Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 787–797

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Probabilistic stability analyses of slopes using the ANN-based response surface

Sung Eun Cho *
Korea Institute of Water and Environment, Korea Water Resources Corporation, 462-1, Jeonmin-Dong, Yusung-Gu, Daejon 305-730, South Korea

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

Article history: Slope stability analysis is a geotechnical engineering problem characterized by many sources of uncer-
Received 29 May 2008 tainty. Some of these sources are connected to the uncertainties of soil properties involved in the analysis.
Received in revised form 27 December 2008 In this paper, a numerical procedure for integrating a commercial finite difference method into a proba-
Accepted 2 January 2009
bilistic analysis of slope stability is presented. Given that the limit state function cannot be expressed in
Available online 14 February 2009
an explicit form, an artificial neural network (ANN)-based response surface is adopted to approximate the
limit state function, thereby reducing the number of stability analysis calculations. A trained ANN model
Keywords:
is used to calculate the probability of failure through the first- and second-order reliability methods and a
Slope stability
Probabilistic analysis
Monte Carlo simulation technique. Probabilistic stability assessments for a hypothetical two-layer slope
Response surface as well as for the Cannon Dam in Missouri, USA are performed to verify the application potential of the
Artificial neural network proposed method.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The conventional tools for dealing with uncertainties associated
with soil properties in the field of geotechnical engineering have
been applied under the use of safety factors and by implementing
local experience and engineering judgment. However, it has been
recognized that the factor of safety is not a consistent measure of
reliability, as slopes with the same safety factor value may exhibit
different reliability levels depending on the variability of the soil
properties [1]. Accordingly, numerous studies have been under-
taken in recent years to develop a probabilistic slope stability anal-
ysis that deals with the uncertainties of soil properties in a
systematic manner [2,1,3,4]. Detailed reviews of these studies
can be found in Mostyn and Li [5], El-Ramly et al. [6], and Baecher
and Christian [7].
A common approach to a probabilistic analysis was to locate the
critical deterministic surface and then calculate the probability of
failure corresponding to this surface. However, the surface of the
minimum factor of safety may not be the surface of the maximum
probability of failure [8]. As an alternative, the critical probabilistic
surface associated with the highest probability of failure or the
lowest reliability has been considered [9,1,8,10].
Although probabilistic slope stability analysis methods do not
consider all of the components of slope design where judgment
needs to be utilized and do not suggest the level of reliability that
should be targeted [11], working within a probabilistic framework
does imply that the reliability of the system can be considered in a
logical manner. Thus, probabilistic models can facilitate the devel-
* Tel.: +82 42 870 7632; fax: +82 42 870 7639.
E-mail address: drsecho@hanmail.net
opment of new perspectives concerning risk and reliability that are
outside the scope of conventional deterministic models.
In many practical probabilistic problems, the limit state surface
is not known explicitly. Instead, it may be known only implicitly
through a numerical procedure. Therefore, the failure domain only
can be found through repeated point-by-point numerical analyses
with different input values. To reduce the computational effort re-
quired for the probabilistic analysis, a response surface that
approximates the limit state function through polynomial regres-
sion for the results of several selected simulations is needed. The
obtained closed-form expression of the limit state function is then
used to calculate the probability of failure.
Xu and Low [12] presented a practical procedure for integrating
the finite element method (FEM) and the limit equilibrium meth-
ods (LEM) into a probabilistic stability analysis for embankments.
They adopted a polynomial-based response surface to approximate
the limit state function for the stability problems and the first-
order reliability method to calculate the reliability index. They
carried out the sequential refinement of the response surface to
calculate the reliability index using Spencer’s method.
In the present study, a practical procedure that combines a
commercial numerical analysis method and artificial neural net-
works into a probabilistic stability analysis of slopes is proposed.
An ANN technique is adopted to establish a response surface that
represents the functional relationship between soil properties
and the factor of safety. Training and test data sets for the model
are obtained from slope stability analyses based on the strength
reduction method using the commercial FDM package FLAC [13].
The ANN model is then connected to the first- and second-order
reliability methods or to a Monte Carlo simulation in an effort to
predict the probability of failure.

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.01.003
788 S.E. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 787–797
The main purpose of this study is to verify the application po-
tential of integrating an ANN technique with a commercial package
to assess the stability of slopes in probabilistic terms, which has
not been attempted previously by other researchers.
2. Slope stability analysis by the strength reduction method
Slope stability problems are commonly analyzed using limit
equilibrium methods of slices. The failing soil mass is divided into
a number of vertical slices to calculate the factor of safety, defined
as the ratio of the resisting shear strength to the mobilized shear
stress to maintain static equilibrium. The static equilibrium of
the slices and the mass as a whole are used to solve the problem.
However, all methods of slices are statically indeterminate and,
as a result, require assumptions in order to solve the problem. Lim-
it equilibrium methods require that the critical failure surface be
determined as a part of the analysis and it is well known that many
local minima may exist in addition to the global minimum. This
makes it difficult to locate the critical failure surface using classical
optimization methods [14].
The strength reduction method (SRM) is typically applied to cal-
culate the factor of safety by progressively reducing or increasing
the shear strength of the material to bring the slope to a state of lim-
iting equilibrium [15]. The definition of the factor of safety is iden-
tical to that adopted by the conventional limit equilibrium method.
Zienkiewicz et al. [15] used the SRM for a slope stability analy-
sis; later the method was applied by Griffiths [16], Naylor [17],
Matsui and San [18], Ugai and Leshchinsky [19], Dawson et al.
[20], Griffiths and Lane [21], Hammah et al. [22], and others. Smith
and Griffiths [23] first published source code on the strength
reduction method applied to slope stability analysis.
The main advantages of the SRM are that it requires no assump-
tion on the inter-slice force distribution. The critical failure surface
is determined automatically from the shear strain arising from the
application of gravity loads and from the reduction of shear
strength. Furthermore, it is applicable to many complex conditions
and can provide data regarding stresses, and movements, which
are not obtainable with the limit equilibrium method [14].
According to Griffiths and Lane [21] and Dawson et al. [20], the
strength reduction method is usually not sensitive to the dilation
angle, soil moduli or the solution domain size and the choice of
these parameters is not critical in the analysis. However, if a slope
stability analysis involves pore pressure changes, then the dilation
angle would be very important [24].
One of the main disadvantages of the strength reduction meth-
od is the judgment of failure. Generally, nonconvergence is widely
used in strength reduction technique to calculate the factor of
safety. However, as pointed out by Krahn [25], the difficulty in
using nonconvergence as a failure criterion is that many factors
can cause numerical instability, such as incremental load-step size,
gravity loading procedures, low confining stresses near the ground
surface, purely frictional materials with no cohesion and initial
in situ stress conditions.
Hammah et al. [22] and Cheng et al. [14] gave a detailed
description of the performance of the SRM and the LEM.
FLAC uses an explicit, time marching method to solve the gov-
erning field equations in which every derivative is replaced by an
algebraic expression written in terms of the field variables at dis-
crete points in space. The convergence criterion for FLAC is the no-
dal unbalanced force ratio defined as the ratio of the unbalanced
force, which is the net force acting on a grid point, to the mean
absolute value of force exerted by each surrounding zone. If the
maximum unbalanced force ratio for all the grid points in the mod-
el is less than the convergence limit set by the user, then the sys-
tem is in equilibrium [13].
FLAC conducts the slope stability analysis with simulations
based on the shear strength reduction method by progressively
reducing the shear strength of the material to bring the slope to
a state of limiting equilibrium. The factor of safety is defined
according to the equations:
c
ctrial ¼ ð1Þ
F trial
s
!
tan /
/trial ¼ arctan ð2Þ
F trial
s
A series of simulations are made using trial values of the factor
F trial
s to reduce the cohesion, c, and friction angle, u, until slope fail-
ure occurs. If the slope is initially unstable, c and u will be in-
creased until the limiting condition is found.
The factor of safety at which collapse occurs is found by brac-
keting and bisection method [20]. The lower limit of bracket repre-
sents the current F trial
s where the simulation converges. The initial
upper limit is any F trial
s where the solution does not converge. The
next value is selected by bisecting this interval (new F trial s ). If the
solution converges, the lower bracket is replaced by the new value.
Otherwise, it replaces the upper bracket. The process is repeated
until the difference between the upper and lower bracket values
becomes smaller than 0.005 [13].
To be consistent with the conventional limit equilibrium meth-
ods, the calculations are performed within the framework of the
elastic–perfectly plastic Mohr–Coulomb model with no hardening
or softening. To avoid excessive dilation a nonassociated flow rule
governed by a dilation angle W = 0 is considered. This volume pre-
serving response has been assumed, even though the dilation angle
is known to be less important for the drained modeling of slopes,
as has been carried out in this paper.
3. Probabilistic analysis
3.1. Limit state function
The problem of the probabilistic analysis is formulated by a vec-
tor, X ¼ ½X 1 ; X 2 ; X 3 ; . . . ; X n , representing a set of random variables.
From the uncertain variables, a limit state function g(X) is formu-
lated to describe the limit state in the space of X. In n-dimensional
hyperspace of the basic variables, g(X) = 0 is the boundary between
the region in which the target factor of safety is not exceeded and
the region in which it is exceeded. The probability of failure of the
slope is then given by the following integral [7]:
Z
Pf ¼ P½gðX 6 0Þ ¼ fX ðXÞ dX ð3Þ
gðXÞ60
where fX(X) represents the joint probability density function, and
the integral is carried out over the failure domain.
For slope stability problems, direct evaluation of the n-fold inte-
gral is virtually impossible. The difficulty lies in that complete prob-
abilistic information on the soil properties is not available and the
domain of integration is a complicated function. Therefore, approx-
imate techniques have been developed to evaluate this integral.
The limit state function for the slope stability is usually defined
as
gðXÞ ¼ F s  1:0 ð4Þ
The strength reduction method is used to describe the above
limit state function by calculating the factor of safety, Fs.
3.2. First- and second-order reliability methods
The first-order reliability evaluation of Eq. (3) is accomplished
by transforming the uncertain variables, X, into uncorrelated stan-
 S.E. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 787–797
dard normal variables, Y. The primary contribution to the probabil-
ity integral in Eq. (3) comes from the part of the failure region
(G(Y) 6 0, for which G(Y) is the limit state function in the trans-
formed normal space) closest to the origin. The design point is de-
fined as point Y* in the standard normal space located on the limit
state function (G(Y) = 0) with the maximum probability density at-
tached to it. Therefore, the design point, which is the nearest point
to the origin in the failure region, is an optimum point at which to
approximate the limit state surface. The probability approximated
at the design point is
P½gðXÞ 6 0  UðbÞ
where b is the reliability index defined by the distance from the ori-
gin to the design point and U is the standard normal cumulative
density function.
In the first-order reliability method, a tangent hyper plane is fit-
ted to the limit state surface at the design point. Therefore, the
most important and demanding step in the method is finding the
design point. The design point is the solution of the following non-
linear constrained optimization problem:
min kYk subject to GðYÞ ¼ 0
Several algorithms have been proposed for the solution of this
problem [26–28].
As a by-product of the first-order reliability method, it is possi-
ble to evaluate the measures of sensitivity of the reliability index
with respect to the basic random variables. These sensitivity mea-
sures identify the random variables that have the greatest impact
on the failure probability.
The unit vector a normal to the limit state surface at the design
point is the most fundamental sensitivity measure that describes
the sensitivity of the reliability index with respect to variations
in each of the standard variates.
a ¼ rY  b
As a does not necessarily imply the same sensitivity ordering of
the random variables in the original space for statistically depen-
dent variables, a more meaningful sensitivity measure is intro-
duced, as in Haukaas and Der Kiuregian [29]:
aT JY ;X D
cT ¼
kaT JY ;X Dk
where J is the Jacobian and D is the diagonal matrix of the standard
deviation.
The second-order reliability method (SORM) aims at enhancing
the precision of the results obtained by FORM. Instead of replacing
the real limit state surface with a hyperplane, a quadratic (second-
order) approximation in the vicinity of the design point is em-
ployed [30].
For the FORM/SORM analysis, FERUM (an open-source Matlab
toolbox for reliability analysis, http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/FER-
UM) developed by Haukaas and Der Kiureghian [29] is combined
with the ANN model that specifies the limit state function.
3.3. Monte Carlo simulation
An alternative means of evaluating the multi-dimensional inte-
gral of Eq. (3) is the use of a Monte Carlo simulation. In a Monte
Carlo simulation, discrete values of the component random vari-
ables are generated in a fashion consistent with their probability
distribution, and the limit state function is calculated for each gen-
erated set. The process is repeated many times to evaluate the
probability of failure by determining whether the limit state func-
tions are exceeded. However, the Monte Carlo simulation method
