ROCK SLOPE

TECHNOLOGY

ASSIGNMENT 01

SUBMITTED BY
SUBHAMOY GHOSH
219MN1410
DEPT. OF MINING ENGG.
NIT, ROURKELA
(Q.1) Discuss in detail the field data necessary for geotechnical modelling of rock
slope design.

Ans:

The design of rock cuts is often an iterative process that proceeds from initial
reconnaissance, through preliminary and final design followed by construction. This
process involves progressively collecting more detailed design data, specific to the site
conditions and needs of the project. Typically, the three stages of a complete
investigation are as follows:

 Reconnaissance: examination of published geological maps and reports, study

of air photographs, gathering of local experience, field visits to examine, if
possible, the performance of existing slopes in similar geological conditions,
and geophysics studies if outcrops are limited
 Route selection/preliminary pit slope design: if the project involves the
evaluation of alternative routes, limited investigations could be carried out of
each route comprising outcrop mapping, geophysics to find overburden
thickness and index tests of rock properties. For an open pit mine, there will
usually be considerable geological information on the property generated
during the exploration program. This will often include mapping, geophysics
and drilling from which geotechnical data can be obtained. It is beneficial to
the design of the pit slopes if geotechnical data can be collected as part of the
exploration program.
 Detailed investigations: final design would usually require detailed mapping of
outcrops and existing cuts to study structural geology, test pits to obtain
information on overburden thickness and properties, and diamond drilling to
investigate rock conditions at depth. Components of the drilling could include
core orientation to obtain structural geology information, and installation of
piezometers to measure ground water levels, and possibly measure
permeability. Rock strength testing could comprise laboratory testing of drill
core to determine the friction angle of discontinuities, uniaxial compression
strength tests and slake durability tests.

The only general rule that applies to investigation for rock slope design is that
information is required on geology, rock strength and ground water. Few of the design
parameters are discussed as below:

