Proceedings of the ASME 2022 13th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2022
Effectiveness of Subsurface Drainage for Mitigation of Landslides Affecting
Pipelines
Mohammad Rashidi Ali Ebrahimi
Geosyntec Consultants Geosyntec Consultants
Houston, TX Houston, TX
Abstract
Landslides can pose a threat to the integrity of new and
existing pipelines if they are not mitigated. Improving subsurface
drainage of groundwater is one of the most widely used
stabilization strategies for mitigating landslides affecting
pipelines because subsurface drainage requires minimal design
and costs and can improve the overall stability. The appropriate
design and implementation of this approach could lower the
groundwater table within the landslide as a primary factor
triggering landslide movement by reducing the driving force and
increasing the shear strength or resisting force within the
landslide mass. Thus, the subsurface drains are conventionally
employed in the mitigation of most landslides that may threaten
pipelines either as a single strategy or in conjunction with other
measures.
This paper presents how effective subsurface drainage
systems are for improving slope stabilization in various site
conditions. Included in the discussion is the predesign
investigation considerations. The results of a series of two-
dimensional limit equilibrium and seepage analyses are
presented to evaluate the effectiveness of subsurface drainage
systems. Site conditions explored in this paper include the
location of the right-of-way compared to the boundary of
landslide, geometry of landslide, and groundwater level. A model
that uses genetic expression programming as a computational
intelligence technique is introduced that predicts the
effectiveness of subsurface drainage systems.
Keywords: landslide, subsurface drainage, slope stability
1. INTRODUCTION
There are about 2.5 million miles of pipeline in the United
States with half of the pipelines built more than 50 years ago.
Pipelines are buried in soil. Soil or ground movement around the
pipe can induce external stress or strain on the pipe that may have
not been accounted for at the time of design. These external
forces from ground movement have a higher likelihood of
occurring in the landslide-susceptible area of the United States.
September 26-30, 2022, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2022-87107
Arash Mosaiebian
Enbridge
Calgary, AB
One of the main causes of ground movement is an increase
in water within the soil structure. The water can reduce the
strength of the soil, which will result in the soil moving on the
slopes (i.e., slip or translational landslide movement, rotational
landslide movement, surficial and/or deep-seated movement).
The increased water in the soil could be related to precipitation,
spring thaw, poor surface water management, or deforestation.
Precipitation and water infiltration can raise the groundwater
table. Spring thaw can increase the water typically within the
frost depth (e.g., top 3 to 4 feet). Discharge of surface water
toward the pipeline right-of-way (ROW) can saturate the soil
within the ROW. Deforestation can increase the water in the soil
as trees can potentially absorb up to 150 gallons of water per day.
An enhanced subsurface drainage system is a widely used
mitigation strategy to slow down or eliminate the likelihood of
landslide movement. The drainage system lowers the
groundwater table within the landslide: a high groundwater table
is a primary triggering factor for the landslide movement. The
cost of a drainage system is lower than other landslide mitigation
or stabilizations options because construction does not require a
specialty contractor; nevertheless, appropriate design and
implementation are essential to achieve improved landslide
stabilization.
A subsurface drainage system can be combined with other
mitigation measures as part of the overall geohazard
management plant. The following are commonly performed in
combination with drainage:
• Improving drainage inside the pipe trench to enhance
the trench stability
• Improving surface drainage by diverting the water away
from the pipeline ROW
• Monitoring the pipeline or landslide using geotechnical
instruments, such as inclinometers and strain gauges
If other mitigation measures have been implemented on the
slope or around the pipe in the past, the design and construction
of the subsurface drainage system must consider how best to
minimize disturbance to existing systems. Although, subsurface
drainage improves ground stability, it cannot always stabilize the
1 © 2022 by ASME
landslide by itself. Subsurface drainage can be implemented
along with other mitigation measures, such as landslide
stabilization, as a long-term mitigation approach to reduce the
potential need for future mitigations.
2. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Although subsurface drainage can be simple, there are
several factors to be considered before designing the system.
These considerations are pertinent to the characteristics and
geotechnical stability of the landslide. For most pipelines in the
United States, subsurface drainage is implmented within the
pipeline ROW, which limits the area where the system can be
installed.
2.1 Landslide and Groundwater Characteristics
When planning and designing the subsurface drainage
improvement, the engineer’s most important consideration is the
characteristics of the landslide and groundwater condition.
Depth to Groundwater Table: Subsurface drainage is typically
installed to a constructable depth of up to 10 ft below the ground
surface. If the groundwater is deeper than 10 ft, subsurface
drainage may not be constructable or effective to capture the
groundwater.