is not limited to the calculation of the probability of failure. Various
789
statistical properties evaluated after the process of simulation,
such as mean, variance, coefficient of skewness, probability density
functions, and cumulative probability distribution functions, can
provide a broader perspective and a more comprehensive descrip-
tion of a given slope.
Despite the fact that the mathematical formulation of the
Monte Carlo simulation is relatively simple and the method has
the capability of handling practically every possible case regardless
of its complexity, this approach has not received overwhelming
acceptance due to the excessive computational effort required
[31]. To improve the computational efficiency of the method, sev-
ð5Þ
eral sampling techniques known as variance reduction techniques
have been developed. A detailed review of these can be found in
Baecher and Christian [7]. Among them, Latin hypercube sampling
can be viewed as a stratified sampling scheme designed to ensure
that the upper or lower ends of the distributions used in the anal-
ysis are well represented.
In this study, the Latin hypercube sampling technique is used to
generate the random properties of soil. In particular, the method
proposed by Stein [32] for sampling dependent variables based
on the rank of a target multivariate distribution is implemented
ð6Þ
in Matlab. In addition, Monte Carlo simulation method with
approximated limit state functions based on the ANN model is
adopted to reduce computational cost.
4. The ANN-based response surface
The ANN technique is an information processing technique
based on the way biological nervous systems, such as the human
brain, process information. This technique has the capability to re-
spond to input stimuli, produce the corresponding response, and
adapt to the changing environment by learning from experience
ð7Þ [33]. As in nature, the network function is determined largely by
the connections between elements. A neural network is trained
to perform a particular function by adjusting the values of the con-
nections (weights) between elements.
There has been considerable recent research activity in explor-
ing the use of ANN in geotechnical engineering. Recent applica-
tions include Ghaboussi et al. [34], Goh [35], Deng et al. [36], and
ð8Þ Juang et al. [37,38]. Juang and his co-workers [37,38] have success-
fully used neural networks to emulate the limit state surface for
reliability analysis of liquefaction potential of soils. The popularity
of neural networks stems from the ability to identify relationships
in numerical data through a mapping of the relationship between
various input variables and one or more output variables [39].
In order to predict the failure probability of a slope, the geotech-
nical responses must typically be estimated using a numerical pro-
cedure such as the limit equilibrium method, finite element
method, or finite difference method (FDM). This brings another le-
vel of complexity to the reliability analysis because the limit state
function is not available as an explicit, closed-form function of the
input variables. For a reliability analysis with an implicit limit state
function, several computational approaches, including a Monte
Carlo simulation, a response surface method, and a sensitivity-
based analysis can be utilized [40].
With the response surface method, a closed-form limit state
surface is constructed artificially using polynomial regression.
However, these methods become computationally impractical for
problems involving a large number of random variables and non-
linear limit state functions, particularly when statistically depen-
dent random variables are involved [40,39].
As an alternative to improve the modeling of the limit state sur-
face, the use of the back-propagation neural network algorithm is
proposed to determine the limit state surface. Recent studies have
790 S.E. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 787–797
demonstrated the feasibility of this integrated approach [41–
43,39].
Gomes and Awruch [42] have compared the polynomial-based
response surface method with ANN-based response surface meth-
od in terms of CPU time and the number of limit state function
evaluation. Elhewy et al. [40] also compared two methods and
showed that the ANN-based response surface method is more effi-
cient and accurate than the conventional response surface method.
According to Schueremans and Van Gemert [44], neural networks
have the advantage of their flexibility to adapt to more complex
limit state functions that might not be represented well by means
of a low order polynomial.
It is difficult to develop a global response surface over the entire
variable domain in many problems, especially in nonlinear prob-
lems. If a limit state function is complicated and a whole-area fit-
ting is required, a simple first- or second-order polynomial may not
be adequate. As a developing and promising technology, the capa-
bility of an artificial neural network to cope with uncertainty in
complex situations has been seized upon for wide ranging applica-
tions in recent years [45].
4.1. ANN architecture and training algorithm
A typical neural network structure used in this study is shown
in Fig. 1. As shown in figure, the ANN structure consists of an input
layer, one hidden layer, and an output layer. Each layer has its cor-
responding neurons and weight connections. It has been shown
that ANNs with one hidden layer can approximate any function gi-
ven that sufficient degrees of freedom are provided [46]. The input
represents the random variables X in the input layer. The output
consists of a single neuron representing the response surface. To
determine the number of neurons in the hidden layer is a very
important part, which determines the accuracy of ANN models.
Unfortunately there is not a rule (or algorithm) to determine this
number. It is normally determined by a trial-and-error process,
so this number will be optimized during the training process.
The initial number is picked by guesswork and experience. If the
network has trouble learning, further neurons can be added to
the hidden layer and the process is repeated until the performance
of the trained model is acceptable [47]. In this study, the logistic
sigmoid transfer function is used to transfer the values of the input
layer neurons to the hidden layer neurons, whereas the linear
transfer function is adopted to transfer the values from the hidden
layer to the output layer.
Input layer Hidden layer Output layer
X1
X2
Factor of safety
X3
…
…
Xn
Error Propagation
Fig. 1. Typical structure of an ANN model.
Neural networks are iteratively adjusted, or trained, in order to
minimize the mean-squared error between the real response sur-
face and that predicted from the neural network model. Back-prop-
agation has generally been the most popular method used to train
nonlinear, multi-layered neural networks to perform function
approximation. The term back-propagation refers to the manner
in which the gradient is computed for nonlinear multi-layer net-
works. A number of variations on the basic algorithm that are
based on other standard optimization techniques, such as conju-
gate gradient and Newton methods, have been developed to in-
crease the speed of convergence. In the present study, the
Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) algorithm is adopted for its efficiency
in training networks. A more detailed description on the ANN mod-
el is given in Appendix A.
4.2. Data preparation
ANN model is good at interpolating data but not extrapolating.
Therefore, to achieve a valid ANN model, the data selected for
training should cover the full range of input random variables.
The number of sampling points required to accurately model
the limit state surface is dependent on the number of random vari-
ables and the nonlinearity of the problem considered. However,
there are no precise guidelines or theories for the selection of the
sampling points. Several designs have been proposed to estimate
an accurate low order polynomial response surface, such as a cen-
tral composite design or a fractional factorial design [48]. The main
drawback of these techniques is the number of limit state evalua-
tions required to build a sufficiently accurate response surface. For
a higher number of random variables, the required number of eval-
uations of the real limit state function grows exponentially. To
meet this drawback, iterative procedures have been established.
These alternatives focus on finding a good quality response surface
near the region where the limit state function equals 0 or in the
neighborhood of the design point. This region contains the major
contribution to the failure probability that is sought.
According to Hurtado and Alvarez [43], the sampling method
for generating the training population has no effect in the learning
phase of the ANN-based response surface method as long as the
resulting sample is reasonably dense. They recommended the gen-
eration of a sample set with compact uniform distributions. In this
paper, the sampling points were selected randomly to fall within
the range of lX ± 3rX with uniform distributions, which has been
successfully used in the previous studies [39,41].
The procedure of the probabilistic slope stability analysis using
the ANN-based response surface is presented in Fig. 2.
5. Example analysis
In this section, application of the presented procedure is illus-
trated through example problems. To construct response surface
data sets that relate the sampled random variables to the factor
of safety, a series of analyses of FDM was performed. A FISH (the
built-in programming language of FLAC) function was written to
manipulate input/output for batch processing.
As the strength of the soil is a spatially distributed random var-
iable, soil strength should be modeled as random field considering
spatial correlation [1]. A combination of random field and finite
element (or finite difference) analysis method would enable more
realistic failure mechanisms to seek out the critical path through
the soil. However, the influence of spatial uncertainties is not con-
sidered in this study due to the limitation in incorporating random
field modeling into the response surface method.
A three-layered feed-forward neural network is established to
approximate the mapping between the factor of safety and the ba-
 S.E. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 787–797 791

START

Define the Problem

Specify random variables and their
probabilistic characteristics
Define the limit state function

Prepare the data sets to form response surface

Factor of safety corresponding to input

Slope stability analysis

SRM

Construct the response surface

Determine the ANN architecture
Training and testing of the ANN model

Is the ANN model

acceptable? Add neuron in hidden layer
No

Yes

Select the probabilistic

Generate random data sets
analysis method
Latin hypercube sampling

FORM Calculate the limit

SORM Monte Carlo simulation
state function from
the trained ANN

Calculate Statistica l response

Reliability index Probability density
Sensitivity measure Cumulative probability
Probability of failure Probability of failure

Add No
Is the accuracy of
training Pf acceptable?
data set

Yes
END

Fig. 2. The procedure of the probabilistic slope stability analysis using the ANN-based response surface.

sic random variables. The number of hidden neurons is selected by the dimensionless coefficient of variation (COV), defined as
trial and error. VX = rX/lX, the mean and standard deviation of the underlying nor-
Random variables are assumed to be characterized statistically mal distribution of ln X are then given by
by a normal or lognormal distribution defined by a mean lX and a
standard deviation rX. The lognormal distribution ranges between qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
zero and infinity, skewed to the low range, and is therefore partic- rln X ¼ lnf1 þ V 2X g ð9Þ
ularly suited for parameters that cannot take on negative values.
lln X ¼ ln lX  0:5r2ln X ð10Þ
Once the mean and standard deviation are expressed in terms of
792
15m
Table 1
Example 1: statistical properties of soil parameters (based on Hassan and Wolff [8]).
lX
c1 (kPa) 38.31
c2 (kPa) 23.94
u2 (°) 12
5.1. Example 1: application to a two-layered slope
In this example, a series of probabilistic studies are performed
on a two-layered slope with a cross-section, as shown in Fig. 3. This
example is taken from Hassan and Wolff [8]. The basic soil param-
eters related to the stability of the slope, including the friction an-
gle and cohesion, are considered as random variables. The unit
weight of the slope is assumed as 19 kN/m3. Table 1 summarizes
the statistical properties of soil parameters for the slope, and the
analysis is performed for two cases assuming that all random vari-
ables are characterized by either a normal or lognormal
distribution.
There are 1236 zones and 1647 grid points in the mesh for anal-
ysis. The forces generated by the self-weight of the soil are applied.
Movement is allowed vertically on both lateral boundaries, while
the constraint is imposed in both directions of the base boundary.
The minimum factor of safety calculated from a deterministic
analysis based on the mean values of the soil properties is 1.60,
which is slightly lower than 1.646 from the finite element method
and 1.634 from the Spencer’s noncircular slip surface in Xu and
Low [12]. The plot of the shear strain rate shows that the failure
surface passes through both the upper and lower soil layer, as pre-
a 2.5
2 2
Simulation result(FS)
1.5
1 1
0.5
0.5 1 1.5
Target result(FS)
Fig. 4. Example 1: comparison between the ANN model and stability analysis using: (a) training data and (b) test data.
S.E. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 787–797
15m
2
c1
1 9.14m
6.1m
c2, φ2
33.28m
Fig. 3. Example 1: cross-section [8].
sented in Fig. 5a. The arrows in Fig. 5 are velocity vectors, which
indicate the pattern of motion at the initiation of failure and show
COV a well-defined failure surface.
The neural network was composed of three input parameters
0.2
0.2 (c1, c2 and u2) in the input layer of three neurons, a hidden layer
0.1 of three neurons and an output layer of one neuron.
The ANN model was trained by increasing the number of train-
ing data sets, starting with 15 data sets. Fig. 4 compares the predic-
tions of the final ANN model with the finite difference analyses for
the training and the test. As shown, a good correlation can be ob-
served between the predictions of the ANN model and the finite
difference analysis results. This suggests that the model can be
used to represent a response surface with small deviations. In this
study, the model is used for the subsequent probabilistic analyses.
Table 2 presents the results obtained from the probabilistic
analyses, i.e., the sensitivities, the reliability index and the proba-
bility of failure. According to the results obtained from the Monte
Carlo simulation, with greater than 20 data sets the ANN model
seems able to train adequately and leads to an acceptable accuracy.
The sensitivities show the relative importance of the uncer-
tainty in each random variable. Therefore, sensitivity analysis can
be used to identify random variables whose uncertainty has insig-
nificant influence on the reliability index and which can be re-
placed by deterministic values. The plot of the shear strain rate
corresponding to the design point obtained from FORM shows that
the probabilistic failure surface passes through the upper layer
where the variation of the shear strength is larger than that of
the lower layer; this surface is associated with the maximum prob-
ability of failure (Fig. 5b). The reliability index calculated by FORM
is 2.189 for the case of a normal distribution and 2.812 for a log-
b 2.5
Simulation result(FS)
1.5
0.5
2 2.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Target result(FS)
 S.E. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 787–797 793

Table 3
Example 1: design point in original space.

Input parameter lX  3rX Design point, X* lX + 3rX

c1 (kPa) 15.324 21.55 61.296
c2 (kPa) 9.576 24.32 38.304
/2 (°) 8.4 12.05 15.6

X*is the obtained design point in original space X.

