracy than those of the existing mathematical expressions, with pre-
dominant linear effect of the individual factors and significant influence of the two-factor interactions. Linear terms in a derived equation indi-
cate a positive effect of c or w and a negative effect of H, b , g , or ru on slope stability. Because of two-factor interactions, the effect of c is
highly dependent on H, b , g , and w , whereas the influence of w is predetermined by the values of b and ru. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.0000551. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
Estimation of slope stability represents one of the main tasks in
geotechnical design, primarily because it enables (1) evaluation of
geometrical constraints for stable slopes in road construction, (2)
calculation of forces needed for the proper design of landslide resto-
ration, and (3) determination of soil strength parameters using a
back-analysis approach. In general, three distinct groups of methods
are typically used in slope stability analysis: analytical methods, nu-
merical techniques, and stability charts. Traditional limit equilibrium
techniques are commonly used among analytical methods, resulting
in accurate safety factors for engineering purposes (Duncan and
Wright 2005). Reliability of such methods is confirmed through their
implementation in modern software packages, including Plaxis
(Brinkgreve 2002), Slide 5.02, and GEO-SLOPE (GEO-SLOPE
International 2008; Aryal 2006). Nevertheless, although analytical
approaches are easy to use and provide an intuitive approach toward
a final solution, numerical methods have been extensively applied
recently because of the development of fast computational solutions.
Numerical methods mainly cover the application of FEM (Zhang
1999; Zheng et al. 2005; Huo and Zhai 2012) and techniques based
on the upper-bound theorem of plasticity limit analysis (Donald and
Chen 1997; Kim et al. 2002). However, even though these methods
provide an estimation of slope stability, which is reasonable and of-
ten more reliable than limit equilibrium analyses, their implementa-
tion requires high computational time and powerful software appli-
cations, which are not always possible to achieve, especially when
there is limited time for a geotechnical report to be prepared or in
field conditions. In such cases, slope stability charts are typically
used as a suitable tool for quick estimation of slope stability. This
1
Institute for Development of Water Resources Jaroslav Cerni, 
11226 Pinosava, Belgrade, Serbia (corresponding author). E-mail:
srdjan.kostic@jcerni.co.rs
2
Dept. of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Mining and Geology, Univ.
of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia.
3 
Institute for Development of Water Resources Jaroslav Cerni, 11226
Pinosava, Belgrade, Serbia.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 25, 2014;
approved on June 4, 2015; published online on January 28, 2016.
Discussion period open until June 28, 2016; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the International
Journal of Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
approach dates back to Taylor (1937), who proposed a simple dia-
gram for the estimation of safety factors using a dimensionless pa-
rameter Ns, slope angle b , and angle of internal friction w . Many
succeeding analyses after this initial proposition suggested numer-
ous stability charts, which provided a very reliable first estimation of
slope stability (Eid 2014).
Apart from the aforementioned analytical and numerical meth-
ods, which are based on traditional and well-known principles,
strong development of artificial intelligence techniques has lead to
wide implementation of artificial neural networks (Das et al. 2011;
Erzin and Cetin 2013; Liu et al. 2014), support vector machines
(Zhao 2008; Tan et al. 2011; Li et al. 2013), and genetic algorithms
(Zolfaghari et al. 2005; Sun et al. 2008; Li et al. 2010; Yang et al.
2004) in slope stability analyses. All these methods represent reli-
able and easy-to-use tools for estimation of safety factors.
Moreover, some of these techniques, such as genetic algorithms,
yield explicit mathematical expressions for the prediction of a slope
safety factor (Yang et al. 2004; Ahangar-Asr et al. 2010;
Manouchehrian et al. 2014; Alavi and Gandomi 2011). These equa-
tions are typically based on nonlinear dependence of safety factors
on various geometrical slope properties or physicomechanical pa-
rameters of soil, and they are very convenient for the fast calculation
of safety factors and the quick estimation of the effect of input pa-
rameters. This type of prediction model is also derived in this paper.
The final goal of this study was to develop a prediction model for
slope safety factors, including the estimation of the effect of different
input factors on slope stability. One may wonder about the merit of
developing such a model as a function of six basic parameters, despite
the fact that a similar problem already has been studied (Yang et al.
2004; Ahangar-Asr et al. 2010; Manouchehrian et al. 2014; Alavi and
Gandomi 2011). There might be two reasons for this. First, to formu-
late this model we used the methodology of experimental design
(Fisher 1935; Deming and Morgan 1996), which was not previously
applied in the area of geotechnical analysis, even though it has already
provided reliable results in pharmaceutical technology (Doornbos
et al. 1990) and analytical and food chemistry (Cela et al. 2013; Hibbert
2012). Second, the authors wished to estimate the impact of each term
in a proposed model on slope stability (i.e., to perform sensitivity analy-
sis), which was not provided by the previous suggested expressions.
This paper is organized as follows. Applied methods are briefly
described in the next section, and the main results of the analyses
performed are given in Experimental Results. Accuracy of the

© ASCE 04016009-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016009

 developed model is verified by stability analyses of random slopes in
Verification of the Proposed Model, and comparison of its forecast-
ing precision with the existing equations is given in Comparison with
Existing Prediction Models. A brief review of the results is given in
the final section, together with suggestions for further research.
Applied Methods
In this paper, a design of experiments (DoE) methodology was
applied to develop a prediction model for slope safety factors
(Deming and Morgan 1996). Based on the range of input factors, this
method suggests statistically adequate combinations of input factors,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
determination of up to three-factor interaction which is shown to
have negligible impact on Fs in the present case.
5. Estimation of the effect of input parameters. Once the statistical
value of the created mathematical model is confirmed, the contri-
bution of each input parameter to Fs can be defined and mutually
compared by analyzing their standardized effects in a Pareto chart
or by comparing values of the corresponding coefficients.
Moreover, the influence of each of the individual factors, as well as
the impact of two-factor interactions, is further evaluated by ana-
lyzing the corresponding one-dimensional and three-dimensional
response surfaces. In that way, parameters with the greatest influ-
ence on Fs are identified, giving valuable information about the
factors that are actually controlling the slope stability.

which are uniformly distributed across the chosen parameter space. 6. Validation of the proposed model. After development of the
As a next step, the safety factor (Fs) is calculated for each parameter mathematical model, extensive statistical analysis using new
combination using the Spencer limit equilibrium method, as the sim- input data (which were not used for model building) has to be per-
plest limit equilibrium method that satisfies all the equilibrium condi- formed to finally confirm the practical application of the devel-
tions. After performing these analyses and recording the results (Fs), oped model. Statistical analysis of a developed model includes
a mathematical relation between the examined parameters and safety using the ANOVA test, assessing R2, adjusting R2, and predict-
factor can be created using linear regression and least-squares ing R2 values, as well as the p value and standard error (SE).
approximation, and the contributions of each parameter to Fs can be
defined and mutually compared. Once the model was created, it was
Experimental Results
used for navigation of experimental space defined by the range of
input parameters, without having to perform additional stability anal-
The initial phase of the research consisted of defining the input pa-
yses. This way, the search for a desired or optimal response value
rameters that were expected to significantly influence the slope safety
(i.e., a minimum safety factor) was done through mathematical simu-
factor. In this case, six input parameters were chosen: slope height H,
lation or by reading the appropriate graphical response surfaces.
slope angle b , bulk density g , cohesion c, angle of internal friction
On the basis of the described DoE methodology, the performed
w , and pore water pressure coefficient ru, which are routinely exam-
research consisted of the following important stages:
ined in slope stability analyses, because they predetermine the condi-
1. Selection of the potentially important factors, on the basis of
tions for the soil failure to occur (Erzin and Cetin 2013; Bishop and
previous analyses and research experience. One should note
Morgenstern 1960). However, because of limitations of the applied
that, in this stage, a reasonable number of factors need to be
method, the authors could not examine the impact of bedrock depth
selected, because a large number of input parameters would
on slope stability, because experimental design is used only for the
require a greater number of stability analyses.
input factors that are not mutually dependent. In this case, the depth
2. Definition of factor intervals, which were also set according to
research experience, which reflects what is typically expected
in situ.
3. Selection of experimental design and performing the stability analy-
ses. In this stage, adequate experimental design was selected, which
provided a well-planned and statistically reliable scheme of combi-
nations among input parameters that were set in each analysis. In
general, response surface experimental designs are recommended
for building reliable prediction models. Such a design class exam-
ines each input parameter on three levels to establish a quadratic de-
pendence among the investigated slope and soil properties and Fs.
4. Building of a mathematical model by applying the multiple linear
regression and least-squares method of approximation. Response
surface design enabled development of the following model: Fig. 1. Sketch of the one case of analyzed slopes and review of the
examined input parameters
X
N N X
X N
Y ¼ b0 þ b i Xi þ bij Xij (1)
i¼1 i¼1 j¼1
Table 1. Examined Range of Values for the Chosen Input Parameters
where Y is the response; and b 0, b i, b ij, and b ii correspond to Lower interval Central interval Higher interval
coefficients of the intercept, linear, interaction, and quadratic Input level level level
term (i = j), respectively; and X denotes the effect of influential parameters (coded value) (coded value) (coded value)
(input) factors. This type of model enables the independent esti-
H (m) 6 (−1) 8 (0) 10 (þ1)
mation of linear and quadratic dependence of the response on
b (degrees) 25 (−1) 47.5 (0) 70 (þ1)
each factor, including the assessment of two-factor interactions.
g (kN/m3) 16 (−1) 18 (0) 20 (þ1)
The latter interactions can be valuable in real problems, because
c (kPa) 0 (−1) 25 (0) 50 (þ1)
the impact of simultaneous variation of two factors can contrib-
w (degrees) 10 (−1) 30 (0) 50 (þ1)
ute differently to the response value than the influence of individ- ru 0 (−1) 0.25 (0) 0.5 (þ1)
ual factors. One should note that response surface design enables

© ASCE 04016009-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016009

 of the bedrock (d) was not independent of the slope height (H),
because their relation would have to satisfy the following condition:
d ≥ H. Hence, in this study, the authors examined only the homogene-
ous slopes with the bedrock at great depth with no impact on the slope
stability (Fig. 1).
In the next preparatory phase of the research, a range of values
for each input parameter was chosen (Table 1) according to previ-
ous studies (Erzin and Cetin 2013; Bishop and Morgenstern 1960).
It can be seen that each of the six factors was examined on three lev-
els: the lower level of the interval (denoted as −1 in coded factor
Table 2. Input Data for Developing Prediction Model of Fs Using
Experimental Design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
values), the higher level of the interval (denoted as þ1 in coded fac-
tor values), and the central point of the interval (denoted as 0 in
coded factor values). Coding of real factor values was necessary to
enable comparison of the impact of each input parameter on Fs in-
dependently from their units of measurement.
After the choice of the most influential input parameters and the
corresponding ranges of their values, an appropriate experimental
design was selected. To obtain as much valuable information about
the relations amonginput parameters andFs as possible, response sur-
face (Box–Behnken) design was selected. This design belongs to the
response surface class of experimental designs in which each factor is
varied on three levelsand the total number of required experiments for
k investigated factors is 2k(k – 1) points plus central points (Doornbos

et al. 1990). In this analysis, the experimental plan consisted of 48 sta-

Case No. H (m) b (degrees) g (kN/m3) c (kPa) w (degrees) ru Fs bility analyses, which were conducted by using the limit equilibrium
1 6 25 18 0 30 0.25 0.893
Spencer method in Slide as the simplest method that satisfies all equa-
2 10 25 18 0 30 0.25 0.88
tions of equilibrium (Table 2). Location of critical slip surface was
3 6 70 18 0 30 0.25 0.128
determined by using the Auto Refine Search method, with the limit of
4 10 70 18 0 30 0.25 0.117
5 6 25 18 50 30 0.25 4.683 Table 3. Developed Mathematical Model and Its Statistical Significance
6 10 25 18 50 30 0.25 3.39 Coefficient Coefficient
7 6 70 18 50 30 0.25 3.147 Model for coded for real
8 10 70 18 50 30 0.25 1.852 term factor values factor values p values SE
9 8 25 16 25 10 0.25 1.793
Intercept 1.7462 0.2049 0.0411
10 8 70 16 25 10 0.25 1.132
H −0.3118 −0.0040 <0.0001 0.0336
11 8 25 20 25 10 0.25 1.532
b −0.7120 −0.0375 <0.0001 0.0336
12 8 70 20 25 10 0.25 0.936
g −0.1116 0.0046 0.0020 0.0336
13 8 25 16 25 50 0.25 4.059
c 1.3234 0.1617 <0.0001 0.0336
14 8 70 16 25 50 0.25 1.452
w 0.5624 0.0871 <0.0001 0.0336
15 8 25 20 25 50 0.25 3.713
ru −0.3782 0.4981 <0.0001 0.0336
16 8 70 20 25 50 0.25 1.225
Hc −0.3038 −0.0061 <0.0001 0.0411
17 8 47.5 16 0 30 0 0.573
b c −0.1933 −0.0003 0.0020 0.0581
18 8 47.5 20 0 30 0 0.573
b w −0.4719 −0.0010 <0.0001 0.0411
19 8 47.5 16 50 30 0 3.43
g c −0.1208 −0.0024 0.0450 0.0582
20 8 47.5 20 50 30 0 2.937
cw 0.1519 0.0003 0.0130 0.0582
21 8 47.5 16 0 30 0.5 0.028
w  ru −0.3351 −0.0670 <0.0001 0.0582
22 8 47.5 20 0 30 0.5 0.028
b2 0.2446 0.0005 <0.0001 0.0471
23 8 47.5 16 50 30 0.5 2.656
c2 −0.1184 −0.0002 0.0165 0.0471
24 8 47.5 20 50 30 0.5 2.183
R2 0.9869
25 6 47.5 18 0 10 0.25 0.098
Adjusted R2 0.9819
26 10 47.5 18 0 10 0.25 0.096
Predicted R2 0.9706
27 6 47.5 18 50 10 0.25 3.044
28 10 47.5 18 50 10 0.25 1.894
29 6 47.5 18 0 50 0.25 0.642
30 10 47.5 18 0 50 0.25 0.575
31 6 47.5 18 50 50 0.25 4.196
32 10 47.5 18 50 50 0.25 2.98
33 8 25 18 25 10 0 1.827
34 8 70 18 25 10 0 1.125
35 8 25 18 25 50 0 4.79
36 8 70 18 25 50 0 2.093
37 8 25 18 25 10 0.5 1.458
38 8 70 18 25 10 0.5 0.949
39 8 25 18 25 50 0.5 2.942
40 8 70 18 25 50 0.5 0.715
41 6 47.5 16 25 30 0 2.6
42 10 47.5 16 25 30 0 1.918
43 6 47.5 20 25 30 0 2.258
44 10 47.5 20 25 30 0 1.704
45 6 47.5 16 25 30 0.5 1.91
46 10 47.5 16 25 30 0.5 1.05 Fig. 2. Values of Fs determined by the Spencer limit equilibrium
47 6 47.5 20 25 30 0.5 1.587 method versus the predicted value of Fs, indicating high statistical reli-
48 10 47.5 20 25 30 0.5 1.246 ability of the proposed model (internal validation)

