Chapter 1 Principles for Rock Slope Stability Analysis

1.1 Introduction

In recent years the assessment of landslide and risk has become a topic of major interest for
engineering professionals. Among the main reasons for this increasing interest in landslides are:
an increasing awareness of the socio-economic significance of landslides, and increased pressure
of development and urbanization on the environment (e.g. construction of roads and tunnels). As
development increases on sloping urban areas, a higher incidence of slope instability and
landslide is reported.

The cut slopes are of major interest in many civil and mining engineering operations. The aim is
to design a slope with such a height and inclination as to be stable within a reasonable life span.
Such design is influenced by the geological conditions, material properties, groundwater
pressure, earthquake - loading etc.

An understanding of geology, hydrology, and rock mass properties is central to applying slope
stability principle properly, and analysis must be based upon a model that accurately represents
site conditions and applied loads. Judgement regarding acceptable risk or safety factor must be
made to assess the results of analyses.

1.2 Basic aspects of rock slope stability analysis

1.2.1 Definition and aims of slope stability analysis

An analysis of slope stability is an engineering assessment of slope safety against failure. Slope
strength and forces for failure are the two major components, which should be considered in the
analysis.

The primary purpose of slope analysis in most engineering applications is to contribute to the
safe and economic designs of excavations, embankments etc. The main aims of the slope
analysis may be summarized as follows:

 To assess the stability of different types of slopes under given conditions.

 To assess the possibility of landslides.

 To analyze landslides those have already occurred and assist in the understanding of failure
mechanisms and influences of environmental factors.

 To enable to redesign of failed slope, and the planning and design of preventive and remedial
measures where necessary.

 To enable to study the effects of earthquake on a slope, variation of groundwater pressure

and shear strength parameters.

1
1.2.2 Factors affecting the slope stability

The first step in every assessment consists of collecting all information and data on the study
area. The reliability and accuracy of data during collection is very important. Accurate
information on geometry, shear strength parameters, groundwater pressure and seismic
acceleration are of paramount importance for detail studies concerning individual sites.

The main factors, which affect the slope stability, are as follows:

 Rock type boundaries and mechanical properties

 Faults and weakness zones
 Detailed jointing
 Groundwater and climatic conditions
 Rock stresses
 Geometrical conditions
 Blast vibration and potential earthquake activity

Rock slope stability is essentially governed by the joint sets, their relative orientation, and the
gouge material present in the joints and extent of excavation with respect to spacing. Principal
types of instability phenomena and spherical representation of the structural conditions, which
can determine these slope instability events, is given in Figure 1.1.

Broadly speaking, the modes of failure of rock slopes are circular, planar, wedge, and toppling
type, but plane and wedge failure is more common in hard rock.

Figure 1.1 Main type of slope failure: a) Circular b) Plane c) Wedge d) Toppling (from Hoek
and Bray, 1981)

2
To analyze slope stability, it is necessary to study the all above-mentioned factors in detail. In
most cases the orientation & characteristics of discontinuities and groundwater conditions are the
most important factors. Moreover, the discontinuity defines the potential model as well as the
risk of failure with taking into account groundwater pressure.

1.3 Methods for rock slope stability analysis

Methods of landslide hazard assessment may be qualitative or quantitative, and the detailed
classification of assessment methodology is somewhat subjective and depends upon the choice of
the aspects to be emphasized. A number of methods (e.g. statistical analysis, geotechnical
engineering approaches, use of index maps etc.) have now been developed. But geotechnical
engineering approaches (deterministic and probabilistic approach) are more common today in the
field of geological engineering.

Traditionally, deterministic approach of calculating the stabilizing and driving forces to arrive a
factor of safety has been the predominant method in the field of geological engineering and rock
mechanics. But in recent years, probabilistic approach with the calculation of probability of
failure instead of a factor of safety against failure has become more common. Other methods,
which are also used in rock slope stability, are Empirical method and Numerical modeling.

1.3.1 Empirical method

Empirical method is a qualitative hazard assessment method guided by experience from the cases
in the past. An example of this method for hard rock slope is given in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2 Slope heights versus slope angle relationship for hard rock slopes
(from Hoek and Bray, 1981)

3
This Figure shows that the highest and steepest slope which have been successfully excavated,
fall along a fairly clear line shown as a dashed line in Figure. This line gives a useful practical
guide to the highest and steepest slopes, which can be contemplated for normal open pit mine
planning.