Fig. 5. Example 1: results of the stability analysis: (a) failure mode at the mean
point (Fs = 1.60) and (b) failure mode at the design point (Fs = 1.0).
normal distribution of the soil properties. Table 3 shows that the
design point falls within the range of data points sampled by the
Latin hypercube sampling technique.
A Monte Carlo simulation was performed using a sample of
200,000 data sets based on the statistical information. Fig. 6 pre-
sents the results calculated from the Monte Carlo simulation. Rel-
atively good agreement with those obtained from FORM and SORM
is noted (Table 2).
Fig. 6a shows that the histogram of the factor of safety for a nor-
mal distribution of random variables has a negative coefficient of
skewness. The histogram of the factor of safety for a lognormal dis-
tribution of soil properties shows a nearly symmetrical distribution
(Fig. 6b). Fig. 6c shows the probability distribution of the factor of
safety. As expected, the failure probability obtained from the log-
normal distribution of random variables is smaller compared to
that obtained from the normal distribution of random variables.
Table 4 presents a summary of other probabilistic analyses ob-
tained from the literature for the same problem. The reliability in-
dex determined in this study under the assumption of a lognormal
distribution of soil properties, 2.812, is very close to those deter-
mined by the MVFOSM (Mean-Value First-Order Second-Moment)
method that assumes a lognormal distribution of the factor of
safety. This is because the assumption of a lognormal distribution
of the factor of safety by the MVFOSM method is fairly reasonable
in this case as shown in Fig. 6b. Note that when the soil properties
are normally distributed the assumption of a lognormal distribu-
tion of the factor of safety is not correct, as shown in Fig. 6a for this
example. In conclusion, the assumption that the factor of safety is
lognormally distributed is not always valid because the MVFOSM
method does not account for the influence of the distributional
shape of the soil properties.
The reliability index obtained from Xu and Low [12] by the re-
sponse surface based on the finite element method assuming a
normal distribution of all random variables was 2.18. The result
is in good agreement with that obtained using the proposed meth-
od. However, as stated in their paper, they only considered prob-
lems related to a linear limit state function. That makes it
possible to use only 2n + 1 sampling points to construct a response
surface since two points per one random variable can characterize
the linear relationship. For each random variable, its mean value, l,
and two other values, l ± r, are sampled. Consequently, according
to their results, the design point falls outside the range of l ± r,
which implies that the function approximation is based on the
extrapolation method [12]. Due to these limitations, they only con-
sidered small values of the coefficients of variation related to soil
properties. On the contrary, in this study, the design point falls
within the range of sampled data points as shown in Table 3 since
the used ANN model can construct a global response surface over
the entire variable domain even though the limit state function is
complicated.
5.2. Example 2: application to the Cannon Dam
This example concerns the stability for the end-of-construction
stage of the Cannon Dam reported in Hassan and Wolff [8]. A typ-
ical slope section showing the soil profile is presented in Fig. 7. The
structure consists of two zones of compacted clay: Phase I fill and
Phase II fill over layers of sand and limestone. Strength parameters
of the two clay layers were considered as random variables (c1, u1,
c2, u2). Statistical moments for these parameters based on UU tests
of recorded samples from the embankment are shown in Table 5.
They show somewhat large variations related to soil properties.
Hassan and Wolff [8] made no reductions in the variance for spatial
correlation; in their study it was conservatively assumed that var-
iance over a failure zone was potentially as large as the point var-
iance. As their paper does not provide all the required input
parameters, values for the missing parameters are assumed from
those selected in other literature [50]. Lognormal distribution
was assumed for all probabilistic input variables in performing
probabilistic analyses in order to avoid negative values.
The domain of analysis consists of 1407 zones and 1944 grid
points. The boundary conditions consist of roller boundaries on
the left and right sides of the model as well as a fixed base. The
gravity loads generated by the self-weight of the soil are applied.
The factor of safety associated with the mean values of soil
properties is 2.49. Fig. 8a shows the shear strain rate and velocity

Table 2
Example 1: results of the probabilistic analysis.

Number of training data sets Sensitivity (FORM) Reliability index, b Failure probability, Pf
cc1 cc2 c/2 FORM SORM FORM SORM Monte Carlo
Normal 15 0.9974 0.0672 0.0262 2.143 2.152 1.61e2 1.57e2 1.56e2
20 1.0000 0.0004 0.0005 2.167 2.209 1.51e2 1.36e2 1.37e2
25 0.9991 0.0369 0.0219 2.189 2.204 1.43e2 1.38e2 1.38e2
Lognormal 15 0.9940 0.1010 0.0412 2.704 2.733 3.43e3 3.13e3 3.1e3
20 0.9999 0.0102 0.0042 2.770 2.865 2.85e3 2.08e3 2.3e3
25 0.9997 0.0193 0.0114 2.812 2.835 2.5e3 2.3e3 2.3e3
794 S.E. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 787–797

a Lognormal(1.570,0.214)
Table 4
Example 1: results of probabilistic analyses from different methods.
μ=1.570, σ=0.214, skew=-0.566
2.5 Method Reliability Failure
index, b probability,
2.0 Pf
Probability density

Hassan and Wolff [8] – MVFOSM, Spencer method, 2.869 –

1.5 noncircular slip surface
Bhattacharya et al. [9] – MVFOSM, Spencer method, 2.861 –
noncircular slip surface by direct search
1.0
Crum [49] 2.23 1.29e2
Xu and Low [12] – response surface, FEM (PLAXIS) 2.18 1.46e2
0.5 Xu and Low [12] – response surface, Spencer 2.06 1.97e2
method, noncircular slip surface
0.0 Xu and Low [12] – spreadsheet-based direct 2.20 1.39e2
implementation of Spencer’s method with search
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
Factor of Safety for the critical circular slip surface

b Lognormal(1.572,0.194)
μ=1.572, σ=0.194, skew=-0.022 vectors. The shear strain rate contours delineate that the location
2.5
of the failure surface passes through the foundation sand. The fac-
tor of safety obtained in the present analysis is slightly lower com-
2.0
pared to both the value of 2.647 reported by Hassan and Wolff [8]
Probability density

and that of 2.612 by Bhattacharya et al. [9] based on Spencer’s

1.5
method for the noncircular surfaces. This can be attributed to the
error from scaling the dimensions of the dam from the cross-sec-
1.0
tion given in the paper by Hassan and Wolff [8], to the assumed
material parameters, or to the dissimilar analysis methods of the
0.5
LEM and the SRM, among other factors.
0.0
When a large number of variables are considered and the vari-
ations of the variables are large the number of sampling points re-
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
Factor of Safety quired to accurately construct the response surface increases. As
the number of training data sets to be used is not known in ad-
c 1 vance, the learning process initiates with a relatively small number
of training data sets and gradually increases the number of training
data sets, until the desired convergence is achieved.
0.8 Given that the variation in soil properties is large, the ANN
Cumulative probability density