© ASCE 04016009-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016009

 a 1-m minimum depth to avoid the occurrence of kinematically
impossible slipsurfaces (e.g., attheslopesurface).
Prediction Model
Once the slope safety factors for different geometrical and soil prop-
erties of the slope were calculated (Table 2), the mathematical
Model 1 was built. In the present study, 28 coefficients had to be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Pareto chart of standardized factor effects (SE = 0.165)
Fig. 4. Effect of individual input parameters on slope safety factor Fs: (a) Fs = f(c); (b) Fs = f( w ); (c) Fs = f(H); (d) Fs = f( b ); (e) Fs = f(ru); (f) Fs =
f( g ); while a single parameter was varied, other factors were held constant at their average values (H = 8 m, b = 47.5°, g = 18 kN/m3, c = 25
kPa, w = 30°, and ru = 0.25)
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 04016009
determined, including one intercept, six linear term coefficients, 15
two-factor interaction coefficients, and six quadratic term coeffi-
cients. Theoretically, only 28 stability analyses are necessary to
determine the required 28 coefficients. However, the applied
DoE methodology suggested 48 analyses, which left sufficient
degrees of freedom for obtaining the model of higher statistical
reliability. In other words, to create a model that is able to simu-
late real slope conditions, the position of factor levels in experi-
mental space should be carefully distributed, (i.e., it should fill
the experimental space uniformly and provide as much informa-
tion as possible). This way, the created mathematical model is
not only the numerical presentation of the performed experi-
ments, it is also the description of the entire system.
The adequate mathematical model for the prediction of Fs was
created using multiple linear regression and least-squares methods
of approximation. The preliminary statistical analysis enabled the
identification and omission of evidently insignificant model terms
(the p value was significantly higher than 0.05), giving this model
(Model 2) in the following form (Table 3):
Fs ¼ 0:2049  0:004  H  0:0375  b þ 0:0046  g þ 0:1617
 c þ 0:0871  w þ 0:4981  ru  0:0061  H  c
 0:0003  b  c  0:001  b  w  0:0024  g  c
þ 0:0003  c  w  0:067  w  ru þ 0:0005
 b 2  0:0002  c2 (2)
04016009-4 Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Three-dimensional response surface of Fs as a function of two-factor interactions: (a) Fs = f(c,H); (b) Fs = f(c, b ); (c) Fs = f(c, g ); (d) Fs =
f(c, w ); (e) Fs = f(ru, w ); (f) Fs = f( b , w ); while two parameters were being changed, other input factors were held constant at their average values (H =
8 m, b = 47.5°, g = 18 kN/m3, c = 25 kPa, w = 30°, and ru = 0.25); dark contour lines denote the boundary of slope stability

© ASCE 04016009-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016009

 The obtained values of the coefficient of determination
(R2 > 0.98) and adjusted coefficient of determination (adjusted
R2 > 0.98) listed in Table 3 indicate that the model describes the ana-
lyzed system with high statistical reliability. Moreover, the high pre-
dicted value of R2 (0.9706), which is a marker of internal validation,
suggests that the predictive power of the proposed model is
extremely high, indicating its great practical reliability. Values of Fs
determined by the Spencer limit equilibrium method were compared
with the predicted value of Fs, indicating a high value of correlation
coefficient (Fig. 2).
Impact of Input Data
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
lower to a higher level is not the same for H = 6 m and H = 10 m
(i.e., the value of Fs increases more slowly with the rise of cohesion
for the higher slopes). Similarly, although H is moved from mini-
mum to maximum values, the decrease of Fs is not the same for c =
0 kPa and c = 50 kPa. For example, if a constant value of c = 20 kPa
is assumed, it is clear that the increase of slope height from 6 to
10 m will induce an occurrence of slope instability. Such mutual
effects of c and H on Fs are acceptable under real conditions,
because these parameters affect opposite forces acting on a slope:
the increase of c contributes to resisting forces, whereas the higher
values of H affect more the disturbing forces.
Similar conclusions can be made for the interaction of c and b
[Fig. 5(b)], in which the most negative effect on Fs is estimated for

the high slope angles and low cohesion, which is expected, because
After a reliable mathematical model had been created and its statis-
lower cohesion reduces the resisting forces and higher slope angle
tical significance had been confirmed, the effect of each input pa-
increases the disturbing forces.
rameter on slope safety factor was estimated. The impact of each
As for the coaction of c and g [Fig. 5(c)], it is clear that g has
term in a proposed Model 2 could be evaluated by analyzing the
almost no impact on the effect of c, which has already been indi-
coefficients for coded factor values (Table 3) or by calculating the
cated by the analysis of a single-factor effect and by the lowest
standardized effect values, which were obtained by dividing each
value of its coefficient effect in the Pareto chart (−2.075).
coefficient by its SE (Fig. 3). The absolute values of coefficient
Conversely, the simultaneous decrease of c and w , as shown in
effects in the Pareto chart denote the impact magnitudes of each
Fig. 5(d), induces the slope instability, which is also expected under
input parameter, and their sign suggests the increasing (þ) or
real conditions, because the decrease of both c and w reduces the
decreasing (−) effect on the safety factor.
resisting forces acting on a slope.
The obtained Pareto chart (Fig. 3) indicates the linear depend-
Regarding the mutual effect of w and ru, as seen in Fig. 5(e), the
ence of the safety factor on all input parameters, whereas the signifi-
increase of w for a constant value of ru increases the slope stability
cance of squared terms for b and c also suggests a quadratic rela-
in different ways. For high values of ru, the increase of Fs with the
tion among Fs and these two factors but with small effects (5.19 and
−2.51, respectively). Regarding the impact of individual factors, it rise of w is rather small, whereas the effect of w is more significant
is clear that soil cohesion c has the strongest influence on Fs for dry slopes (ru = 0).
(39.39), whereas the subsequent important factor (i.e., the slope In contrast to previous cases, an interesting feature appears in
angle b ) shows almost half of the impact of c (−21.19). The effect Fig. 5(f), which presents the coaction of b and w on Fs. It is appa-
of the remaining individual input parameters on Fs decreases in the rent that the effect of w on Fs is significantly different for mild and
following order: w > ru > H > g . Hence, bulk density has the least
influence on the slope stability, which was already stated by Jiang
and Yamagami (2006), who showed that bulk density does not have
significant influence on slope stability, as long as the constant pore
pressure ratio ru is assumed throughout the whole slope.
The influence of individual factors on Fs, while the remaining
input parameters are kept on average level, is shown in Fig. 4. It
can be seen that cohesion c and angle of internal friction w show
positive influence on Fs [Figs. 4(a and b)], induced by the
increase of resisting forces acting on a slope. Conversely, the
remaining factors H, b , g , and ru have a negative effect on Fs.
Indeed, the increase of slope height and angle (H and b ), which
significantly affects the disturbing forces, induces a decrease in
Fs [Figs. 4(c and d)]. High values of pore pressure (ru) reduce
the resisting forces on slope similarly, which results in a lower
safety factor [Fig. 4(e)]. Also, the increase of bulk density
slightly decreases the value of Fs [Fig. 4(f)], which is expected
because the increasing g affects the disturbing forces more than
the resisting ones, especially under the effect of pore water pres-
sure (Zhao et al. 2010).
One has to notice a moderate curvature in Figs. 4(a and d), which
indicates that c and b also have significant quadratic terms (Table
3), confirming their strong impact on slope stability.
Nevertheless, although the analysis of a single parameter effect
on Fs provided reasonable results, the existence of two-factor inter-
actions in the proposed Eq. (2) indicates that the simultaneous varia-
tion of some input parameters will contribute differently to slope Fig. 6. Coaction of slope angle b and angle of internal friction w on
stability than the effect of individual factor variation. With the most slope stability for the worst-case scenario regarding the slope stability:
influential factor, cohesion c, it practically means that its impact on H = 10 m, g = 20 kN/m3, c = 0 kPa, and ru = 0.5; the dark line denotes
Fs will be different for various values of H, b , g , and w (Fig. 5). As the boundary of slope stability
shown in Fig. 5(a), the increase of Fs induced by c changing from a