1.3.2 Deterministic method

The design of any slope must involve some form of analysis in which the disturbing forces due
to gravity and water pressure are compared to the available shear strength of the rock mass.

In the field of Rock Engineering, the deterministic principle (a simple limit equilibrium method)
of calculating stabilizing and driving forces and resulting factor of safety is more common today
for stability analysis. According to its definition, a factor of safety > 1.0 means that stabilizing
forces are greater than driving forces and hence a stable slope. The analysis consists of the
following three steps:

(a) Definition of the potential stability problem

(b) Quantification of input parameters
(c) Calculation of safety factor

(a) Definition of the potential stability problem

Since the great majority of slides occur along discontinuities, joint mapping of discontinuities is
a key tool to define potential stability problems.

Stereographic projection is one of the convenient methods of projecting the features of

discontinuities.. In geotechnical engineering this method provides a quick and reliable picture of
discontinuities and their intersections. It is also used for the estimation of slope angles, for the
preparation of hazard maps, and for the estimation of safety factor.

Wherever definite planes of weakness are present, planar, wedge, and toppling type modes have
been adopted, and rock slopes, which are heavily fractured, conventionally have been analyzed
by adopting circular method of analysis.

(b) Quantification of input parameters

The main input data for limit equilibrium analysis are:

 Geometry
 Friction parameters
 Water pressure
 Earthquake loading

The geometrical data is determined by field mapping, which is not a difficult task in most cases.
But the quantification of water pressure, friction parameters, and earthquake magnitude is a
difficult part in rock slope stability analysis.

4
(c) Calculation of safety factor

Failures on rock slopes are mainly in the form of planar slides, wedge slides, and topple. All
these failures are associated with existing discontinuities or joints resulting from weathering,
gravitational, and tectonic forces. Circular failure is not common in rock slopes, but it cannot be
ignored for highly fractured and weathered rock.

The simple approach for most problems of rock slopes is discussed in the following sections.

Plane failure

The geometry of the plane, for the purpose of analyzing the basic mechanics of sliding, is
defined in Figure 1.3.

The general condition for plane failure is as follows:

 The plane which sliding occurs must strike parallel or nearly parallel (with in approximately
20 degree) to the slope face.

 The failure plane must “daylight” on the slope face. This means that its dip must be smaller
than the dip of the slope face, i.e. f > p.

 In a dry slope, the dip of the failure plane must be greater than the angle of the friction of this
plane, i.e. p > .

 Release surfaces that provide negligible resistance to sliding must be present in the rock mass
to define lateral boundaries of slide. Alternatively failure can occur on a plane passing
through convex “nose” of slope.

A two dimensional deterministic analysis refers to a one-meter thick slice through the slope. It is
important to recognize that this analysis considers only force equilibrium and assumes that all
forces pass through the centroid of the wedge. In other words, moment equilibrium is not
considered in this analysis.

Figure 1.3 Plane failure geometry (from Hoek and Bray, 1981)

5
 Principle of analysis

The Principles of plane failure analysis for a simple case is presented in Figure 1.4.

F
H

W
U

p Road
f

Figure 1.4 Schematic sketch of typical stability problem with road cuts

In Figure 1.4,

H = Slope height (m)

p = Inclination of potential failure plane (degree)
f = Slope angle (degree)
 = Unit weight of rock (kN/m3)
w = Unit weight of water (kN/m3)
F = m = Earthquake load (kN/m)
U = Ground water pressure (kN/m)
W = Weight of potential sliding plane (kN/m)

The factor of safety is calculated as:

F = (Wcosp-U- F sin p) tana / (Wsinp+ F.cosp) (1.1)

Where,

a = Active friction angle

Wedge failure

The general condition for wedge failure is as follows (Hoek and Bray, 1981):

6
 fi > i
 i > 

Where, fi is the inclination of the slope face and i is the dip of the line of intersection.

The numbering of the line of intersection of the various planes (refer Figure 1.5) involved in
wedge failure analysis is of extreme importance. The numbering used throughout this Section is
as follows:

1 intersection of plane A (known as the flatter one of the two planes) with the slope face
2 intersection of plane B (known as the steeper one of the two planes) with the slope face
3 intersection of plane A with upper slope face
4 intersection of plane B with upper slope face
5 intersection of planes A and B

It is assumed that sliding of the wedge always takes place along the line of intersection numbered
5.