 Rock type —The rock type is defined by the origin of the rock (i.e.
sedimentary, metamorphic or igneous), the mineralogy, the colour and grain
size (Deere and Miller, 1966). The importance of defining the rock type is that
there is wide experience in the performance of different rock types (e.g. granite
is usually stronger and more massive than shale), and this information provides
a useful guideline on the likely behaviour of the rock.
 Discontinuity type—Discontinuity types range from clean tension joints of
limited length to faults containing several meters thickness of clay gouge and
 lengths of many kilometres, the shear strength of such discontinuities will be
very different.
 Discontinuity orientation—The orientation of discontinuities is expressed as
the dip and dip direction (or strike) of the surface. The dip of the plane is the
maximum angle of the plane to the horizontal (angle ψ), while the dip direction
is the direction of the horizontal trace of the line of dip, measured clockwise
from north, indicated by angle α.
 Spacing—Discontinuity spacing can be mapped in rock faces and in drill core,
with the true spacing being calculated from the apparent spacing for
discontinuities inclined to the face; spacing categories range from extremely
wide (>2m) to very narrow (<6 mm). Measurement of discontinuity spacing of
each set of discontinuities will define the size and shape of blocks and give an
indication of stability modes such as toppling failure. Also, the rock mass
strength is related to spacing because in closely fractured rock the individual
discontinuities will more readily join to form a continuous zone of weakness.
 Persistence—Persistence is the measure of the continuous length or area of the
discontinuity; persistence categories range from very high (>20 m) to very low
(<1 m). This parameter defines the size of blocks and the length of potential
sliding surfaces, so the mapping should concentrate on measuring the
persistence of the set of discontinuities that will have the greatest influence on
stability.
 Roughness—The roughness of a discontinuity surface is often an important
component of the shear strength, especially where the discontinuity is
undisplaced and interlocked. Roughness becomes less important where the
discontinuity is infilled, or displaced and interlock is lost. Roughness should be
measured in the field on exposed surfaces with lengths of at least 2m. The
degree of roughness can be quantified in terms of the i◦ value, which is a
measure of the inclination of the irregularities (or asperities) on the surface.
The total friction angle of a rough surface is (φ + i). Values for i can be
determined either by direct measurement of the surface, or by comparing the
surface with standard profiles of irregular joint surfaces.
 Wall strength—The strength of the rock forming the walls of discontinuities
will influence the shear strength of rough surfaces. Where high stresses,
compared to the wall strength, are generated at local contact points during
shearing, the asperities will be sheared off resulting in a reduction of the
roughness component of the friction angle. In the initial stages of weathering,
there is often a reduction in rock strength on the discontinuity surfaces that may
result in a diminished roughness value. It is usually adequate to estimate the
compressive strength from the simple field tests or if core or lump samples are
available, by carrying out point load tests. The Schmidt hammer test is also a
method of estimating the compressive strength of rock at discontinuity
surfaces.
 Weathering—Reduction of rock strength due to weathering will reduce the
shear strength of discontinuities as described in (G). Weathering will also
reduce the shear strength of the rock mass due to the diminished strength of the
intact rock. Weathering categories range from fresh rock to residual soil.
 Weathering of rock takes the form of both disintegration and decomposition.
Disintegration is the result of environmental conditions such as wetting and
drying, freezing and thawing that break down the exposed surface layer.
Disintegration is most prevalent in sedimentary rocks such as sandstones and
shales, particularly if they contain swelling clays, and in metamorphic rocks
with a high mica content. Decomposition weathering refers to changes in rock
produced by chemical agents such as oxidation (e.g. yellow discoloration in
rock containing iron), hydration(e.g. decomposition of feldspar in granite to
kaolinite clay) and carbonation(e.g. solution of limestone).
 Aperture—Aperture is the perpendicular distance separating the adjacent rock
walls of an open discontinuity, in which the intervening space is air or water
filled; categories of aperture range from cavernous (>1 m), to very tight (<0.1
mm). It is important in predicting the likely behaviour of the rock mass, such as
hydraulic conductivity and deformation under stress changes, to understand the
reason that open discontinuities develop. Possible causes include scouring of
infillings, solution of the rock forming the walls of a discontinuity, shear
displacement and dilation of rough discontinuities, tension features at the head
of landslides and relaxation of steep valley walls following glacial retreat or
erosion. Aperture may be measured in outcrops or tunnels provided that
extreme care is taken to discount any blast-induced open discontinuities, in drill
core if recovery is excellent, and in boreholes using a borehole camera if the
walls of the hole are clean.
 Infilling/width—Infilling is the term for material separating the adjacent walls
of discontinuities, such as calcite or fault gouge; the perpendicular distance
between the adjacent rock walls is termed the width of the filled discontinuity.
A complete description of filling material is required to predict the behaviour
of the discontinuity include the following: mineralogy, particle size, over-
consolidation ratio, water content/ conductivity, wall roughness, width and
fracturing/crushing of the wall rock. If the filling is likely to be a potential
sliding surface in the slope, samples of the material (undisturbed if possible)
should be collected for shear testing.
 Seepage—The location of seepage from discontinuities provides information
on aperture because ground water flow is confined almost entirely in the
discontinuities (secondary permeability); seepage categories range from very
tight and dry to continuous flow that can scour infillings. These observations
will also indicate the position of the water table, or water tables in the case of
rock masses containing alternating layers of low and high conductivity rock
such as shale and sandstone respectively. In dry climates, the evaporation rate
may exceed the seepage rate and it may be difficult to observe seepage
locations. In cold weather, icicles provide a good indication of even very low
seepage rates. The flow quantities will also help anticipate conditions during
construction such as flooding and pumping requirements of excavations.
 Number of sets—The number of sets of discontinuities that intersect one
another will influence the extent to which the rock mass can deform without
failure of the intact rock. As the number of discontinuity sets increases and the
block size diminishes, the greater the opportunity for blocks to rotate, translate
 and crush under applied loads. Mapping should distinguish between systematic
discontinuities that are members of a set and random discontinuities, the
orientation of which are less predictable.
 Block size/shape—The block size and shape are determined by the
discontinuity spacing and persistence, and the number of sets. Block shapes
include blocky, tabular, shattered and columnar, while block size ranges from
very large (>8m3) to very small (<0.0002m3). The block size can be estimated
by selecting several typical blocks and measuring their average dimensions.

(Q.2) Define the term 'Structural Modelling' with reference to rock slope
technology and describe its different attributes in detail.

Ans:
Structural Modelling forms a part of structural mechanics, which is a simplified
representation of a structure used for design purposes. Several types of structural
models are developed in accordance to the basic hypotheses underlying the design and
the mathematical apparatus employed in the design process. The more exact a
structural model corresponds to the actual structure, the more laborious are the
calculations involved in it. Availability of a computer model is a major factor which
determines the selection of any structural model.
Many techniques and methods to analyse slope stability have been developed.
The limit equilibrium methods are most often used by researchers and engineers. The
application of FEM in geotechnical analysis has become increasingly common, as
computer performance has improved.

Some of the models for slope stability analysis and strength reduction purposes
are as discussed below:
For slope stability analysis, the (LEM) is widely used by researchers and
engineers conducting slope stability analysis, because these are traditional and well
established. The most common limit equilibrium techniques are methods of slices,
such as the ordinary method of slices. The slice methods have some common features
that have been summarized as follows:
 The surface of the sliding body is divided into a finite number of slices, this
slices are usually vertical cut.
 The strength of the slip surface is mobilized to the same degree to bring the
sliding body into a limit state. It means there is only a single factor of safety
which is applied throughout the whole failure mass.
 The safety factor is calculated from force and/or moment equilibrium
equations.
 The definition of the Factor of Safety (FS) is the same for all these methods,
factor of safety is commonly used to quantify the safety level of a slope is
defined as follows:
 Shear strength of soil
FS =
Shear stress required for rquillibrium

Some of the methods are as described below:

 Finite Element Method:

Among the continuum methods, the Finite Element Method (FEM) is largely
used to analyse the solid and structural mechanics. The numerical methods, and in
particular the finite element method (FEM), has developed rapidly and become
increasingly popular for the slope stability analysis. Generally, there are two
approaches using the finite element method to analyse slope stability. One approach is
to increase the load of gravity and the second approach is to reduce the strength
characteristics. Generally, two major tasks coupled in the slope stability analysis: the
computation of the factor of safety and the location of the critical slip surface. The
definition of the factor of safety is not unique. The technique of strength reduction
(SRM) is typically applied to calculate the factor of safety by progressively reducing
or increasing the shear strength of the material to bring the slope to a state of limiting
equilibrium. In recent years, there have been various developments in the strength
reduction method (SRM) for slope stability analysis. The technique is also adopted in
several well-known commercial geotechnical finite element programs.

 Limit Analysis Method:

The limit theorems provide a simple and useful way of analyzing the stability
of geotechnical structures. This method is a powerful mathematical tool that provides
rigorous lower and upper bounds to the exact stability factor in slope stability
problems. The soil is assumed to deform plastically according to the normality rule
associated with the Coulomb yield condition. The applied of this method started by
Drucker and Prager [29] to analysis slope stability undergoing plane strain failure,
with rotational and translational failure mechanisms. The method of limit analysis is
based on two theorems:
 The lower bound theorem, which states that any statically admissible
stress field will provide a lower bound estimate of the true collapse;
 The upper bound theorem, which states that when the power dissipated
by any kinematically admissible velocity field is equated with the power
dissipated by the external loads, then the external loads are upper
bounds on the true collapse load.
Criterions:

Three criterions briefly as stated by Mohr–Coulomb, Hoek-Brown and

Drucker-Prager Failure Criterion are as discussed:

 Mohr–Coulomb Failure Criterion:

The Mohr-Coulomb criterion is the most common failure criterion encountered

in geotechnical engineering. Many geotechnical methods and programs require use of
this strength model. The Mohr-Coulomb criterion describes a linear relationship
between normal and shear stresses (or maximum and minimum principal stresses) at
failure. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion can be written as the equation for the line
that represents the failure envelope given by:

Where is shear stress; is normal stress; is the cohesive strength, and is the internal
friction angle. The failure criterion can be expressed in terms of the relationship
between the principal stresses. From the geometry of the Mohr circle. The Mohr-
Coulomb criterion for triaxial data is given by the following equation:

 Hoek-Brown Criterion:

Currently, the Hoek-Brown (HB) criterion is one or the most broadly adopted
failure criteria to estimate rock mass strength in rock engineering. Over the past
many years, the HB criterion has been applied successfully to a wide range of
intact and fractured rock types. The equations are expressed as follows:

Where,
and are the major and minor principal stresses respectively, and is Geological
Strength Index, is uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock [kPa], is a
reduced value of the material constant and is given by the equations is intact rock
parameter, is Disturbance factor.
  Equivalent Mohr–Coulomb Parameters for Hoek-Brown Criterion:

The most geotechnical design calculations are performed with using the
Mohr‐Coulomb criterion, it is often necessary to calculate equivalent rock mass
friction angles and cohesive strengths from the Hoek‐Brown parameters. Where
Mohr‐Coulomb parameters are required, the fitting of the linear Mohr‐Coulomb
envelope to the non‐linear Hoek‐Brown envelope results in the following equations
for friction angle and cohesive strength:

Where,
σ3n = σ3,max / σci . The value of σ3,max represents the upper limit of confining
stress over which the relationship between the Hoek‐Brown and Mohr‐Coulomb
failure envelopes is considered. A best fit of the Mohr-Coulomb line in the interval
between - σt ≤ - σ3 ≤ σ3,max leads to the Mohr-Coulomb parameters (φ, c ).
The shear strength parameters of the equivalent MC generalized can be
calculated by locating the tangent of HB envelope with the specified normal stress σn ,
as showed in the figure below the slope of the tangent to the HB failure envelope
gives angle of friction φ and the cohesion c given by the intercept with the shear stress
axis.

(a) Normal and shear stresses for the HB criterion, (b) Major and minor
principal stresses for the HB criterion
  Drucker-Prager Failure Criterion:

The Drucker-Prager criterion was suggested by Drucker and Prager in 1952. It

is used to predict failure strength and be employed for plastic potential in continuum
damage mechanic model. The advantages of the Drucker–Prager criterion are its
simplicity and its smooth and, with the exception of some of the modified criteria,
symmetric failure surface in the stress-space, which facilitate its implementation into
numerical codes. The Drucker-Prager yield function is given by:

Where, The strength parameters of the Drucker-Prager model are, Friction coefficient
M ; Cohesion C [kPa].

 Equivalent Mohr–Coulomb Parameters for Drucker- Prager Criterion:

The Drucker-Prager and Mohr-Coulomb surfaces can be matched in plane

strain, (associated flow rule), by the parameters:

The equivalent and are given as function of φ and in functions, where φ and c
are the Mohr-Coulomb parameters. In analyses using an associated flow rule, the
Drucker-Prager model with the equivalent Mohr-Coulomb parameters will produce
results identical to the Mohr-Coulomb model. However, in elastoplastic calculations,
the Drucker-Prager model will lead to a slightly less stiff response than the Mohr-
Coulomb model.

Drucker-Prager cone and corresponding to Mohr-coulomb criterion in plane strain “associated flow
rule”.
  Numerical Example:

In this application, the Mohr-Coulomb, Hoek–Brown, and Drucker-Prager

criterion, were used to the slope stability analysis, these failure criterions are
commonly used to assess the strength slope stability. The slope is considered as
shown in the figure below. The results of the criterions are compared. Slope has a
single layer, 14 m high and 33 m long, shown in the figure below.