© ASCE 04016009-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016009

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Coaction of cohesion c and slope angle b on slope stability for: (a) the most favorite values (H = 6 m, g = 16 kN/m3, w = 50°, and ru = 0); (b)
the least favorite values of other parameters (H = 10 m, g = 20 kN/m3, w = 10°, and ru = 0.5); dark lines denote the boundary of slope stability

steep slopes. In the former case, the rise of w strongly affects Fs by Table 4. Random Properties of Slopes for Verification of the Proposed
increasing its value, which proves that this two-factor interaction has Model 2
the strongest influence on slope stability among all the remaining
Numerical
interactions (Fig. 3). In the latter case, one can observe smaller example No. H (m) b (degrees) g (kN/m3) c (kPa) w (degrees) ru
changes of Fs with the increase of w . Moreover, another important
feature arises in Fig. 5(f). It is apparent that, because of the quadratic 1 6.5 62 16.8 9 15 0.1
dependence of Fs on b , the minimum of the response function in 2 7.2 36 17.2 46 22 0.22
Eq. (2) is captured within the investigated region (Fs = 1.125), mean- 3 8.4 52 17 24 44 0.41
ing that for w = 10 − 15°, a further increase of b from 45 to 70° does 4 9.6 33 19.4 18 35 0.39
not have a significant impact on Fs. Such effects of b and w on Fs are 5 6.8 43 18.3 38 11 0.13
further qualitatively confirmed for the worst-case scenario (H = 10 m, 6 7.3 66 19 44 29 0.26
c = 0 kPa, ru = 0.5, and g = 20 kN/m3), as shown in Fig. 6. Slopes 7 9.1 58 16.2 21 33 0.48
with high values of height, bulk density of soil, and a high level of 8 7 28 19.6 15 12 0.31
underground water, including the lowest value of c, apparently cannot 9 9 61 17.5 4 48 0.2
withstand slope angles higher than b  35° for small values of w . In 10 6.9 44 18.9 12 19 0.11
other words, further increases of b in this case do not have any signifi-
cant impact on Fs, which confirms our previously stated observation.
Even though the two-factor interactions (Fig. 5) give rather clear Verification of the Proposed Model
and intuitive insight in their qualitative effects on slope stability,
one should be aware of the fact that mutual impact of these factors To further confirm the reliability of the proposed Model 2, its
on Fs is shown for average constant values of other parameters. predictive power was tested by analyzing 10 examples of slopes
However, because the effect of c on Fs, for example, will be differ- with random geometrical characteristics and soil properties, dif-
ent for various values of H, b , g , and w , the coaction of all of these ferent from those used for building the mathematical model
factors should be taken into account. Therefore, the mutual effects (Table 4). Exact values of the safety factors for slopes given in
of c and b are shown in Fig. 7 for the most favorite values of other Table 4 were determined by using the Spencer limit equilibrium
input parameters for slope stability (H = 6 m, g = 16 kN/m3, w = method (Table 5).
50°, and ru = 0) and for the least favorite scenario (H = 10 m, g = 20 The obtained results indicate a high level of prediction accuracy,
kN/m3, w = 10°, and ru = 0.5). with the 95% of predicted values of Fs falling within 62 SE (Table 5).
As seen in Fig. 7(a), the effects of c and b on Fs for the best- The values of Fs determined by the Spencer limit equilibrium method
case scenario are qualitatively the same as for the average constant arecomparedwithitspredictedvaluesinFig.8.
values of other input parameters [Fig. 5(b)]. However, in the worst-
case scenario [Fig. 7(b)], the impact of the coaction of these param-
eters on Fs is significantly different. In this case, the stronger effect
of c over b , as shown in Fig. 3, is obvious, because for constant b Comparison with Existing Prediction Models
the safety factor significantly rises with the increase of c.
However, in the opposite case, for constant value of c, safety fac- To justify the need for a new prediction model, its prediction
tor Fs increases slightly with the decrease of slope angle b . accuracy has to be compared with the existing mathematical