Figure 1.5 Wedge failure geometry and pictorial view of the wedge showing the numbering of
intersection lines and plane (from Hoek and Bray, 1981)

 Principle of analysis

7
The principle of wedge failure analysis for a simple case is presented below.

F


W H
U

Road
f i

Figure 1.6 View normal to the line of intersection 5 of a slope

In Figure 1.6,

H = Slope height (m)

i = Dip of the line of intersection slope angle (degree)
f = Inclination of the slope face (degree)
 = Unit weight of rock (kN/m3)
w = Unit weight of water (kN/m3)
F = m = Earthquake load (kN/m)
U = Ground water pressure (kN/m)
W = Weight of potential sliding plane (kN/m)

The factor of safety is calculated as (Hoek and Bray 1981):

F
3
c A X  c B Y    A   w X  tan  A   B   w Y  tan  B
H  2   2 
Or,
     
F   A  w X  tan  a A   B  w Y  tan  aB
 2   2 
Where,

cA and cB are the cohesive strength of plane A and B

aA and aB are the active friction angle for plane A and B (c = 0)

X, Y, A, B are dimensionless factors that depend upon the geometry of the wedge, and could be
calculated as follows (Hoek and Bray, 1981):

8
 sin  24
X 
sin  45 . cos 2 na

sin  13
Y
sin  35 . cos 1nb

cos a  cos b . cos na.nb

A 
sin 5 . sin 2  na.nb

cos b  cos a . cos na.nb

B 
sin 5 . sin 2  na.nb

Where,
a and b are the dips of plane A and B respectively, and 5 is the dip of the line of intersection
5.
The angle required for the solution for Equations 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 can be measured on the
stereoplot of the data that defines the geometry of the wedge and the slope (ref. Figure 1.7) or by
“Wedge solution for rapid computation” (ref. Appendix 2, Hoek and Bray (1981)).

Figure 1.7 Stereoplot of data required for wedge stability analysis

(from Hoek and Bray, 1981)

9
The basic formula for calculating safety factor (Equation 1.2) does not consider earthquake
loading. Moreover, calculation of some variable input parameters (e.g. active friction angle,
earthquake loading) is more complicated in wedge solution (ref. Appendix 2, Hoek and Bray,
1981). In such circumstances, an alternative approach (ref. Equation 1.8), which is suggested by
Kovari and Fritz, (1976) can be used.

The Equation (1.8) gives only an approximate value of safety factor, however, it considers
earthquake loading and through this Equation, it is easy to calculate variable input parameters for
rock slope stability analysis. Equation 1.8 is a well - recognized method in rock slope
engineering and has been used for a long time in several cases.

F = c. A+ (Wcosi – U - F sin i)  * tan / (Wsini+ F.cosi) (1.8)

Where,

c = Cohesive strength of the cemented surface

A = Area of the sliding plane
 = Friction angle of the sliding plane
 = Wedge factor, which is defined as:
 = (cos1+cos2) / (sin (1+2)) (ref. margin sketch )

Margin sketch (from Kovari and Fritz, 1976)

The other symbols in Equation (1.8) are as in Figure 1.6.

Circular failure

Since this mode of failure is not common in hard rocks, only a brief discussion on this mode of
failure is given in this Section. The conditions under which circular failure will occur arise when
the individual particles in a soil or rock mass are very small compared to the size of the slope and
when these particles are not interlocked as a result of their shape (Hoek and Bray, 1981).

 Principles of analysis

10
For the calculation of safety factor, to use of series of charts, as suggested by Hoek and Bray
(1981) is common today. These charts enable the user to carry out a very rapid check on the
factor of safety of a slope or upon the sensitivity of the factor of safety to changes in
groundwater conditions or slope profile. The factor of safety is given as (Hoek and Bray, 1981):

shear strength of available to resisting slide

F
shear stress moblised along failure surface
Limitation of these charts is that these should only be used for the analysis of circular failure in
material where the properties do not vary through the soil or rock mass (Hoek and Bray, 1981).
When the properties vary within the slope, a more elaborate form of analysis (e.g. Bishop’s
method, Janbu’s method) is used.

