Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
=
| |
|
|
\
(2)
In which the partial derivatives
'
*
g
x
i
| |
|
|
\
are
evaluated at the
( )
'* '*
, ...,
1
x x
n
.
Thus the minimum distance from the tangent
plane to the origin of the reduced variates is the
reliability index . This minimum distance to
the tangent plane on the failure surface is
determined through the Lagrange multiplier.
The computation procedure is summarized in
(Ang and Tang 1984). The other important
factor in this procedure is the computation of
direction cosines
i
as
1
2
1
_
2
i
i
n
k
g
z
i
g
z
=
| |
\
=
| |
| |
|
|
\
\
By considering that
*
i i
x = .
Clearly, Figure (1) illustrate that the point with
the minimum distance to the origin of the
reduced variates is the most probable failure
point.
Figure 1 Tangent Plane to g(x) = 0 at x*
(After Ang and Tang, 1984)
3. PROBABILISTIC MODELING OF
SLOPE BY UDEC
For the cases where rock mass is discontinuous
media, Distinct Element Modeling is one of the
most suitable approch. The Universal Distinct
Element Code (UDEC) which is a two-
dimensional numerical program based on the
distinct element method for discontinuum
modeling was used in this study.
A rock slope shown in figure (2) was
constructed in UDEC media, the slope has a
joint inclined 30
0
toward the out of slope, and
that the angel of slope itself is about 54
0
. It was
assumed that the rock material is in elastic stage
and will not yield; this assumption was done to
assess the reliability of rock slope easily, since,
if rock material falls in plastic it is also needed
to assess its reliability which will be more
complicated. Moreover, usually rock slope
stability problems involve low normal loads,
where rock mass usually behaves elastically.
The constitutive law was Mohr-Coulomb in the
numerical analysis.
The advantage of numerical modeling against
limit state modeling is that, it is possible to
formulate the process much realistic than limit
state modeling. For example, the Joint Shear
and Normal Stiffness are not considered in limit
state modeling, which were proved to have the
most controlling effect in joint behavior (Bandis
1990).
The first step in assessing the reliability is to
model the performance function, which was
assumed that when the sample reaches its peak
strength it is called failure. Thus it was tried to
consider the failure function a state in which the
rock joint had reached its peak value.
Barton (1972) described joint shear stiffness
(Ks) as the average gradient of the
shear stress-shear displacement curve for the
section of the curve below peak strength. Shear
stiffness can be estimated from direct shear
(3)
Figure 2 the geometry of rock slope
1
54
0
30 m
30
0
30 m
testing results, and its value depends on the size
of a sample tested and generally increases with
an increased in normal stress. Barton and
Choubey (1977) suggested the following
equation for the estimation of the peak shear
stiffness (MPa/m):
[ ]
R
n
n s
JCS
Log JRC
L
K
+
|
\
|
=
10
. tan . .
100
(4)
Where L is the joint length in meters,
n
is
normal stress acting on joint, JRC is joint
roughness coefficient, JCS is joint compressive
strength and
r
is the residual friction angle of a
joint. Barton and Bakhtar (1983) revealed that
the peak shear displacement is reached when
the joint has displaced 0.98% of its length. The
crack was assumed to have smooth surface, this
means the JRC value is zero, thus the above
equation can be rewritten as:
[ ]
R n s
L
K tan . .
100
= (5)
Joint length is 60 m,
r
is a random variable
and
n
was calculated by writing codes in
UDEC. The other joint parameter is Joint
Normal Stiffness. However, as the joint surface
is smooth, according to the applied joint normal
stiffness, it is estimated that there will not be
considerable movement in normal direction.
Then, it is considered almost fix. Thus, in pairs
of friction angle and cohesion the block
assumed to fail when it has displacement of
0.98% of its length. The random variables in
this study were joint friction angle and cohesion
of discontinuity, which were assumed to have
the normal distribution. Table (1) shows the
mean and standard deviation for both of
variables.
Table 1 the mean and STD for random variables
Standard Deviation Mean Min Max c.o.v
Cohesion (Pa) 3e4 12e4 2e4 18e4 0.25
Friction Angle 8.5
0
35
0
20
0
40
0
0.24
After a wide range of model running, figure
(3) shows the failure surface and also the safe
and non-safe regions.
Failure Surface
30
32
34
36
38
1.00E+04 6.00E+04 1.10E+05 1.60E+05 2.10E+05
Cohesion
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
Mean of cohesion
and friction angle
Safe Region
Unsafe Region
Figure 3 the failure surface
As can be seen in the figure (4) and figure (5)
the failure surfaces can be derived by curve
fitting through regression analysis. To have a
precise regression, the curve was divided into
two different domains then the relation of friction
angle and cohesion was derived for each domain.
The equations 6.1 and 6.2 show the failure
function derived by UDEC:
For 4 10 4 18 . 2 e x e (Figure 4)
( ) + =
95 . 36 0001 . 0 10 6
2 10
C C x g (6.1)
And for 4 18 4 10 e x e (Figure 5)
( ) + + =
59 . 32 10 5 10
6 2 11
C C x g (6.2)
Performance Function 1
y = 6E-10x
2
- 0.0001x + 36.946
R
2
= 0.9852
32
32.5
33
33.5
34
34.5
35
35.5
0.00E+00 5.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.50E+05 2.00E+05
Cohesion
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
g
l
e
Figure 4 the failure function for domain 1
Performance Function 2
y = -1E-11x
2
+ 5E-06x + 32.594
R
2
= 0.9841
32.95
33
33.05
33.1
33.15
33.2
0.00E+00 5.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.50E+05 2.00E+05
Cohesion
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
g
l
e
Figure 5 the failure function for domain 2
By applying the FORM to the derived equations
the design point or the closest point on the failure
surface from mean of random variable is
(C=12e4, = 33.18) and the reliability index is
0.235.
The variability of pairs of random variables on
the failure surface was calculated, where c.o.v.
for is 0.02 and for C is 0.51.
4. PROBABILISTIC MODELING OF THE
SLOPE BY LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM METHOD
Figure (2) shows the geometry of a slope which
was studied. The, first step in probabilistic limit
equilibrium analysis is to define the performance
function. The usual method to model the
performance of a rock slope is to use the limit
state equation. Most of the researches have used
this method to define the performance function.
It is generally defined as given in Eq. 4. (Duzgun,
1994):
( ) g x R D
f f
= (7)
Then, for a rock slope lying on a crack:
( ) ( )
p p
p p
Cos V Sin W
Sin V U Cos W cA x g
+ =
tan
(8)
Where,
= W Weight of the sliding block (ton/m)
= V Force due to water pressure in the
tension crack (ton/m)
= U Uplift force due to pressure on the
sliding surface (ton/m)
=
f
Dip of slope face (radians)
=
p
Dip of discontinuity plane (radians)
= Base area of the sliding block (m
2
/m)
= c Cohesion (ton/m
2
)
= Friction angle
The same random variables in table (1) were
also used in this formulation. For computation
of the RocPlane software and spreadsheet by
Fadlemula (2007) were utilized. The computed
probability of failure is zero, since there is no
pair of friction angle and cohesion in domain by
which the slope fails and the corresponding is
3.57.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The stability of a rock slope potential to slide
was studied in this article. Joints are playing
important roles in controlling the slide of a rock
blocks. Joints shear stiffness is an important
parameter which is not considered in limit
equilibrium method, thus a factor which affects
the shearing of a rock joint is not taken into
account in computations. Thus, it seems that
analyzing the rock slopes stability without
considering this parameter may produce errors
in designs.
In this article, a rock block sliding on a joint
plane was modeled by both limit equilibrium
and distinct element methods. Comparison of
the results between the two methods revealed
the importance of the way a rock slope is
modeled. For limit equilibrium method
RocPlane software and a spreadsheet provided
by Fadlemula (2007) were used, the analysis
show that for the given random variables in
table (1), the slope in figure (1) never will fail
and the probability of failure is zero and the
corresponding reliability index is 3.57.
However, results obtained form UDEC proves
that the rock slope has a critical circumstance
which may be considered as a failing structure.
The reliability index has been calculated as
0.235 which is showing a low safety.
This difference mainly comes from the fact
that the limit equilibrium modeling does not pay
attention to the facts of rock joints shear
behavior like joint shear stiffness. Also, there
are some differences between the calculated
normal stress by numerical modeling and limit
equilibrium method which affects the shearing
phenomena.
By considering the fact that numerical methods
are more reliable than limit equilibrium ones, it
can be concluded that for more reliable designs
the engineers should combine the probabilistic
method by numerical modeling.
REFERENCES
Ang, A.H.S., and Tang, W.H., (1984). "Probability
Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design" Vol.2.
Decision, risk, and reliability. John Wiley and Sons.
Bandis, S.C. (1990). "Mechanical properties of rock
joints" in Proceeding of the international symposium
on rock joints, Loen, Norway, 4-6 June: 125-140.
Barton, N: (1972). "A model study of rock-joint
deformation" Int. J Rock Mech. Min Sci. Geomech.
Abstr. (9): 579602.
Barton N.and V. Choubey, (1977). "The shear
strength of rock joints in theory and practice" Rock
Mech. (10): 154.
Duzgun HSB, Bhasin RK. (2008). "Probabilistic
stability evaluation of Oppstadhornet rock slope"
Norway, Rock Mech. Rock Eng doi: 10.1007/s00603-
008-0011-3.
Duzgun, H. S. B., Bozdag, T. and
Pasamehmetoglu, A.G., (1995). "A Reliability
Approach to Wedge Stability Analysis" Proc. of 8th
ISRM Congress: 389-392.
Duzgun, H. S. B., (1994). "Plane failure analysis of
rock slopes: A Reliability Approach" M.Sc. Thesis,
Middle East Technical University, Turkey.
Fadlelmula, M. M (2007). Probabilistic Modeling of
Failure in Rock Slopes M.Sc. Thesis, Middle East
Technical University, Turkey.
Hasofer, A.M. and Lind, N.C., (1974). "Exact and
invariant second-moment code format" J.Engrg.
Mech., ASCE, 100(1):111-121.
Jimenez-Rodriguez, R., Sitar, N., and Chacon, J.,
(2006). "System reliability approach to rock slope
stability" Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43 (6):847859.
Jimenez-Rodriguez R, Sitar N. (2007). "Rock wedge
stability analysis using system reliability methods"
Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 40(4):41927.
Low, B. K., (1997). "Reliability analysis of rock
wedges J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng. 123
(6):498505.
Park, H.J., West, T.R., (2001). "Development of a
probabilistic approach for rock wedge failure Eng.
Geol. (59): 233 251.
Shinozuka, M., (1983). "Basic Analysis of Structural
Safety" J. of Structural Division, ASCE (3): 109.