© ASCE 04016009-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016009

 Table 5. Values of Fs Determined by Spencer Method and Proposed Table 6. Range of Input Parameters for the Prediction Eqs. (3)–(5)
Model
Model by Model by
Low High Model by Ahangar-Asr Manouchehrian
Numerical Fs1 Fs2 Absolute 95% 95% Input Yang et al. et al. et al.
example (Spencer (proposed error: Mean confidence confidence parameter (2004) (2010) (2014)
no. method) model) Fs1  Fs2 SE level level
H (m) 3.66–214 3.66–214 3.6–214
1 0.730 0.637 0.093 0.083 0.47 0.81 b (degrees) 16–53 16–53 16–53
2 3.139 3.254 0.115 0.063 3.13 3.38 g (kN/m3) 12–28.44 12–28.44 12–28.44
3 1.533 1.487 0.046 0.061 1.36 1.61 c (kPa) 0–150.05 0–150.05 0–50
4 1.536 1.603 0.067 0.060 1.48 1.72 w (degrees) 0–45 0–45 0–45
5 2.224 2.160 0.064 0.070 2.02 2.30 ru 0.11–0.5 0–0.5 0–0.5
6 2.076 2.202 0.127 0.067 2.07 2.34
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

7 0.954 0.859 0.095 0.062 0.73 0.98

8 1.181 1.138 0.043 0.079 0.98 1.30 Table 7. Input Parameters of Sample Slopes for Comparison of the
9 0.615 0.556 0.059 0.084 0.39 0.73 Proposed Model 2 with the Existing Prediction Eqs. (3)–(5)
10 1.112 0.992 0.12 0.061 0.87 1.11
Numerical
example no. H (m) b (degrees) g (kN/m3) c (kPa) w (degrees) ru

4 1 6.6 26 16.8 9 15 0.1

2 7.2 36 17.2 46 22 0.22
3 8.4 42 17 24 41 0.41
4 9.6 33 19.4 18 35 0.39
5 6.8 38 18.3 38 11 0.13
3
Predicted values of Fs

6 8.8 45 19.8 44 29 0.26

7 9.1 51 16.2 21 33 0.48
8 7 28 19.6 15 12 0.31
9 9 53 17.5 4 44 0.2
2
10 6.9 32 18.9 12 19 0.11

which were developed by Yang et al. (2004), Ahangar-Asr et al.

1 (2010), and Manouchehrian et al. (2014), respectively, for the same
input parameters as those in the present study but using different
r=0.995 methods. Model 3 was developed using the method of genetic pro-
SE=0.066 gramming, whereas Model 4 was derived using a combination of
0 the least-squares method and a genetic algorithm, the last of which
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
was also used for developing Model 5. The range of input parame-
Values of Fs obtained by Spencer's method
ters used for deriving these models is given in Table 6.
As shown in Table 6, the analyzed range of input parameters is
Fig. 8. Comparison of values of Fs determined by the Spencer limit
broader for H, g , and c (except for the model by Manouchehrian
equilibrium method and its values predicted by the proposed Model 2,
indicating reliable predictive power of the developed mathematical
et al. 2014) than that from the model presented here. The range of
expression (external validation)
input values for ru is the same as that in the Model 2, with a slight
difference in the model by Yang et al. (2004), whereas the input
range for w is smaller when compared with that of the present
model. Conversely, the range for b significantly differs from that in
expressions. For this purpose, the following three models were
the present analysis (smaller values of both lower and upper limits).
analyzed (Models 3–5): This difference in the examined parameter range could cause differ-
1 ent predictions of Fs using the developed Model 2 and existing pre-
Fs ¼ ð1:406 þ 0:039c  csc2 w Þ þ 1:25ð1  ru Þtan w cot b diction Eqs. (3)–(5).
H
To examine the drawbacks/benefits of implementing the pres-
1
þ 0:156sec w þ 0:011 csc b (3) ent Model 2 over the existing prediction Eqs. (3)–(5), 10 sample
g cases of slopes, the properties of which fall within the input
ranges of all models, were chosen (Table 7). The obtained
1:49H results are given in Table 8.
Fs ¼   1:8ru2 þ tanð w Þ½2:59  2:18 tanð b Þ þ 0:014  c
g2 As seen in Table 8, proposed prediction Model 2 gives a signifi-
 5:19  105 c2 þ 0:817; (4) cantly higher prediction accuracy when compared with existing
Models 3–5. For simpler visualization, the prediction accuracy of
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi these models is shown in Fig. 9.
pffiffiffi 1:372
Fs ¼ 1:979 þ 3:25  107 expð g Þ þ 0:083 c  h i2
expðtan w Þ
Conclusion

 0:673 lnðtan b Þ  0:19 lnðHÞ  3:515ðru Þ3 (5) In this paper, a prediction model for safety factor (Fs) of homogene-
ous slope was developed by using the method of experimental