Toppling

Toppling failures involve overturning of rock layers in the slates, schist, and thin-bedded
sediments inclined steeply into the hillsides and each layer tending to bend downhill under its
own weight transfers force downwards (Goodman, 1980).

Figure 1.8 A case of toppling failure (from Goodman, 1980)

General conditions for sliding and toppling of a block on an incline plane are given in Figure 1.9.
A friction modeling technique (Goodman, et al., 1976) or limit equilibrium analysis may be used
for toppling analysis.

11
Figure 1.9 General conditions for sliding and toppling of a block on an incline plane (from Hoek
and Bray, 1981)

1.3.2 Probabilistic method

The recent development in rock slope stability analysis is a probabilistic method, which takes
into account different values of variable parameters.

Deterministic methods do not take into consideration variability of some input parameters (e.g.
active friction angle, groundwater pressure, and seismic acceleration), some of that may vary in
magnitude with time. There is now an increasing recognition of the importance of uncertainties

12
in geological engineering. Moreover, parameter variability is only one example; but there are
also systematic uncertainties, which arise from the fact that:

 A rock mass can only be investigated in a finite number of points.

 The number of field and laboratory tests conducted to determine rock parameters are limited
by financial and time constraints.

 The testing equipment and methods are not perfect.

In addition to real parameter variability and systematic errors, there are often significant
uncertainties associated with models. Finally uncertainties are also associated with the
mechanism of failure, occurrence of failure and its impact. The recognition of uncertainties has
led to the development of methods of analysis within a probabilistic framework while
maintaining the basic geotechnical model.

In probabilistic approach analysis usual parameters related to geometry and unit weights are
known as constant parameters. The parameters water pressure, the active frictional angle, and
seismic acceleration may however vary within wide limits. They do not have a single fixed
value. There is no way to predict exactly what the value of one of these parameters will be at any
location. Hence these parameters are described as random variables. Thus the factor of safety F
which may be defined as the ratio of resisting forces or moments (RF) and disturbing forces or
moments (DF) are itself a random variable. Similarly the safety margin (SM) which may be
defined as the difference of RF and DF is also a random variable.

Defining reliability and failure probability

Reliability is the probability that a slope will be safe e.g., it will survive and not fail under given
conditions. It is, therefore, the probability of success P s which is the probability that the factor of
safety F greater than one or that the safety margin (SM) will be grater than zero e.g.:

Ps =P (F > 1) = P (SM > 0) (1.10)

The probability of failure Pf is complimentary to the probability of success and is defined by:

Pf = P (F  1) = P (SM  0) (1.11)

The probability of success of the reliability (Ps) is therefore complementing of Pf. Hence:

Ps = 1- Pf (1.12)

Provided that the probability distribution of either F or SM is known the reliability Ps can be
calculated as the areas under the probability distribution curve to the right of the ordinate at F = 1
or SM = 0. Similarly the probability of failure is the area to the left of the ordinate as shown in
Figure 1.10.

13
In the absence of data, an assumption about the probability distribution is made and the
calculated value Ps will depend on the choice of distribution (Chowdhury, 1984).

Figure 1.10 Definition of failure probability

In order to calculate the probability of failure, the probability density function of the
performance function is required. Thus it is recognized that the factor of safety (F) is not a single
value function. Its probability distribution may be characterized by means of at least two
statistical parameters, the mean value F and the standard deviation F.

Methods of probabilistic calculation

Three commonly used methods of probability calculation are:

 First Order Second Moment Method (FOSM)

 Point Estimate Method
 Monte Carlo Simulation Method
 Latin Hypercube Technique

One method commonly used by an engineer is the Monte Carlo simulation technique.
There are some software programs e.g. BestFit and @Risk, developed by the Palisade
Corporation (1996, 1997) which can be used for probability analysis.

1.3.3 Numerical modeling

Numerical modeling of slope deformation is now a routine activity on many large open pit mines
and programs such as FLAC and UDEC (details available from www.itascag.com) are generally
used for such modeling.

The advantages of numerical modeling over the equilibrium model is that this can be used to
model progressive failure and displacement as opposed to a simple factor of safety. This makes it
much more useful in managing ongoing slope displacement.

14