The physical and mechanical properties of the slope by the three criterions parameters
are presented as below:

 Results of the numerical example taken:

The results are presented in the following figures:

The failure surface by Mohr-Coulomb criterion

The previous figure shows that the failure surface in the slope analyzed by the
equivalent Mohr-Coulomb criterion. The factor of safety value obtained from SSR
analysis of this slope is FS=1.022, and it is noticed that this slope is unstable.

The displacement increments and mesh deformation by Mohr-Coulomb

criterion.
The above figure shows that there are areas of displacement increments and mesh
deformation of slope by the equivalent Mohr-Coulomb criterion, through strength
reduction method calculation.

The above figure shows that the mesh of failure surface of our slope, analyzed by
Hoek-Brown criterion, the factor of safety value obtained by SSR analysis of this
slope is FS = 1.766, the safety factor has indicated that the slope is stable.

The above figure presents the shape of displacement and slope deformation for the
Hoek-Brown criterion. The results obtained indicate many points; such as the factor of
safety by Hoek-Brown criterion is upper than the factor of safety by Mohr-Coulomb
criterion. In addition, the sliding surface of slope by the Hoek-Brown is larger than
failure surface in the slope analyzed by the equivalent Mohr-Coulomb criterion.
The above figure shows that the mesh of failure surface of theslope, analyzed by
Drucker-Prager criterion equivalent of Mohr-Coulomb, the factor of safety value
obtained by SSR analysis of this slope is FS = 1.018, it is noticed that this slope is
unstable.

The above figure presents the shape of displacement for the Drucker-Prager criterion
using the technique of shear strength reduction. The results of safety factor obtained
by Mohr-Coulomb is similar to equivalent Drucker-Prager, the safety factors have
indicated that the slope is unstable. In addition, the sliding surface of the slope by
Mohr-Coulomb criterion is the same as, surface in the slope analyzed by the
equivalent Drucker-Prager criterion.

(Q.3) Discus the information necessary to develop Rock Mass Model for rock
slope design.

Ans:

The information necessary to develop Rock Mass Model for rock slope design
is explained below with reference to the data and information collected from certain
mines and civil engineering projects in Iran. They are as follows:

 Data Collection:

By selecting the base classification system, some information and field data
were collected from 10 mines and civil engineering projects in IRAN. The locations of
these sites are as shown below:
  Stability Analysis:

In the next stage the GSI values in the selected rock slopes are determined. By
using Hoek- Brown failure criterion, the rock mass shear strength is calculated. In this
analysis, the final geometry of the 8 selected sites, as well as their geotechnical
conditions and their excavation methods, have been considered. Quantification of each
excavation method in the analysis was done by assigning the evaluated disturbance
factors during rock mass shear strength determination and some back analysis results.
The wide range of geotechnical and geometrical parameters of the studied sites were
very useful in proposing a new classification system. The stability analysis of the
mentioned slope sites have been undertaken by means of CLARA scientific software,
which is a suitable tool for analysis the stability of crushed rock masses.

 Sensitivity Analysis

Regarding the parameters which influenced the stability of the jointed rock
masses, besides the discontinuities condition, reflected by the GSI value, five more
parameters have been considered in this case. The sensitivity analysis, therefore, have
been undertaken by taking into account different values of the following parameters:

 Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock:

Regarding the obvious role of the rock material strength on stability of rock
masses, the uniaxial compressive strength has been considered as one of the rock mass
parameters in new classification system.

 Rock type (Lithology):

Geotechnical investigations and stability analyses results show that the

variation of mi in Hoek- Brown failure criterion, which is approximately equivalent to
the friction angle of intact rock, has considerable effect on stability of rock slopes. Dry
unit weight of intact rock is the other parameter of rock material that by changing the
weight of failure zone can change the stability of jointed rock slopes. These two
parameters are considered in terms of rock type (lithology).

 Slope excavation method:

As the slope excavation method has considerable effect on the stability of rock
slopes, disturbance factor ( df ), which has been specified for each method of slope
excavation, as an adjustment factor, ranging from 0.8 to 1.0, has been considered in
this study and also generally.