Hydrogeology of Site: Depending on the site geology, the source
of groundwater can vary. For example, groundwater may flow
through a porous or fractured bedrock and discharge into the
landslide soil (see Figure 1). In this case, installing the
subsurface drainage at an elevation higher than the water-bearing
bedrock would not be effective.
Cause of Landslide Movement: Although groundwater within
the soil is one of the main factors triggering a landslide, it is not
the only cause. If the landslide is triggered due to other reasons
(e.g., human activities such as mining or a site preparation by
cutting at the toe of the landslide), drainage would not be an
effective measure to improve the landslide stability.
Size of Landslide: Landslides vary in size from tens of feet to
several hundred or thousands of feet, and because subsurface
drainage needs to be designed to lower the groundwater table
within the landslide to be effective, if the landslide is larger than
the area where subsurface drainage is installed, the subsurface
drainage might not be effective. For example, if the landslide is
about 500 feet wide and subsurface drainage is installed only
within a 35-foot ROW, the effectiveness of the drainage system
on landslide stability is considerably limited, or even ineffective.
That said, the drainage system within the ROW can,
nevertheless, improve the geotechnical stability of the pipeline
trench.
FIGURE 1: FLOWING GROUNDWATER THROUGH
POROUS BEDROCK AND DISCHARGING INTO
LANDSLIDE SOIL
Location of Pipeline ROW: Because subsurface drainage is
typically installed within the pipeline ROW, the location of the
ROW in regard to the boundaries of the landslide is of utmost
importance. For example, if the pipeline is perpendicular to the
direction of landslide movement, installing subsurface drainage
along the ROW that crosses through the upper half of a landslide
(See Figure 2) can capture the groundwater and discharge it off
the ROW. But, if the subsurface drainage is installed along the
ROW that crosses through the toe of a landslide, it would be less
effective in lowering the groundwater within the landslide,
which means it would be less effective at improving the overall
stability of the slope.
Direction of Landslide Movement: Another important element
in the effectiveness of subsurface draining is the direction of
landslide movement compared to the orientation of the pipeline
ROW. For instance, if the pipeline ROW is perpendicular to the
landslide (Figure 3-A), the subsurface drainage can be installed
along the ROW and is likely to be most effective. However, when
the pipeline ROW is parallel to the landslide (Figure 3-B),
installing the subsurface drainage along the ROW will limited
effect on the overall landslide stability, but can improve the
trench stability.
2 © 2022 by ASME
FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF PIPELINE ROW AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE COMPARED TO BOUNDARY OF LANDSLIDE
2.2 Geotechnical Stability
Local and Global Stability: When excavating in a landslide-
prone area, an engineer needs to evaluate the geotechnical
stability of the drainage trench and the overall geotechnical
stability of the slope or the existing landslide before any
excavation starts. Also, the additional loading from stockpiles
and construction equipment should be considered in these
stability evaluations.
Various factors affect the geotechnical stability analyses,
and, among those factors, the condition of the groundwater is
essential. Because the groundwater table can fluctuate from
precipitation; the drainage system should be constructed during
the dry season when groundwater levels are lower and the soil is
drier. If needed, temporary shoring should be installed. If
installing a drainage system could exacerbate the overall stability
of the slope, it should be avoided or be conducted in combination
with other mitigation measures.
Soil Stockpile: Additional loads from soil stockpiled during
excavation might result in other instabilities; therefore, the
location of the soil stockpile should be planned before the
excavation begins.
Presence of other Pipelines or Structures: Stress-relief
excavation can increase the probability of destabilizing the
upslope areas. This is even more critical when other pipelines,
infrastructure, or structures are located upslope of the excavated
area.
3. METHOD
In order to develop an effective improvement to the
landslide stability, a proper geotechnical analysis is required. We
conducted several parametric studies for seepage and slope
stability analyses to develop design charts that can be used to
conduct a preliminary evaluation of subsurface drainage for
various site conditions. Although the design charts proposed in
this paper help with preliminary evaluations, the charts do not
eliminate the need for a full geotechnical design of subsurface
drainage.
3.1 Simplified Model
For the parametric study of the effectiveness of subsurface
drainage on the potential field change in the slope, we modeled
the problem (schematized in Figure 4) using the following
parameters:
(1) the slope of the ground surface (S, %)
(2) length of landslide (L, ft)
(3) the slip surface at depth of D (ft)
(4) a steady-state groundwater table and parallel to the
slope at depth of W (ft) below the ground surface
(5) the soil is homogeneous with a hydraulic conductivity
of 10-7 ft/s
(6) the average groundwater drop after installation of
subsurface drainage is W (ft)
(7) subsurface drainage is installed to a depth of 8 ft from
the groundwater table
3 © 2022 by ASME
 (a) (b)
FIGURE 3: POTENTIAL LOCATIONS OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE IN PIPELINE ROW (A) PERPENDICULAR AND (B)
PARALLEL TO LANDSLIDE

We selected the above parameters based on our experience

FIGURE 4: SIMPLIFIED MODEL TO EVALUATE
SUBSURFACE DRAIN
in at least 16 landslide sites along pipelines in Appalachian areas
of the United States. These landslides have lengths ranging from
100 to 275 feet and depths ranging from 9 to 20 feet, with the
slope percentages ranging from 14% to 70%. As part of the
parametric study, we performed a numerical seepage analysis
along with 144 two-dimensional (2D) limit equilibrium stability
analyses. The slope stability models included the landslide
length of 100, 185, and 270 feet; landslide depth of 9, 13, 17, and
21 feet, and ground surface slope of 15%, 30%, 45%, and 60%.
The models assumed that subsurface drainage systems draw
down the groundwater table ranging from 1 to 6 feet.
Table 1 summarizes the geotechnical parameters used in the
slope stability analysis. Note that the friction angle of landslide
soils was estimated based on the back-calculated shear strength

4 © 2022 by ASME
parameters along the slip surfaces to obtain a factor of safety of require different subsurface drainage systems. This study mainly
1.0. focuses on subsurface drain systems that are lateral or oblique to
the pipeline. Examples of this type of subsurface drain within the
Table 1: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS FOR ROW and parallel to the pipeline (Figure 5). To estimate the
MODELS groundwater drawdown for the actual sites, we conducted 2D
Undrained seepage analyses for three representative sites with overall slope
Friction Hydraulic percentages of 15%, 30%, and 45%. The results of seepage
Soil Unit Shear
Angle Conductivity
Layer Weight Strength analyses for these cases are presented in Figure 6 to Figure 8.
(deg) (ft/s)
(psf)
Landslide
105 - Var* 1x10-7
Soil
Stable
115 1500 - 1x10-7
Soil
Drainage
135 - 40 1
Material
*Back-calculated for the factor of safety of 1.0.

3.2 Effectiveness of Subsurface Drainage

The effectiveness of the subsurface drainage system (E in

%) to improve the global stability of a landslide in this
parametric study is calculated using Equation 1.

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑑𝑑 (1)
𝐸𝐸 = � − 1� × 100
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑖𝑖
Where, 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑖𝑖 is the initial factor of safety which is equal to 1 for FIGURE 5: EXAMPLE OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
WITHIN THE ROW
all models (i.e., the landslide is marginally stable), 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑑𝑑 is a factor
of safety for the model after lowering the groundwater due to the
As shown in Figure 6 to Figure 8, the drop in the groundwater
effect of a subsurface drainage system.
table is nonlinear along the boundary of the landslide. The drop
in the groundwater table within the landslide can be calculated
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
using a simplified approach.
Figures 9 and 10 show the examples for calculating the drop
4.1 Estimation of Drop in Groundwater
in groundwater table for the landslide with a length of 100 feet
and slope of 15% with two different locations of the pipeline
The effectiveness of subsurface drainage to improve the
ROW and subsurface drain. In Case 1, the subsurface drain is in
geotechnical stability of a landslide is greatly related to the
the upper portion of the slope. In Case 2, the subsurface drainage
capability of the subsurface drainage system to lower the
is at the toe of the landslide. As shown, the drop in the
groundwater table. This section provides a chart and method to
groundwater table is estimated to be an average of 3.7 feet for
estimate the average drop in the groundwater table within a
Case 1 and 2.8 feet for Case 2.
landslide.
The direction of landslide movement can be lateral, axial, or
oblique to the pipeline. These various landslide directions

5 © 2022 by ASME
FIGURE 6: SEEPAGE ANALYSES FOR 15% SLOPE

FIGURE 7: SEEPAGE ANALYSES FOR 30% SLOPE

6 © 2022 by ASME
 FIGURE 8: SEEPAGE ANALYSES FOR 45% SLOPE

FIGURE 9: EXAMPLE OF ESTIMATED AVERAGE DROP IN GROUNDWATER LEVEL (CASE 1)

7 © 2022 by ASME
 FIGURE 10: EXAMPLE OF ESTIMATED AVERAGE DROP IN GROUNDWATER LEVEL (CASE 2)
4.2 Calculated Effectiveness of Subsurface Drainage
Figure 11 demonstrates the drainage effectiveness for all
models with different slopes, depths, and lengths of landslide.
These plots indicated that the geometry of landslides, including
slope, length and depth, greatly impact the effectiveness of the
subsurface drainage system. Following is the summary:
• Drainage effectiveness is lower for the landslides with
steeper slopes. For example, the landslide with a depth
of 9 feet, length of 100 feet, groundwater drawdown of
6 feet, and slope of 30% had an effectivness of about
100% (i.e., a post-drainage factor of safety of 2)
compared to 65% effectiveness for the same landslide
model with the slope of 60%.
• Drainage effectiveness is lower for the landslides with
deeper slip surfaces. For example, the effectiveness for
a landslide with a depth of 9 feet, length of 100 feet,
groundwater drawdown of 6 feet and slope of 15% was
approximately 100% (i.e., a post-drainage factor of
safety of 2) Compared to 55% for the same landslide
model with a depth of 21 feet.
• Drainage effectiveness is lower with a lower drop in the
groundwater table. For example, the drainage
effectiveness for all models with drop in groundwater
of about 1 foot was lower than 20% (i.e., a post-
drainage factor of safety of 1.2). In other words, if the
drainage system only lowers the groundwater table by
about 1 foot, the subsurface drainage system might not
be an effective option.
• Drainage effectivness is similar for the same landslide
mdoel as long as the drop in water level is similar. In
reality, the drop in water level using a subsurface
drainage system in a longer lengths landslide is lower
than the shorter landsldies.
5. PREDICTION OF EFFECTIVENESS OF
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
We used genetic programming (GP) in this study to develop
a prediction model for estimating the effectiveness of subsurface
drainage systems. Genetic programming is a branch of artificial
intelligence. It is a generalization of genetic algorithms [1]. GP
starts with an initial population of randomly generated computer
programs composed of functions and terminals appropriate to the
input domain. The functions may be standard arithmetic
operations, standard programming operations, standard
mathematical functions, logical functions, or domain-specific
functions. Then via a supervised trial and error process, the
initially generated functions and terminals are adjusted to get
appropriate functions and terminals that can accurately estimate
the output.
The advantage of GP over other soft computing techniques
(such as artificial neural networks and adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference systems) is that GP is not a black box and outputs are
in the form of semicomplex mathematical solutions, which could
be applicable to the actual problems. The GP approach is
relatively new in the field of geotechnical engineering although
some studies have been dedicated to their application recently
[4].
8 © 2022 by ASME
 110% 110%
Length = 100 ft Slope 15% Length = 185 ft Slope 15%
100% Water Drop = 6 ft
100% Water Drop = 6 ft
Slope 30% Slope 30%
90% 90%
Slope 45% Slope 45%
Drainage Effectiveness