model was trained by increasing the number of training data sets

from the initial 50 sets. Table 6 presents the results obtained from
0.6 probabilistic analyses after this increase. From the table, it can be
seen that increasing the number of training data sets makes a dif-
ference in the failure probability. Artificial neural networks need
0.4 properly chosen training sets and using the increased training data
sets improves the accuracy of approximation. However, consider-
ing the required computational time to develop the training data
0.2 sets, using a large number of training data sets may result in little
normal improvement in accuracy and efficiency. Actually, from the Table 6,
lognormal
it can be seen that the increase in the number of training data sets
0 from 150 to 200 only causes a slight difference in the failure prob-
0 1 2 3 ability. Fig. 9 presents the results obtained from the Monte Carlo
Factor of safety
simulation.
Fig. 6. Example 1: results of Monte Carlo simulation: (a) histogram and lognormal The reliability index determined from FORM is 3.067. The crit-
fit for the calculated factor of safety when a normal distribution of random variables ical probabilistic surface determined by FORM passes through the
is assumed; (b) histogram and lognormal fit for the calculated factor of safety when Phase I fill, as shown in Fig. 8b. An obvious noncircular slip sur-
a lognormal distribution of random variables is assumed and (c) probability
distribution of the calculated factor of safety.
face can be identified from the figure. Therefore, a stability anal-

199.34
3.5 3 Downstream
1 1
186.23
176.17
169.16

166.12

156.97

140.21

Fig. 7. Example 2: cross-section (Cannon Dam, Hassan and Wolff [8], length unit: m).
 S.E. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 787–797 795

Table 5
Example 2: statistical properties of soil parameters (Cannon Dam, based on Hassan a Lognormal(2.352,0.424)
and Wolff [8]). μ=2.352, σ=0.424, skew=-0.31
1.2
Material Parameter lX COV Correlation coefficient

Probability density
Phase I clay c1 (kPa) 117.79 0.5 +0.1
u1 (°) 8.5 1 0.8
c1 (kN/m3) 22 –
Phase II clay c2 (kPa) 143.64 0.55 0.55
u2 (°) 15 0.6
c2 (kN/m3) 22 – 0.4

Sand filter u (°) 35 –

c (kN/m3) 22 –
Foundation sand c (kPa) 5 – 0.0
u (°) 18 – 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4
c (kN/m3) 20 – Factor of Safety
Fill c (kPa) 5 –
u (°) 35 – b Lognormal(2.352,0.424)
c (kN/m3) 25 – μ=2.352, σ=0.424, skew=-0.31
1

Cumulative probability density

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Factor of safety

Fig. 9. Example 2: results of Monte Carlo simulation for a lognormal distribution of

random variables: (a) histogram and lognormal fit for the calculated factor of safety
and (b) probability distribution of the calculated factor of safety.
Fig. 8. Example 2: results of the stability analysis: (a) failure mode at the mean
point (Fs = 2.49) and (b) failure mode at the design point (Fs = 1.03).
Table 7
Example 2: design point in original space.
ysis method that can capture the failure mechanism related to
Input parameter lX  3rX (P0) Design point, X* lX + 3rX
the noncircular slip surface is required to obtain an accurate reli-
c1 (kPa) 0 31.04 294.48
ability index for a layered slope. According to the sensitivities
/1 (°) 0 1.25 34
from FORM, the uncertainty in the cohesion of the Phase I fill is c2 (kPa) 0 99.14 380.65
the most important source of uncertainty, and the friction angle /2 (°) 0 14.25 42
of the Phase I fill is the second significant variable. Table 7 shows
X*is the obtained design point in original space X.
the design point falls within the range of sampled training data
sets (0 6 X 6 lX + 3rX).
The results obtained from the Monte Carlo simulation are in rel- find the minimum reliability index associated with the critical
atively good agreement with those obtained from SORM, but differ probabilistic surface. In their analysis, the reliability index corre-
somewhat from those obtained from FORM (Table 6). This can be sponding to the searched critical probabilistic surface was calcu-
attributed to the assumption of a tangent hyperplane in the first- lated using the MVFOSM method assuming a lognormal
order reliability method. distribution for the factor of safety. According to Hassan and
The example was previously solved by Hassan and Wolff [8] Wolff [8], the minimum reliability index was 2.664 from Spen-
and Bhattacharya et al. [9] to illustrate their search algorithm to cer’s noncircular slip surface. Bhattacharya et al. [9] also obtained

Table 6
Example 2: results of the probabilistic analysis.

Number of training data sets Sensitivity (FORM) Reliability index, b Failure probability, Pf
cc1 c/1 cc2 c/2 FORM SORM FORM SORM Monte Carlo
50 0.8257 0.5147 0.1901 0.1311 2.910 3.166 1.81e3 7.72e4 1.00e3
150 0.7416 0.4554 0.4094 0.2740 2.957 3.199 1.55e3 6.91e4 6.05e4
200 0.8092 0.5354 0.2230 0.0938 3.067 3.219 1.08e3 6.43e4 7.00e4
796 S.E. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 787–797