 Groundwater condition:

The Groundwater rating is an integral part of the any rock mass classification
and should be assigned for each particular slope. The main problem of water in slopes
is the pressures of water in discontinuities, which reduce the stability of slopes by
reducing the strength of discontinuity surfaces. Thus this factor is considered as an
adverse effecting parameter in the sensitivity analysis. The water pressure is taken into
account by changing the position of groundwater table in each slope.

Rock groups defined for slope stability purposes

 Earthquake force:

It is not advisable to ignore the effect of earthquake force on the stability of

earth slopes. So, in the stability analysis by the CLARA software, the pseudo-static
analysis was carried out ( in this case example) by taking into account the horizontal
acceleration values of the ground. The ground acceleration values taken into account
in the sensitivity analyses lie in the range of 0.15g to 0.35g.
 Weighing results of UCS parameter in the base of GSI values

Disturbance factor for each excavation method

 Weighting different parameters:

In order to assign certain weights for the selected parameters into the new
rating system, the GSI system is used as a standard criterion. For the purpose of
weighting the above parameters, a series of sensitivity analyses were performed in this
case example, each time all but one of the parameters were kept constant, and the
results were reviewed in the stability analysis. Then every analysis was iterated by
back analyzing and changing the GSI values of rock masses. Where, the safety factors
which had been achieved by the previous sensitivity analysis were created again. This
enabled to reflect the changing the above five parameters by the GSI value. By
sensitivity analysis in two stages, changing the value of each five parameters can be
compensated by manipulating the GSI values. In order to compare the relative weight
of each parameter in the studied cases, the collected data were calibrated and changed
into absolute values. Where, regarding the relative values of each parameter, the
lowest GSI value is taken as a base and reduced to absolute zero value. By subtracting
the minimum GSI value from the other ones the relative calibrated GSI value was
obtained.
 As an example with reference to this study, the weighting results for Uniaxial
Compressive Strength parameter performed by this method are used as base weights
of the new rating system. By applying statistical methods to the 8 input values, from 8
studied rock slope cases, their mean value was determined. In this regard, concerning
the number of input values, the statistical index of median which is less influenced by
the abnormal members of the society, was applied for the statistical calculations.

 The proposed rock mass classification system:

By determining the rating values of the selected parameters, the new rock mass
classification system, “Slope Stability Rating “(SSR) has been developed. The SSR
values of rock mass can be determined by summing the rating value of all the
parameters.

Rock mass classification with SSR (Slope Stability Rating) system for preliminary evaluation of
slope stability

 Slope Design charts based on SSR:

To provide a useful tool for preliminary design of rock slopes, it is necessary to

facilitate applying the SSR value of rock mass. For this purpose based on the studied
slopes, several rock slopes were assumed with the height ranging from 25 to 400
meters and the slope face angle from 30 to 70 degrees. Different discontinuity and
intact rock properties, slope excavation method and environmental characteristics such
as groundwater and earthquake force were considered. The safety factors of the slopes
with different SSR values were calculated by means of CLARA software. In order to
control the accuracy of the prepared design charts, the SSR value was determined for
each of the studied slopes, with various geometry and safety factors, as well. These
charts provide the relationships between the safe slope angle versus slope height, at
safety factors F.S=1.2, 1.3 & 1.5, regarding the SSR value of the rock masses.
References:

 Wyllie, Duncan C, Rock Slope Engineering, Spon Press, Taylor and Francis
Group, London and New York, 4th edition, pp. 46-48

 Analyzing of Slope Stability by Difference Model of Behavior by Abdelmadjid

Berga, Taleb Hosni Abderrahmane, Asian Engineering Review, Vol 3, No. 1,
2016, pp.1-9

 Modified Rock Mass Classification System For Preliminary Design Of Rock

Slope by Abbas Taheri, Ali Taheri, K. Tani, Conference paper/ResearchGate,
November-2006