Drainage Effectiveness
80% Slope 60% 80% Slope 60%
70% 70%
60% 60%
FS = 1.5 FS = 1.5
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
3 3 3 3 9 ft 13 ft 17 ft 21 ft
Depth of Landslide Depth of Landslide
110% 110%
Length = 100 ft Slope 15% Length = 185 ft Slope 15%
100% 100%
Water Drop = 3 ft Slope 30% Water Drop = 3 ft Slope 30%
90% 90%
Slope 45% Slope 45%
Drainage Effectiveness

Drainage Effectiveness
80% Slope 60% 80% Slope 60%
70% 70%
60% 60%
FS = 1.5 FS = 1.5
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
9 ft 13 ft 17 ft 21 ft 9 ft 13 ft 17 ft 21 ft
Depth of Landslide Depth of Landslide
110% 110%
Slope 15% Slope 15%
100% Length = 100 ft 100% Length = 185 ft
Water Drop = 1 ft Slope 30% Water Drop = 1 ft
Slope 30%
90% 90%
Slope 45% Slope 45%
Drainage Effectiveness

Drainage Effectiveness

80% Slope 60% 80% Slope 60%

70% 70%
60% 60%
FS = 1.5 FS = 1.5
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
9 ft 13 ft 17 ft 21 ft 9 ft 13 ft 17 ft 21 ft
Depth of Landslide Depth of Landslide

9 © 2022 by ASME
 110% square error (RMSE) and determination coefficient (R2),
Length = 270 ft Slope 15% respectively, given by Equations 2 and 3.
100%
Water Drop = 6 ft Slope 30%
90%
Slope 45%
Drainage Effectiveness

80% Slope 60%

𝑛𝑛
1
70% 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = �( ) �(𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖 − 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 )2 (2)
𝑛𝑛
60% 𝑖𝑖=1
FS = 1.5
50%
40% ∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1(𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 − 𝑝𝑝 − )(𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖 − 𝑎𝑎 − )
𝑅𝑅2 = ( )2 (3)
30% �∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1(𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 − 𝑝𝑝 − )2 (𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖 − 𝑎𝑎 − )2
20%
10% where a is the actual value and p is the predicted value, a- and p-
0% are the mean of actual and predicted values respectively, a is the
9 ft 13 ft 17 ft 21 ft absolute error 𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖 − 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 ; a- is the mean of absolute error 1n and n
Depth of Landslide is the number of data sets. Evidently, a model with good
110% performance (i.e., RMSE close to 0 or R2 close to 1) will be the
Length = 270 ft Slope 15% best model among several candidates.
100%
Water Drop = 3 ft Slope 30%
90%
Slope 45%
Drainage Effectiveness

80% Slope 60% 5.1. Estimating Effectiveness of Subsurface Drainage

70% System
60%
FS = 1.5
50% As previously discussed, the effectiveness of subsurface
40% drainage systems is greatly influenced by the geometry of the
30% landslide, including slope, length, and depth of landslide.
20% Additionally, the depth of drop in groundwater level plays a main
role in the effectiveness of a subsurface drainage system. We
10%
explored a mathematical approach, using genetic expression
0% programming to develop robust relationships between the
9 ft 13 ft 17 ft 21 ft effectiveness of drainage system (E), on one hand, and, slope (S),
Depth of Landslide
length (L) and depth (D) of landslide, and drawdown of water
110% (W), on the other hand. The primary motivation to develop this
Length = 270 ft Slope 15%
100% model was to assist geohazard practitioners with a starting point
Water Drop = 1 ft Slope 30%
90% for a reasonable estimate of the effectiveness of subsurface
Slope 45%
drainage system in the landslide site affecting the pipeline.
Drainage Effectiveness

