Presented at the 7th European Conference on Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Trondheim, 2010

A Genetic Algorithm for Solving Slope Stability Problems: from Bishop to a Free Slip Plane
R. van der Meij & J. B. Sellmeijer
Deltares, Delft, Netherlands

ABSTRACT: Finding the safety factor of an embankment using a limit equilibrium method requires a search algorithm to find the representative slip circle. Because of the complex solution space, a grid based method is most often preferred. This paper presents a genetic algorithm as an alternative. This genetic algorithm gives accurate results faster then a traditional grid based method. Because of its efficiency, the genetic algorithm is even able to find a free slip surface using Spencers method with the lowest safety factor. 1 INTRODUCTION Several computational programs are available, with which the stability of a soil body can be calculated with a limit equilibrium method. In such a program, a slip surface is analyzed with a certain methodology, for example, the method Bishop (Bishop 1995) to determine its stability. The user enters an area in which the program needs to find the circle with the minimal stability factor. Searching such a space usually happens by calculating all possible slip circles with corresponding tangent lines and reporting the one with the minimal safety. This algorithm has several disadvantages: It is sequential and therefore time consuming There is no guarantee the (global) minimal safety factor will be found. A small displacement or change in boundary conditions of the grid can lead to fundamentally different answers. A small change in boundary conditions can lead to fundamentally different answers. Much experience and understanding of the method is required, even though this is not obvious. Other search routines (for example hill climbing) have great disadvantages as well. In the recent past Genetic Algorithms (Barricelli, Nils Aall 1957) are used more frequently as a search procedure and it seems to be a well-suited method to find the representative slip plane with the minimal safety factor. For Flood Control 2015, a genetic algorithm (GA) has been implemented in the stability program MStab. Genetic algorithms process a mathematical representation of a solution of an analyzed problem. For Bishops method, this representation is a vector containing the X and Y value of the centre of the circle, and the radius of the circle. This representation can be seen as an individual and a sum of individuals for a population. An individual can be tested for its fitness, for example with Bishops method. The genetic algorithm improves the quality of a population is a similar way as nature does. Two individuals cross their DNA, there is a chance for mutations and a new individual is created. Two new individuals fight, and the fittest one continues to the next generation. The algorithm seems to be faster and better at finding a global minimum. A disadvantage is that the results are not always reproducible. On top of that, there will be a very strong tendency to find the global minimum, while sometimes, a local minimum is interesting as well. This can be overcome using penalties steering the result in the desired direction. Because of its high speed, a genetic algorithm makes it possible to find a free slip surface with Janbus or Spencers method. This paper will present in the second section that the GA fundamentally works using an analytical simplification of Bishops formula. The next section shows the efficiency of the GA by comparing calculation time and accuracy of a grid based method to the algorithm. Thereafter, the efficiency of the genetic algorithm is explained. Finally, it is shown that a GA can perform a free surface search using Spencers method.

2 TESTING THE GA IN MATLAB An analytical formulation of Bishops method is derived for a simplified embankment in order to have an analytical safety factor to test the genetic algorithm. Only the crest, slope and surface level of an embankment will be considered, as can be seen in Figure 1. H is the height of the embankment, L is the length of the slope. Different angles defining the slip circle are defined with 0 through 3. The location of the centre of the slip circle is defined with X and Y using the outer crest as a reference point. The radius of the circle is defined as R. The subsoil is divided in three areas. Area I is underneath the crest, area II is underneath the slope and area III is underneath the ground level.
X
0 1

For the purpose of simplicity, no water pressures are considered. The soil is cohesive and homogenous without internal friction. The explicit result depends on the zone (I, II or III) where the circle enters and exits the soil body. In total, four types or circles can be distinguished. A circle that enters through the crest and exits on the surface level, as shown in figure 1, has the safety factor of which the result of the derivation is shown in equation (1). The safety factor of the circle that enters through the crest and exits in the slope of the embankment is given in equation (2) and the safety factor of a circle that enters through the slope and exits on the surface level is given in equation (3). Finally, the safety factor of a circle that enters and exits in the slope of the embankment is given in equation (4). To calculate the safety of the embankment, one first needs to check which case is relevant, and the safety factor can be calculated directly. These formulas are programmed in Matlab to compare Matlabs genetic algorithm with the genetic algorithm we wish to implement in the stability program MStab.