an index of 2.674 from Spencer’s noncircular slip surface using 2ðp  min pÞ
pn ¼ 1 ðA1Þ
the direct search method for a minimum reliability index. To ðmax p  min pÞ
make a comparison between the MVFOSM method and the pro- 2ðt  min tÞ
posed method is not appropriate, since the MVFOSM method only tn ¼ 1 ðA2Þ
ðmax t  min tÞ
requires the mean value and standard deviation of the random
t ¼ 0:5ðtn þ 1Þðmax t  min tÞ þ min t ðA3Þ
variables without incorporating information on distributional
shape of soil properties, and hence does not provide any informa- where, p is the input parameter, t is the output parameter, pn is the
tion for determining the shape of the probability density function normalized input parameter, tn is the normalized output parameter,
of the factor of safety. For this example, however, it seems clear min p is the minimum values of input parameter, max p is the max-
that the obtained distribution of the factor of safety does not imum values of input parameter, min t is the minimum values of
agree with the assumption of the MVFOSM method, a lognormal output parameter, and max t is the maximum values of output
distribution of the factor of safety, as shown in Fig. 9a and b. This parameter.
result occurred partly because the proposed method does not as-
sume a particular failure mechanism; rather, the failure mecha- A.1. Example 1
nism corresponding to the input soil properties is determined A three-layer network, with a tan–sigmoid transfer function in
automatically during the process of analysis. the hidden layer and a linear transfer function in the output layer,
was used. This is a useful structure for function approximation
problems. Three neurons were used in the hidden layer. The net-
6. Conclusions work has one output neuron, because there is only one target value
associated with each input vector. Then, the normalized output can
This paper considered slope stability problems with uncertain be expressed in a matrix form as:
quantities through a practical procedure that combined a commer-
tn ¼ purelin ½C13  tan sigðA33  pn31 þ B31 Þ þ D11  ðA4Þ
cial numerical analysis code and artificial neural networks into the
probabilistic analysis of slope stability. An ANN technique was where A = weight matrix between the input layer and the hidden
adopted to establish a model for the approximation of the limit layer, B = bias vector at the hidden layer, C = weight matrix between
state function. Training and test data sets for the model were ob- the hidden layer and the output layer, D = bias at the output layer.
tained from numerical calculations based on the strength reduc- The used transfer functions are denoted as follows:
tion method. The adoption of the strength reduction method to
2
the probabilistic stability analysis makes it possible to omit the tan sigðXÞ ¼  1; purelinðXÞ ¼ X ðA5Þ
½1 þ expð2XÞ
process of determining the probabilistic critical surface where
the maximum probability of failure is calculated, compared to The input vector p is given as follows:
the use of the limit equilibrium method. The ANN model was then 2 3
c1
connected to a reliability method, in this case the first- and second- 6 7
order reliability method and the Monte Carlo simulation method, p ¼ 4 c2 5 ðA6Þ
to predict the failure probability. /2
Two illustrative examples are presented to validate the appli-
The connection weights and biases for the neural network mod-
cability of the proposed procedure for slope stability problems.
el trained from 25 data sets are exhibited in Table A1.
They provide insight regarding the deterministic and probabilis-
tic slope stability analysis through comparison with other prob-
A.2. Example 2
abilistic analyses obtained from the literature. The obtained
A 4-14-1 structure of the neural network was used. The struc-
results also show that the ANN-based response surface can be
ture has four neurons in the input layer, 14 neurons in the hidden
successfully applied to the problem of probabilistic slope
layers, and one neuron in the output layer. Then, the normalized
stability.
output can be expressed in a matrix form as
Although the finite difference program was used to calculate
the factor of safety of the slope in this study, the proposed method tn ¼ purelin ½C114  log sigðA144  pn41 þ B141 Þ þ D11  ðA7Þ
is independent of the stability analysis and treats the finite ele- 1
ment (or finite difference) model as a black box, as in the case of log sigðXÞ ¼ ðA8Þ
1 þ expðXÞ
a commercial code. Thus any available analysis method can be
used to apply the proposed procedure. The input vector p is given as follows:
2 3
c1
6/ 7
Appendix A 6 17
p¼6 7 ðA9Þ
4 c2 5
Detailed description on the ANN model /2

For a better network performance, the input–output data pairs

are subjected to a scaling process before being used in the network
operation. This is because the compiled raw training data for differ-
Table A1
ent parameters can vary significantly in their actual values. When
Example 1: connection weights and biases for the trained ANN model.
such data are directly used in the training procedure, the network
could exhibit ill-conditioning. The problem can be avoided by a A 1.9118 0.9993 0.3722 B 1.3526
0.0738 0.2189 0.1314 0.0780
proper scaling on the raw data patterns, such that the data are nor-
1.1233 0.0398 0.4827 0.5414
malized to fall within a prescribed bound of (1, 1) using the fol-
C 0.5224 2.1280 0.2529 D 0.2834
lowing equations. The output of the network is subjected to an
inverse scaling to return the normal quantities of the output max t = 2.26, min t = 0.72, max p = [58.74, 36.37, 15.5]T and min p = [15.39,
parameters by Eq. (A3). 10.61, 8.61]T.
 S.E. Cho / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 787–797 797

Table A2
Example 2: connection weights and biases for the trained ANN model.

A 7.1406 6.4321 0.0683 0.1647 B 6.1401

0.1627 0.1467 0.6533 0.4085 14.4936
1.0894 2.0418 5.7563 4.4106 6.6421
1.1011 1.6911 2.8505 1.7217 4.4057
3.8530 6.1375 1.2301 2.0092 7.5621
3.5440 2.4417 8.2401 3.4295 9.8363
0.3794 0.5685 7.1900 3.5831 8.4305
4.4435 3.8604 2.3725 1.3499 8.9199
0.5697 1.1841 22.8579 0.9727 4.4379
1.2740 1.6343 0.4956 0.3193 1.4057
5.1149 3.1564 8.9668 3.9203 10.6560
3.8453 6.1113 1.0558 2.0885 1.2286
4.2537 2.7642 8.4848 3.6224 3.7494
1.5985 1.7782 0.2814 0.1661 4.8290
C C1–7 0.1484 4.9170 0.1848 0.2941 0.6972 3.5347 0.6623 D 0.2081
C8–14 0.4859 1.1904 1.9942 2.8008 0.7063 6.2326 9.7160

max t = 3.72, min t = 0.186, max p = [293.4, 33.78, 378.85, 41.98]T and min p = [1.387, 0.086, 0.564, 0.219]T.

