Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2808-2814
Geotec., Const. Mat. & Env., ISSN: 2186-2982(Print), 2186-2990(Online), Japan
1
Civil Engineering Department, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
ABSTRACT: The discontinuity of geological structure on tuff layer of rock slopes in Manado triggered a
phenomenon of rock slope instability. Mohr-Coulomb criterion which is commonly used as a method of
analysis is not suitable to solve the slope stability problem because this criterion does not consider the
condition of the geological structure as one of its factors. This paper analyzed the rock slope stability by
accommodate the condition of the geological structure using Hoek-Brown criterion. Geological structure
effect in Hoek-Brown criterion was realized in the form of GSI (Geological strength index). Poor geological
structure will reduce GSI. In this paper, GSI of tuff has been determined by discontinuities of mapping and
back analysis. The results from discontinuities mapping revealed that the rock structures were very blocky to
blocky and surface conditions were very poor to poor. GSI value ranges between 20-30. From back analysis
with shear strength reduction, GSI value was 20 and UCS value was 230 kN. The results are quite close with
the field observation.
Keywords: Hoek-Brown Criterion, Slope Stability, Rock Slope, Joint Set, Finite Element
2. GENERELIZED HOEK-BROWN
CRITERION 𝟏𝟏 𝟏𝟏 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮� 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐�
𝒂𝒂 = + �𝒆𝒆− 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 − 𝒆𝒆− 𝟑𝟑 � (4)
𝟐𝟐 𝟔𝟔
Since the geological structure in the field is
too complex, it is not an easy task for field
2808
International Journal of GEOMATE, Nov., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 27, pp. 2808-2814
GSI is the geological strength index and D is a In order to decrease the Generelizad Hoek-
disturbance factor and for equations σ and τ is Brown shear strength envelope by the factor F, we
described as follows, simply divide by F [2].
𝝈𝝈𝟑𝟑 𝒂𝒂−𝟏𝟏
𝝈𝝈 𝒂𝒂−𝟏𝟏 �𝟏𝟏 + 𝒂𝒂𝒎𝒎𝒃𝒃 �𝒎𝒎𝒃𝒃 + 𝒔𝒔�
�𝟏𝟏+𝒂𝒂𝒎𝒎𝒃𝒃 �𝒎𝒎𝒃𝒃 𝟑𝟑 +𝒔𝒔�
𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓
𝝉𝝉𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐 𝝈𝝈𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 𝟏𝟏
𝝈𝝈𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 𝝉𝝉 = = (𝝈𝝈𝟏𝟏 − 𝝈𝝈𝟑𝟑 ) 𝒂𝒂−𝟏𝟏 . 𝑭𝑭
𝝉𝝉 = (𝝈𝝈𝟏𝟏 − 𝝈𝝈𝟑𝟑 ) 𝝈𝝈 𝒂𝒂−𝟏𝟏 (5) 𝑭𝑭 𝝈𝝈𝟑𝟑
𝟐𝟐 + 𝒂𝒂𝒎𝒎𝒃𝒃 �𝒎𝒎𝒃𝒃 + 𝒔𝒔�
𝟐𝟐+𝒂𝒂𝒎𝒎𝒃𝒃 �𝒎𝒎𝒃𝒃 𝟑𝟑 +𝒔𝒔� 𝝈𝝈𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄
𝝈𝝈𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄
𝒂𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓−𝟏𝟏
�𝟏𝟏+𝒂𝒂𝒎𝒎𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 �𝒎𝒎𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝝈𝝈𝟑𝟑
𝒂𝒂−𝟏𝟏 𝒃𝒃 𝒃𝒃 𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 +𝒔𝒔𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 �
𝝈𝝈𝟑𝟑 𝝈𝝈𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄
𝟏𝟏 𝟏𝟏 𝒂𝒂𝒎𝒎𝒃𝒃 �𝒎𝒎𝒃𝒃
𝝈𝝈𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄
+𝒔𝒔� = (𝝈𝝈𝟏𝟏 − 𝝈𝝈𝟑𝟑 ) (7)
𝝈𝝈𝒏𝒏 = (𝝈𝝈𝟏𝟏 + 𝝈𝝈𝟑𝟑 ) − (𝝈𝝈𝟏𝟏 − 𝝈𝝈𝟑𝟑 ) 𝒂𝒂−𝟏𝟏 (6) 𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 𝝈𝝈𝟑𝟑
𝒂𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 −𝟏𝟏
𝟐𝟐 𝟐𝟐 𝝈𝝈 𝟐𝟐+𝒂𝒂𝒎𝒎𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 �
𝟐𝟐+𝒂𝒂𝒎𝒎𝒃𝒃�𝒎𝒎𝒃𝒃 𝟑𝟑 +𝒔𝒔� 𝒃𝒃 �𝒎𝒎𝒃𝒃 𝝈𝝈𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 +𝒔𝒔
𝝈𝝈𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄
4. SITE DESCRIPTION
2809
International Journal of GEOMATE, Nov., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 27, pp. 2808-2814
In the field, the rock/soil layer consists of Table 1 Discontinuity Condition in Rock Slide
following types of rocks (see Fig. 2): Area
(i) Tuff with brown colour and moderately
No Dips Dips Direction
weathered, in the upper side of slope.
1. 68o N60oE
(ii) Breccia with dark brown colour and 2. 64o N75oE
moderately weathered, below tuff layer. 3. 46o N170oE
4. 47o N122oE
(iii) Silty sand with brown colour and medium
5. 82o N230oE
dense on tuff and breccia layer.
6. 47o N209oE
Discontinuity conditions of tuff are illustrated 7. 21o N155oE
in Table 1 and Fig. 3. In Fig. 3, yellow line 8. 47o N84oE
showing discontinuity conditions. Joint spacing 9. 74o N283oE
approximately between 20 to 100 cm. In this 10. 59o N204oE
condition, rock is very blocky to blocky. The 11. 14o N110oE
condition of tuff surfaces was highly weathered. It
is very poor to poor. According to GSI table, the
value of GSI was 20 – 30 (See Table 2.).
2810
International Journal of GEOMATE, Nov., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 27, pp. 2808-2814
2811
International Journal of GEOMATE, Nov., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 27, pp. 2808-2814
2812
International Journal of GEOMATE, Nov., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 27, pp. 2808-2814
Figure 5 shows that UCS and GSI provide Table 5 Parameter of Tuff
significant effect in safety factor of rock slope Parameter Value
stability. UCS depends on rock types and GSI Compressive Strength 230 kPa
depends on geology structure condition in the field. GSI 20
Therefore, if the slope conditions in the field have Intact Rock Constant (mi) 13
experienced sliding, the value of the safety factor Young’s Modulus 913.4 MPa
is one. Based on Figure 5, in order to determine Poisson Ratio 0.3
the value of UCS and GSI, with safety factor equal Unit Weight 22 kN/m3
to 1, the UCS value was 230 kPa and the GSI
value was 20. As the UCS and GSI values are Analysis of Finite Element by using
determined, the result of Tuff parameters can be parameters of tuff from back analysis are
seen in Table 5. illustrated in Figure 6.
2813
International Journal of GEOMATE, Nov., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 27, pp. 2808-2814
Fig. 6 depicted a critical safety factor of rock [5] Kumar, P. , Shear failure envelope of Hoek-
slope stability obtained equal to 1.01 with total Brown criterion for rockmass. Tunnelling
displacement reached 0,7 cm at the top of slope. and Underground Space Technology, 13(4),
Failure of slope occurred at the tuff layer and for 1998, pp. 453–458.
breccias layer could be denoted relatively stable. [6] Mohammed, M., Wan, L., and Wei, Z.,
Slope stability analysis of Southern slope of
Chengmenshan copper mine, China.
6. CONCLUSION International Journal of Mining Science and
Technology, 25(2), 2015, pp 171–175.
(i) In analyzing the rock slope stability, the [7] Stead, D. and Wolter, A., A critical review of
Hoek-Brown strength criterion is more rock slope failure mechanisms: The
realistic that Mohr-Coulomb criterion because importance of structural geology. Journal of
the result is close to the condition in the field. Structural Geology, 2015.
The parameter of the GSI which analyses the [8] Rocscience Inc., Phase2 v6.0 – a two-
geological condition of the rocks provides dimensional finite element analysis program,
more reliable result, including the form of the 2005
fault, folds, and discontinuity. [9] Rocscience Inc., Slide v5.0 – a slope stability
(ii) Based on back analysis, when the safety factor program based on limit-equilibrium analysis,
equal to 1, the value of UCS is equal to 230 2003
kPa and GSI is equal to 20. [10] Wyllie, D.C., Mah, C.W., Rock Slope
Engineering: Civil and Mining (4th Ed.).996
7. REFERENCES Spon Press, New York., 2004
[11] Zhang, K., Cao, P., and Bao, R., Rigorous
[1] Fossen, H., Structural Geology. Cambridge back analysis of shear strength parameters of
University Press, Cambridge, 2010. landslide slip. Transactions of Nonferrous
[2] Hammah, R. E., Yacoub, T. E., and Corkum, Metals Society of China, 23(5), 2013, pp.
B. C.,The Shear Strength Reduction Method 1459–1464.
for the Generalized Hoek-Brown Criterion.
The 40th U.S. Symposium on Rock I International Journal of GEOMATE, Nov.,
Mechanics (USRMS): Rock Mechanics for 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 27, pp. 2808-2814.
Energy, Mineral and Infrastructure MS No. 605731 received on Feb. 07, 2016 and
Development in the Northern Regions, 2005. reviewed under GEOMATE publication policies.
[3] Hoek, E., Carter, T. G., and Diederichs, M. S. Copyright © 2016, Int. J. of GEOMATE. All
Quantification of the Geological Strength rights reserved, including the making of copies
Index Chart. 47th US Rock unless permission is obtained from the copyright
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, 2013. proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
[4] Hoek, E., and Corkum, B., El criterio de authors’ closure, if any, will be published in Nov.
rotura de Hoek-Brown – Edición 2002 Hoek- 2017 if the discussion is received by May 2017.
Brown failure criterion, 2002 Edition, (1), Corresponding Author: Rini Kusumawardani
1–8.
2814