80% Slope 60%

70% Therefore, the general form for the mathematical model
proposed in the genetic programming architecture is as follows:
60%
FS = 1.5
50% (4)
𝐸𝐸 = 𝑓𝑓(𝑊𝑊, 𝑆𝑆, 𝐷𝐷, 𝐿𝐿)
40%
30%
20% Equation 5 was developed to predict the effectiveness of
10% subsurface drain in mitigation of landslides in pipeline projects:
0%
876.3 × 𝑊𝑊 − 7.56 × 𝑆𝑆 × 𝑊𝑊 (5)
9 ft
13 ft 17 ft 21 ft 𝐸𝐸 =
Depth of Landslide 354 × 𝐷𝐷 + 𝐿𝐿 × 𝑊𝑊
FIGURE 11: CALCULATED DRAINAGE EFFECTIVENESS
Equation 5 shows that increasing the drawdown of the
groundwater table or reducing the depth, length, and slope of
In this study, the data set was divided into training (80%)
landslide improves the drainage effectiveness. To develop this
and validation (20%) subsets to prevent overfitting. The
equation, out of the 144 sets of data, 116 sets (80%) were
performance of the testing set is very critical because it
considered for training and the remaining 28 sets of the data
determines the accuracy and generalization capability of the
(20%) were considered for validation. The training and
model. Two statistical evaluation criteria were used to assess the
validation data sets were not selected randomly and were
performance of the intelligent methods using Eureqa, a
selected from two sets of databases.
mathematical open-source software. These criteria are root mean

10 © 2022 by ASME
 Figure 12 provides the measured versus predicted strength
values based on the GEP models developed in this study. The
statistical parameters and performance measures for each subset
of models are also provided in Table 2. Smith recommended that
for a coefficient of determination of |𝑅𝑅2| > 0.8, a strong
correlation exists between the input and output layers of the
models [5]. The proposed GEP models in this section showed
acceptable prediction capability as the correlation coefficient for
the developed model is more than 0.80 as indicated in Table 2.
The RMSE is also within the acceptable range for the developed
model.
110%
Training
100%
Validation
90% Linear (Line of Equality)
80%
Predicted Effectiveness
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%110%
Actual Effectiveness
FIGURE 12: COEFFICIENT OF DETERMINATION BETWEEN
ACTUAL EFFECTIVENESS AND PREDICTIONS OF GEP FOR
EQUATION
Table 2: GP RESULTS TO PREDICT THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SUBSURFACE DRAIN
Statistical Evaluation Criteria
Determination Coefficient (R2)
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
The developed model in this study can serve as a
preliminary screening tool for the pipeline geohazard engineers
to estimate the effectiveness of subsurface drainage systems in
landslide projects. For instance, if there is a landslide with a
length of 120 feet, depth of 10 feet, and slope of 20%, and the
proposed subsurface drainage system was capable to reduce the
groundwater table to 3 feet below the initial groundwater table,
the effectiveness of this subsurface drainage system can be
estimated to be 55% (i.e., the factor of safety of landslide is 1.55
for post drainage condition) based on Equation 5.
6. SUMMARY
A subsurface drainage system is a widely used mitigation
strategy to slow down the likelihood of landslide movement in
pipeline projects. The subsurface drainage system s commonly
designed to lower the groundwater table within the landslide and
to improve the geotechnical stability of the landslide. This paper
discussed the design consideration for subsurface drainage
systems. The results of a series of slope stability and seepage
analyses were presented to evaluate the effectiveness of
subsurface drainage systems in various landslide conditions.
This paper also explored a computational intelligence technique
to predict the effectiveness of subsurface drainage systems for
the mitigation of landslides affecting pipelines. The results
showed that the effectiveness of subsurface drainage to improve
the geotechnical stability of a landslide is greatly related to the
capability of the subsurface drainage system to lower the
groundwater table and the geometry of the landslide including
slope, length, and depth of the landslide.
7. REFERENCES
[1] Goldberg, D. E. (1989) Genetic algorithms in search,
optimization and machine learning, Addison-Wesley Longman
Publishing, Boston, MA.
[2] Koza, J. R. (1992). Genetic programming on the
programming of computers by means of natural selection, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
[3] Spencer, E. (1967) A Method of Analysis of the Stability of
Embankments Assuming Parallel Interslice Forces.
Value Geotechnique. 17(1):11–26.
0.98 [4] Rashidi, M., Saghafi, M., & Takhtfiroozeh, H. (2018)
“Genetic Programming Model for Estimation of Settlement in
10.78 Earth Dams.” International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 15(7), 887–896.
[5] Smith, G. N. (1986) Probability and Statistics in Civil
Engineering. London: Collins.
11 © 2022 by ASME