I R H

II III

Figure 1: Slip circle entering in zone I and exiting in zone III

M reaction M soil

c 2 gH R

2
1 12

3 1 2

R2
2 1 2

H2

L2
2 1 2 0

H Y

L X

(1) (2) (3) (4)

c 1 2 gH F R
c 1 2 gH F R

2
1 12

R2 Y
2 1 2

F2 H2

L2
2
2

HF
0 1 2

LF

R2 HF
2

1 12

F2 H2

L2

H Y

L X

1 2

LF

c 1 gH F

2
1 6

0 2

R2 L2

H2

Figure 2 shows the solution space for a fixed radius. Matlab has a complex GA tool. Because it is difficult to understand and reproduce, a simple GA specifically built to minimize the above equation is programmed as well. This GA is called the MStab GA as it will be used in MStab in the future. Because of the chaotic convergence procedure of a GA, 10000 runs have been performed to analyze the precision. Pop stands for the size of the population, Gen stands for the number of generations. The average value of the optimum and its standard deviation are presented in Table 1.
Figure 2: Solution space of Bishops equation above a slope

Presented at the 7th European Conference on Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Trondheim, 2010

Simulation Matlab GA MStab GA Pop Gen average St. dev. Avg. St. dev. 50 50 2.7828 4.30E-3 2.7790 1.6192e-4 100 100 2.7792 5.26E-4 2.7789 3.1659e-5 Table 1: Average and standard deviation of the results of the Matlab GA and the MStab GA.

A population of 50 individuals running 50 generations seems to be sufficient to get an answer with less then 1% error. The precision of the methods is alike although the deviation of the MStab GA is an order of magnitude lower. 3 IMPLEMENTATION OF BISHOPS AND VANS METHOD IN MSTAB The MStab GA as mentioned previously is implemented in the stability program MStab in order to find the representative slip circle. The grid and GA are compared with the limit equilibrium methods Bishop and Van (Van 2001).
Materials
zanddijk kleidijk zandklei humeklei zand

Table 2 compares the calculation time of the different search algorithms with Bishops method. The representative circle is found each time because it is already contained in the initial small search area. The calculation time of the grid method is directly proportional to the size of the grid. The calculation time of the GA only depends on the population size and the number of generations, so it does not vary.
Materials
zanddijk kleidijk zandklei humeklei zand

zanddijk kleidijk humeklei zandklei humeklei humeklei T1

Figure 5: Representative slip plane method Van BHP Calc. time[s] f [-] Grid Small 2,5 1,10 GA small 5,0 1,10 Large grid 31 1,10 Large GA 5,0 1,10 full GA 5,0 1,10

zanddijk kleidijk T1 humeklei zandklei humeklei humeklei zand

Table 2: Calculation time grid versus GA with increasing search area.

Figure 3: Representative slip circle using grid and tangent lines

One can see that for a small search area the grid method is the quickest. As the search area increases, the grid becomes relatively slower. This phenomenon is amplified with Vans method as the search space is more complex.
Van Calc. t [s] f [-] Small grid 4,8 1,11 Small GA 17 1,12 Larger grid 19,6 1,09 Larger GA 16 1,08 Large grid 263,4 1,08 Large GA 13,5 1,08 Full GA 10,5 1,09

Figure 3 on the previous page shows the representative slip circle found with the grid search algorithm, figure 4 below shows the representative slip plane found with the GA. Figure 5 shows the slip plane found with the Vans method.
Materials
zanddijk kleidijk zandklei humeklei zand

Table 3: Calculation time grid versus GA with increasing search area.

zanddijk kleidijk T1 humeklei zandklei humeklei humeklei zand

MStab 9.10 : HELL1Amstab82bhp.sti

Figure 4: Representative slip circle found with a GA

The grid method is only faster if the user specifies the location of the slip plane very well. If the search area increases, the GA becomes relatively faster. Absolutely, the calculation time also decreases. This is because more geometrically impossible slip planes are in the population and therefore not analyzed. The faster calculation leads to less precision but Table 3 shows it is still sufficient. Searching the entire area is impossible with a grid method and can be performed rapidly with the GA.