The final connection weights and biases for the ANN model
trained from 200 data sets are shown in Table A2.
References
[1] Li KS, Lumb P. Probabilistic design of slopes. Can Geotech J 1987;24(4):520–35.
[2] Alonso EE. Risk analysis of slopes and its application to slopes in Canadian
sensitive clays. Géotechnique 1976;26(3):453–72.
[3] Christian JT, Ladd CC, Baecher GB. Reliability applied to slope stability analysis.
J Geotech Eng – ASCE 1994;120(12):2180–207.
[4] Griffiths DV, Fenton GA. Probabilistic slope stability analysis by finite
elements. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2004;130(5):507–18.
[5] Mostyn GR, Li KS. Probabilistic slope stability-state of play. In: Li KS, Lo S-CR,
editors. Conference on probabilistic methods in geotechnical engineering. The
Netherlands: Balkema, Rotterdam; 1993. p. 89–110.
[6] El-Ramly H, Morgenstern NR, Cruden DM. Probabilistic slope stability analysis
for practice. Can Geotech J 2002;39(3):665–83.
[7] Baecher GB, Christian JT. Reliability and statistics in geotechnical
engineering. John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
[8] Hassan AM, Wolff TF. Search algorithm for minimum reliability index of earth
slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1999;125(4):301–8.
[9] Bhattacharya G, Jana D, Ojha S, Chakraborty S. Direct search for minimum
reliability index of earth slopes. Comput Geotech 2003;30(6):455–62.
[10] Li KS, Cheung RWM. Discussion of ‘‘search algorithm for minimum reliability
index of earth slopes”. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2001;127(2):197–8.
[11] D’Andrea R. Discussion of ‘‘search algorithm for minimum reliability index of
earth slopes”. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2001;127:195–7.
[12] Xu B, Low BK. Probabilistic stability analyses of embankments based on finite
element method. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2006;132(11):1444–54.
[13] ITASCA Consulting Group Inc. FLAC fast Lagrangian analysis of continua,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (USA); 2002.
[14] Cheng YM, Lansivaara L, Wei WB. Two-dimensional slope stability analysis by
limit equilibrium and strength reduction methods. Comput Geotech
2007;34(3):137–50.
[15] Zienkiewicz OC, Humpheson C, Lewis RW. Associated and nonassociated visco-
plasticity and plasticity in soil mechanics. Géotechnique 1975;25(4):671–89.
[16] Griffiths DV. Finite element analyses of walls, footings and slopes. In:
Randolph MF, editor. Symposium on computer applications to geotechnical
problems in highway engineering. Cambridge (UK): Pub. PM Geotechnical
Analysts Ltd.; 1980. p. 122–46.
[17] Naylor DJ. Finite elements and slope stability. In: Martins JB, editor.
Proceedings of the NATO advanced study institute, numerical methods in
geomechanics. D. Reidel Publishing Company; 1982. p. 229–44.
[18] Matsui T, San KC. Finite element slope stability analysis by shear strength
reduction technique. Soils Found 1992;32(1):59–70.
[19] Ugai K, Leshchinsky D. Three-dimensional limit equilibrium and finite element
analysis: a comparison of results. Soils Found 1995;35(4):1–7.
[20] Dawson EM, Roth WH, Drescher A. Slope stability analysis by strength
reduction. Géotechnique 1999;49(6):835–40.
[21] Griffiths DV, Lane PA. Slope stability analysis by finite elements. Géotechnique
1999;49(3):387–403.
[22] Hammah RE, Yacoub TE, Corkum B, Curran JH. A Comparison of finite element
slope stability analysis with conventional limit-equilibrium investigation. In:
Proceedings of the 58th Canadian geotechnical and 6th joint IAH-CNC and CGS
groundwater specialty conferences saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada,
September; 2005.
[23] Smith IM, Griffiths DV. Programming the finite element method. 2nd ed. John
Wiley & Sons; 1982.
[24] Hicks MA, Onisiphorou C. Stochastic evaluation of static liquefaction in a
predominantly dilative sand fill. Géotechnique 2005;55(2):123–33.
[25] Krahn J. The 2001 R.M. Hardy lecture: the limits of limit equilibrium analyses.
Can Geotech J 2003;40(3):643–60.
[26] Hasofer AM, Lind NC. Exact and invariant second-moment code format. J Eng
Mech – ASCE 1974;100(1):111–21.
[27] Rackwitz R, Fiessler B. Structural reliability under combined load sequences.
Comput Struct 1978;9(5):489–94.
[28] Liu PL, Der Kiureghian A. Optimization algorithms for structural reliability.
Struct Safety 1990;9(3):161–77.
[29] Haukaas T, Der Kiuregian A. A computer program for nonlinear finite element
analysis. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on structural
safety and reliability. Newport Beach (CA); 2001.
[30] Der Kiureghian A, Lin HZ, Hwang SJ. Second order reliability approximations. J
Eng Mech – ASCE 1987;113(8):1208–25.
[31] Papadrakis M, Papadopoulos V, Lagaros N. Structural reliability analysis of
elastic–plastic structures using neural networks and Monte Carlo simulation.
Comput Methods Appl Mechan Eng 1996;136(1):145–63.
[32] Stein ML. Large sample properties of simulations using Latin Hypercube
sampling. Technometrics 1987;29:143–51.
[33] Cheng J, Zhang J, Cai CS, Xiao RC. A new approach for solving inverse reliability
problems with implicit response functions. Eng Struct 2007;29(1):71–9.
[34] Ghaboussi J, Garrett Jr JH, Wu X. Knowledge-based modeling of material
behavior with neural networks. J Eng Mech – ASCE 1991;117(1):132–53.
[35] Goh ATC. Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks. J
Geotech Eng – ASCE 1994;120(9):1467–80.
[36] Deng J, Yue ZQ, Tham LG, Zhu HH. Pillar design by combining finite
element methods, neural networks and reliability: a case study of the Feng
Huangshan copper mine, China. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci 2003;40(4):
585–99.
[37] Juang CH, Chen CJ, Rosowsky DV, Tang WH. CPT-based liquefaction analysis,
part 2: reliability for design. Géotechnique 2000;50(5):593–9.
[38] Juang CH, Chen CJ, Tien YM. Appraising CPT-based liquefaction resistance
evaluation methods-artificial neural network approach. Can Geotech J
1999;36(3):443–54.
[39] Goh ATC, Kulhawy FH. Reliability assessment of serviceability performance of
braced retaining walls using a neural network approach. Int J Numer Anal
Methods Geomech 2005;29(6):627–42.
[40] Elhewy AH, Mesbahi E, Pu Y. Reliability analysis of structures using neural
network method. Probabilist Eng Mech 2006;21(1):44–53.
[41] Deng J, Gu D, Li X, Yue Z. Structural reliability analysis for implicit performance
functions using artificial neural network. Struct Safety 2005;27(1):25–48.
[42] Gomes HM, Awruch AM. Comparison of response surface and neural network
with other methods for structural reliability analysis. Struct Safety
2004;26(1):49–67.
[43] Hurtado JE, Alvarez DA. Neural network-based reliability analysis: a
comparative study. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2001;191(1–2):113–32.
[44] Schueremans L, Van Gemert D. Benefit of splines and neural networks in
simulation based structural reliability analysis. Struct Safety 2005;27(3):
246–61.
[45] Chau KW. Reliability and performance-based design by artificial neural
network. Adv Eng Software 2007;38(3):145–9.
[46] Hornik K, Stinchcombe M, White H. Multi-layer feed-forward networks are
universal approximators. Neural Networks 1989;2(5):359–68.
[47] Heaton JT. Introduction to neural networks with Java. Heaton Research, Inc.;
2005.
[48] Haldar A, Mahadevan S. Reliability assessment using stochastic finite element
analysis. John Wiley & Sons; 2000.
[49] Crum DA. Discussion of ‘‘search algorithm for minimum reliability index earth
slopes”. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2001;127:194–5.
[50] Rocscience Inc., Slide 2D limit equilibrium slope stability for soil and rock
slopes. Verification Manual; 2006.