© ASCE 04016009-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016009

 Table 8. Values of Fs Determined by the Spencer method, Proposed design. It was assumed that six main factors predetermine the stabil-
Model 2, and Existing Eqs. (3)–(5) ity of slope: height H, slope angle b , bulk density g , cohesion c,
Fs1 Fs2 angle of internal friction w , and pore pressure coefficient ru. Results
Numerical (Spencer (proposed Fs3 Fs4 Fs5 of the performed analysis indicate general linear dependence of Fs
example no. method) Model 2) (Model 3) (Model 4) (Model 5) on the aforementioned input parameters, including a nonlinear
quadratic influence of cohesion and slope angle. Moreover, the con-
1 1.313 1.128 (SE = 0.094) 1.788 1.295 1.547
ducted research implies the significant impact of two-factor interac-
2 3.139 3.254 (SE = 0.063) 2.530 1.634 1.734
tions on the slope stability. Influence of a single parameter lies in
3 1.822 1.883 (SE = 0.057) 1.350 1.323 1.570
increase of Fs with the increase of c and w , whereas Fs decreases
4 1.536 1.603 (SE = 0.060) 1.368 1.563 1.651
with the increase of H, b , and ru, for assumed average constant val-
5 2.334 2.275 (SE = 0.072) 6.747 1.386 1.357
ues of other input parameters. The impact of bulk density g on slope
6 2.230 2.331 (SE = 0.067) 1.650 1.405 1.608
stability is not significant, because the value of Fs decreases from
7 1.136 1.045 (SE = 0.063) 0.987 0.555 1.035
1.85 to approximately 1.62 with the increase of g from 16 to 20 kN/
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

8 1.181 1.138 (SE = 0.079) 2.597 1.120 1.361

9 0.799 0.752 (SE = 0.068) 1.136 0.464 1.312
m3. This is further confirmed by the analysis of two-factor inter-
10 1.378 1.290 (SE = 0.066) 1.594 1.350 1.526
actions, with no significant change in Fs for any values of g
with an increase of cohesion c, while other parameter values are
held constant at their average values.
However, because the two-factor interactions significantly affect
the slope stability, the impact of certain single input parameters will
change with different values of other factors. This is confirmed by

3.5 7
Values of Fs predicted by model (2)

Values of Fs predicted by model (3)

3

5
2.5

4
2
3
1.5
2

1
1

0.5 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
(a) Values of Fs obtained by Spencer’s method (b) Values of Fs obtained by Spencer’s method

2
Values of Fs predicted by model (4)

Values of Fs predicted by model (5)

1
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
(c) Values of Fs obtained by Spencer’s method (d) Values of Fs obtained by Spencer’s method

Fig. 9. Values of Fs determined by the Spencer method versus the values of Fs predicted by: (a) Model 2 (r = 0.99); (b) Model 3 (r = 0.46); (c)
Model 4 (r = 0.72); (d) Model 5 (r = 0.59); it is clear that Model 2 provides the highest prediction accuracy, with the smallest SE

© ASCE 04016009-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016009

 the analysis of every significant two-factor interaction in the pro-
posed Model 2, while other factors are held constant at their average
values. It turns out that the minimum value of safety factor is
obtained for the following two-factor interactions: the highest value
of b and the lowest value of c (for the c– b interaction), the lowest
values of c and w (for the c– w interaction), high values of b
( b > 45°) and the lowest value of w (for the b – w interaction), and
the lowest value of w and the highest value of ru (for the ru– w inter-
action). Regarding the remaining two significant interactions, those
of c–H and c– g , minimum values of Fs are obtained for the lowest
values of c, regardless of the values of H or g . Further analysis of
slope stability for the best- and worst-case scenarios has confirmed
the predominant effect of cohesion on slope stability. Moreover, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
obtained results indicated that for the worst-case scenario (H = 10
m, g = 20 kN/m3, c = 0 kPa, and ru = 0.5), slope cannot maintain
high values of slope angle.
The proposed model was further verified by analyzing 10 sam-
ples of slopes with random geometrical and soil properties within
the examined range of input parameters. The obtained results indi-
cate a high level of statistical reliability, with the predicted values of
Fs within the 95% prediction interval and with a high correlation
coefficient (r = 0.996). When compared with the existing prediction
equations proposed by Yang et al. (2004), Ahangar-Asr et al.
(2010), and Manouchehrian et al. (2014), the proposed model esti-
mates the value of Fs with much higher accuracy. Along with this,
the proposed models provide relatively simple relations among
slope properties and safety factors, whereas the existing equations
give a highly nonlinear dependence of Fs on input parameters,
including logarithmic, exponential, and cubic terms and trigono-
metric relations, whose impact on Fs cannot be easily evaluated. It
has to be emphasized that different predictive power of developed
model and existing equations could arise from slightly different
ranges of the examined input parameters.
One should note that the method of experimental design is
applied in slope stability analysis for the first time in this paper.
This method belongs to soft computing techniques, and it can pro-
vide reliable results with a sufficient minimum of input parameters.
In this way, the number of analyses needed for calculation of Fs for
an earth slope is significantly reduced without a loss of statistical
reliability and prediction accuracy.
The prediction equation, which is proposed by the current analy-
sis, represents a basic model for slope stability prediction. Further
analyses in this direction should include the effect of the bedrock
depth and the impact of external static and dynamic forces. The final
model should also involve the possibility of locating the position of
critical slip surface. In that case, such a model would provide a full
picture of slope stability, and it would have a more significant prac-
tical application.
Acknowledgments
This research was partly supported by the Ministry of Education,
Science, and Technological Development of the Republic of
Serbia (Contract No. 176016). Special thanks also go to the

Institute for the Development of Water Resources (Jaroslav Cerni)
for extensive communication during the research.
References
Ahangar-Asr, A., Faramarzi, A., and Javadi, A. A. (2010). “A new
approach for prediction of the stability of soil and rock slopes.” Eng.
Comput., 27(7), 878–893.
© ASCE 04016009-10
Int. J. Geomech., 04016009
Alavi, A. H., and Gandomi, A. H. (2011). “A robust data mining approach
for formulation of geotechnical engineering systems.” Eng. Comput.,
28(3), 242–274.
Aryal, K. P. (2006). “Slope stability evaluations by limit equilibrium and fi-
nite element methods,” Ph.D. thesis, Norwegian Univ. of Science and
Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Bishop, A. W., and Morgenstern, N. R. (1960). “Stability coefficients for
earth slopes.” Geotechnique, 10(4), 129–153.
Brinkgreve, R. B. J. (2002). Plaxis 8.2 user’s manual, Delft University of
Technology and Plaxis bv, Delft, the Netherlands.
Cela, R., Ordoñez, E. Y., Quintana, J. B., and Rodil, R. (2013).
“Chemometric–assisted method development in reversed–phase liquid
chromatography.” J. Chromatogr. A, 1287, 2–22.
Das, S. K., Biswal, R. K., Sivakugan, N., and Das, B. (2011).
“Classification of slopes and prediction of factor of safety using dif-
ferential evolution neural networks.” Environ. Earth Sci., 64(1),
201–210.
Deming, S. N., and Morgan, S. L. (1996). Experimental design: a chemo-
metric approach, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Donald, I. B., and Chen, Z. (1997). “Slope stability analysis by the upper
bound approach: Fundamentals and methods.” Can. Geotech. J., 34(6),
853–862.
Doornbos, D. A., Smilde, A. K., DBoer, J. H., and Duineveld, C. A. A.
(1990). “Experimental design, response surface methodology and multi-
criteria decision making in the development of drug dosage forms.”
Scientific computing and automation (Europe), E. J. Karjalainen, ed.,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 85–95.
Duncan, J. M., and Wright, S. G. (2005). Soil strength and slope stability,
Wiley, New York.
Eid, H. (2014). “Stability charts for uniform slopes in soils with nonlinear
failure envelopes.” Eng. Geol., 168, 38–45.
Erzin, Y., and Cetin, T. (2013). “The prediction of the critical factor of
safety of homogeneous finite slopes using neural networks and multiple
regressions.” Comput. Geosci., 51, 305–313.
Fisher, R. A. (1935). The design of experiments, Haffner Press, New York.
GEO-SLOPE International. (2008). Stability modeling with SLOPE/W
2007: An engineering methodology, 3rd ed., Calgary, AB, Canada.
Hibbert, D. B. (2012). “Experimental design in chromatography: A tutorial
review.” J. Chromatogr. B, 910, 2–13, 22333438.
Huo, Y., and Zhai, H. (2012). “The study on slope stability analysis based
on finite element method.” Adv. Mater. Res., 575, 70–74.
Jiang, J.-C., and Yamagami, T. (2006). “Charts for estimating strength
parameters from slips in homogeneous slopes.” Comput. Geotech.,
33(6–7), 294–304.
Kim, J., Salgado, R., and Lee, J. (2002). “Stability analysis of complex soil
slopes using limit analysis.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron., 10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:7(546), 546–557.
Li, S., Zhao, H.-B., and Ru, Z. (2013). “Slope reliability analysis by
updated support vector machine and Monte Carlo simulation.” Nat.
Hazards, 65(1), 707–722.
Li, Y.-C., Chen, Y.-M., Zhan, T. L. T., Ling, D.-S., and Cleall, P. J. (2010).
“An efficient approach for locating the critical slip surface in slope sta-
bility analyses using a real-coded genetic algorithm.” Can. Geotech. J.,
47(7), 806–820.
Liu, Z., Shao, J., Xu, W., Chen, H., and Zhang, Y. (2014). “An extreme
learning machine approach for slope stability evaluation and predic-
tion.” Nat. Hazards, 73(2), 787–804.
Manouchehrian, A., Gholamnejad, J., and Sharifzadeh, M. (2014).
“Development of a model for analysis of slope stability for circular
mode failure using genetic algorithm.” Environ. Earth Sci., 71(3),
1267–1277.
Slide 5.02 [Computer software]. Rocscience, Toronto.
Sun, J., Li, J., and Liu, Q. (2008). “Search for critical slip surface in slope
stability analysis by spline-based GA method.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:2(252), 252–256.
Tan, X.-H., Bi, W.-H., Hou, X.-L., and Wang, W. (2011). “Reliability anal-
ysis using radial basis function networks and support vector machines.”
Comput. Geotech., 38(2), 178–186.
Taylor, D. W. (1937). “Stability of earth slopes.” J. Boston Soc. Civil Eng.,
24, 197–246.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Yang, C., Tham Feng, X. T., Wang, Y. J., and Lee, P. K. K. (2004). “Two-
stepped evolutionary algorithm and its application to stability analysis
of slopes.” J. Comput. Civil Eng., 18(2), 145–153.
Zhang, X. (1999). “Slope stability analysis based on the rigid finite element
method.” Geotechnique, 49(5), 585–593.
Zheng, H., Liu, D. F., and Li, C. G. (2005). “Slope stability analysis based
on elasto-plastic finite element method.” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng.,
64(14), 1871–1888.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Diego State University on 01/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Zhao, H.-B. (2008). “Slope reliability analysis using a support vector
machine.” Comput. Geotech., 35(3), 459–467.
Zhao, L.-H., Li, L., Yang, F., Luo, Q., and Liu, X. (2010). “Upper bound anal-
ysis of slope stability with nonlinear failure criterion based on strength
reduction technique.” J. Cent. South Univ. Technol., 17(4), 836–844.
Zolfaghari, A. R., Heath, A. C., and McCombie, P. F. (2005). “Simple
genetic algorithm search for critical non-circular failure surface in slope
stability analysis.” Comput. Geotech., 32(3), 139–152.

© ASCE 04016009-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016009