4 CHOICE OF GA VERSUS GRID METHOD The calculation time of a grid based method is a function of the calculation time of a single analysis times a * b * c (see figure 5)

Figure 7: Approach for a free slip plane

Figure 5: combination of calculations for bishop analysis

The optimization procedure of a GA is fundamentally different. In each dimension, a near value needs to be selected and through a number of generations (n) the right combination will be found. For bishops method, n * (a+b+c) calculations need to be performed for the optimization. Earlier in this paper, it has been shown that 50 is a good value for n. Vans analysis (Figure 6) uses 5 parameters to describe the slip circle. A grid based method uses a*b*c*d*e calculations. A GA based method uses n * (a+b+c+d+e) calculations. With an increasing search area and more search dimensions, the GA becomes a more efficient alternative. Figure 7 shows an approach for an analysis of a free slip plane. An upper and a lower bound of the slip

Assuming we allow 10 points per line, with a grid based method, 1015 calculations have to be performed. With a GA based method, n * (10+10 + 10 ) = 150 * n calculations need to be performed. This makes a free surface search feasible. Most other search algorithms have the curse of dimension (Bellman 1957) whereby the calculation time exponentially increases with the number of degrees of freedom in the problem. Because the search time increases with the sum of the number of degrees of freedom, this curse is overcome. 5 FREE SLIP SURFACE SEARCH Figure 7 shows an approach for a free surface search. As a limit equilibrium method, one can choose for example Janbus or Spencers method. In this case, Spencers method is chosen. An upper and lower boundary is defined with 15 points. The first point is connected through the surface line on the crest, the second through 14th point is connected with a straight line in between, and the last point is again connected by the surface line. The genetic algorithm must find the combination of points on the lines that has the lowest safety factor. The optimization is by far not as straightforward as in Bishops method. Bishop will always be able to calculate a safety factor given a centre for the circle and a tangent line. Spencer is not able to produce a safety factor if a sudden increase of the slip surface slope comes across. There are two fundamental ways of addressing this issue. The unrealistically high passive earth pressures can be cut off in such a case by the limit equilibrium method. This is common practice in Bishops method. Alternatively, unrealistic slip planes can also be avoided when defining the genome. This issue has not yet been addressed, but as the method is very robust, it already works.

Figure 6: combination of calculations for Vans analysis

plane is defined, and in between 13 straight lines are defined. Including the surface lines, 15 points on these lines have to be found that, together, have the lowest safety factor.

Figures 8, 9 and 10 present the representative slip plane of respectively a Bishop, Van and Spencer analysis. One can see that as the shape of the slip plane becomes more complex, the safety factor decreases.

Presented at the 7th European Conference on Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Trondheim, 2010

Figure 8: slope stability calculated with Bishops Method, f=1,08

Figure 9: slope stability calculated with Vans Method, f=1,06

Figure 10: slope stability calculated with the genetic algorithm and Spencers Method, f=0,97

Because of the high pore water pressures in the bottom sand layer, the slip plane tends to be deep and long. It is difficult to describe this surface with a circle, and therefore Bishops method gives a relative high safety factor of 1,08. Vans method is designed to analyze such problems and consequently gives a lower safety factor of 1,06. The fact that Spencers method combined with the genetic algorithm gives a significant lower safety factor of 0,97 is remarkable. Especially, if one takes into account that the passive shear force is cut off in Bishops and Vans method, but not in Spencers method. If this cut off is also implemented in Spencers method, the safety factor will be lower and the passive wedge can exit more steeply. CONCLUSIONS A Genetic Algorithm is an optimization procedure to find the representative slip circle that has several advantages above a grid based method. First, the genetic algorithm can find the correct minimum, even if the solution space is very complex. The method is good at finding the global minimum, even if there are several local minima. Even though the algorithm does not converge directly via the same path to the solution, the standard deviation of the solution is relatively small and therefore reliable.

A much larger search space can be investigated in the same amount of time. One can also choose to have a quick answer with a relative good precision in very little time. The time of an analysis is known in advance as the number of generations are fixed. This makes it a good procedure when many automated calculations are performed. The genetic algorithm theoretically works for all limit equilibrium methods. Its relative efficiency increases with a larger search space and also with a larger number of parameters to be optimized. With Vans method, the genetic algorithm is in general faster then a grid based method. Finding a free slip plane using a grid based method is not possible whereas the efficiency of the genetic algorithm does make it feasible as the genetic algorithm overcomes the curse of dimension. An analysis based on a free slip plane gives a significantly lower factor of safety with a better limit equilibrium model. REFERENCES
Barricelli, Nils Aall (1957). "Symbiogenetic evolution processes realized by artificial methods". Methodos: 143182 Bellman, R.E. (1957). Dynamic Programming. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Bishop, C. M. (1995). Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition. Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-853864-2 Bishop, W. (1955). The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes. Geotechnique, Vol 5, 7-17. Van, M. A. (2001). New approach for uplift induced slope failure. XVth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Istanbul. 2285-2288