Assessment of slope construction risk uncertainty based on index importance ranking

  • Daming LinEmail author
  • Ping Chen
  • Jilei Ma
  • Yun Zhao
  • Tao Xie
  • Renmao Yuan
  • Lin Li
Original Paper


Due to the complex geologic conditions in mountainous areas of China, the highways often encounter different risks induced by geological hazards during highway slope construction. In this paper, a new assessment system for highway construction risk is developed based on 11 parameters being classified into five categories. In addition, index importance ranking is proposed for a weighting coefficient distribution in the evaluation index system for the 11 parameters. This ranking substantially reduces subjectivity during the rating process. Feedback on this system has been received from many successful applications in 13 provinces of China. Therefore, the new system of slope construction risk uncertainty assessment based on index importance ranking has attracted wide attention in China.


Slope construction risk Risk identification and classification Index importance ranking Assessment 



Deep appreciation is expressed to the editor and anonymous reviewers for their useful comments, which are helpful for improving the manuscript. This work was financially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (projects 41172193, 41302254, and 4141101080) and the Science and Technology Project of the Ministry of Communication (2014318365110 and 2013318Q03030). The authors are most grateful for these supports.


  1. Alonso EE (1976) Risk analysis of slopes and its application to slopes in Canadian sensitive clays. Géotechnique 26:453–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armaş I (2011) An analytic multicriteria hierarchical approach to assess landslide vulnerability. Case study: Cornu village, Subcarpathian Prahova Valley/Romania. Z Geomorphol 55(2):209–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crosta GB, Agliardi F, Frattini P, Lari S (2015) Key issues in rock fall modeling, hazard and risk assessment for rockfall protection. In: Lolllino G, Giordan D, Crosta GB, Corominas J, Azzam R, Wasowski J, Sciarra N (eds) Engineering geology for society and territory, vol 2. Springer, Cham, pp 43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eskesen SD, Tengborg P, Kampmann J, Veicherts TH (2004) Guidelines for tunnelling risk management: International Tunnelling Association, Working Group No. 2. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 19(3):217–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Felicísimo ÁM, Cuartero A, Remondo J, Quirós E (2013) Mapping landslide susceptibility with logistic regression, multiple adaptive regression splines, classification and regression trees, and maximum entropy methods: a comparative study. Landslides 10(2):175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lacasse S, Nadim F, Høeg K (2012) Risk assessment and mitigation in geo-practice. In: Rollins K, Zekkos D (eds) Proceedings of GeoCongress 2012, Oakland, California, March 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)Google Scholar
  7. Lin DM, Wang KY, Li K, He WT, Bao WX, Yuan RM, Shang YJ (2017) Modification of rock mass strength assessment methods and their application in geotechnical engineering. Bull Eng Geol Environ 76(4):1471–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Low BK, Zhang J, Tang WH (2011) Efficient system reliability analysis illustrated for a retaining wall and a soil slope. Comput Geotech 38(2):196–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ohtsu H, Okawa J, Ota Y, Takeuchi R, Saegusa H (2012) A study on the meaning of geological investigation focusing on water inrush from viewpoint of geological risk. In: Proceedings of the 41st symposium on rock mechanics, Tokyo, Japan, January 2012Google Scholar
  10. Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C, Mohammadi M, Moradi HR (2013) Application of weights-of-evidence and certainty factor models and their comparison in landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran. Arab J Geosci 6(7):2351–2365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sangchini EK, Emami SN, Tahmasebipour N, Pourghasemi HR, Naghibi SA, Arami SA, Pradhan B (2016) Assessment and comparison of combined bivariate and AHP models with logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Chaharmahal-e-Bakhtiari Province, Iran. Arab J Geosci 9(3):201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shirzadi A, Chapi K, Shahabi H, Solaimani K, Kavian A, Ahmad BB (2017) Rock fall susceptibility assessment along a mountainous road: an evaluation of bivariate statistic, analytical hierarchy process and frequency ratio. Environ Earth Sci 76(4):152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wang X, Frattini P, Crosta GB, Zhang L, Agliardi F, Lari S, Yang Z (2014) Uncertainty assessment in quantitative rockfall risk assessment. Landslides 11(4):711–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Yurdakul M, Gopalakrishnan K, Akdas H (2014) Prediction of specific cutting energy in natural stone cutting processes using the neuro-fuzzy methodology. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 67:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute of HighwayMinistry of TransportBeijingChina
  2. 2.Institute of Geology, China Earthquake AdministrationBeijingChina
  3. 3.Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of ChinaBeijingChina
  4. 4.China University of GeosciencesBeijingChina
  5. 5.Highway Institute of Science and TechnologyXinjiang Production and Construction CorpsUrumqiChina
  6. 6.China Academy of Transportation SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations