GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

254

Rock Slope Stability Modeling

O. Pekin1, PhD, PE, GE, M. ASCE
1

Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., 111 Academy, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92617;
PH (949) 752-5452; email: pekino@cdm.com

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 09/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT
Step-path slope failures in jointed bedrock are analyzed using the PCSTABL
slope stability computer program. The model simulates bedrock as anistropic material
with variable discontinuity lengths. Discontinuity lengths are varied by adjusting the
number of boxes used in the BLOCK search routine. Bedrock discontinuity
information is based on visual examination of rock cores and acoustic televiewer data.
Anistropic strength parameters are obtained from direct shear testing of rock samples.
Results provide an understanding of how slope factor of safety varies with slope
direction and discontinuity length. The analysis methods are applied to a proposed
400-foot deep quarry in Central California. Slope stability evaluation is especially
important in this case because a steep slope is desired for improved production, but the
pit is located close to a highway and a canal.
INTRODUCTION
CDM provided geotechnical engineering services for a proposed crushed rock
and aggregate quarry in Central California. The quarry is planned to be 122 m (400 ft)
deep at completion. Due to the close proximity to a highway and a canal, slope
stability evaluation has been an important consideration. The general layout of the
proposed pit is shown in Figure 1.
CDMs geotechnical evaluation included review of over 2,743 m (9,000 LF) of
rock core data, performing acoustic televiewer investigations, laboratory testing,
stereonet evaluations, numerical slope stability analysis, and developing preliminary
recommendations for risk management. CDM utilized a unique computer slope
stability analysis method to evaluate the potential step-path slope failures in jointed
granitic rocks at the site. Based on this analysis and other evaluations, potentially
higher risk areas were identified and recommendations were developed. This paper
presents the quantitative numerical analysis approach used in this projects slope
stability evaluation.
METHODOLOGY
Commercially available slope stability programs provide the geotechnical
engineer with an efficient tool to seek the most critical failure shape corresponding to a
set of user-defined constraints. The program does not give the answer for the stability
of a slope. Rather, it gives the factor of safety (FS) for a specific question the user
asks by setting up the model a certain way. For example, the geotechnical engineer
may ask: What is the FS for the most critical of all possible failures passing through
certain regions inside the slope? The path of least resistance is generally not
prescribed, but instead, the slope stability program searches for the least safe failure
shape out of many possible ones.

GeoFlorida 2010

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

255

180

120

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 09/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

270

Televiewer
Stereonet of
North Slope

300

270
70
300

Generalized Layer Thicknesses in the

Upper 122 m (400 ft) [% of total depth]:
Sedimentary Weathered Fresh
A

2%

8%

90%

2%

29%

69%

14%

14%

72%

37%

3%

60%

21%

33%

46%

20

Televiewer
Stereonet of
South Slope 270

Limits of Subsurface Stratification Type

Limits of Slope Orientation Sector

Figure 1. Pit Layout

Commonly available search routines incorporate circular, block, or random
shapes. Of these, the block search is of specific interest for this application. When
analyzing soil slopes, the block search routine is generally used for a sliding block of
soil, such as a landslide mass sliding on a weak clay layer. Boxes at the ends of the
straight-line portion define how the end points are picked. The program would pick a
point anywhere within the first box and connect it to anywhere within the second box.
Other combinations of points within the same two boxes would then be tried and the
most critical combination would be identified.
Slope failure in hard rock can consist of step-path type failures which are made
of many more broken lines than a typical block failure in soil slopes. Fracture models
such as FracMan or the Chicken Scratch Fracture Model as discussed in Hustrlid et. al.
(2000, pp.21-22) are attempts to model such complicated failure patterns by using
probabilistic approach but these are generally specialized programs, with limited
commercial availability and they have various limitations.
It is possible to model a step-path failure in rock if numerous boxes can be used
to define a highly irregular failure shape within a conventional slope stability analysis
software. Commercially available slope stability programs limit how many boxes can
be used to define the failure surface. Some are limited to two boxes since this generally
suffices for soil slope stability problems. The PCSTABL program (Van Aller, 2007)
allows up to 10 boxes to prescribe an irregular surface and therefore has been used for
this analysis. To search for irregular but realistic failure shapes, the program is allowed
2

GeoFlorida 2010

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

256

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 09/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to search for a path between the bottom and the top of the slope which passes through
successive boxes inside the slope.
The force needed to shear along a joint versus to shear across an intact piece of
rock can easily vary by a thousand fold. Therefore, in the modeling process the
proportioning of these two components would alter the estimated FS drastically. If a
failure between the top and bottom of a 122 m (400 ft) slope is assumed to go through
a joint for 100 percent of its path, a failure condition may be predicted where one may
not really exist. If, on the other hand, the failure path is assumed to go through intact
rock for 100 percent of its length, a misleadingly high FS could be estimated. Either
case is undesirable. While smaller failures can occur entirely along a single joint, the
gross failure of a 122 m (400 ft) rock slope would almost always involve a path going
through some combination of joints as well as intact pieces.
A failure path would tend to follow low strength joint orientations as much as it
can, but it may also have to cut through occasional intact rock to satisfy the geometric
constraints. If a reasonable path can be found that would go through joints for the
entire path, the FS would be lower. By controlling the length of uninterrupted, straightshot failure segments, one can quantify how the FS varies when realistic interruptions
are introduced. This approach of using a readily available soil slope stability program
to evaluate step-path failures in hard rock slopes is considered to be a reasonable and a
novel approach.
The most critical surface would go through the path of least resistance as
dictated by:
1. The subsurface stratigraphy;
2. The anisotropic strength values assigned to each strata;
3. The anisotropy directions based on geologic data and slope orientations around
the pit perimeter; and
4. The number and placement of boxes used in the search routine.
The rationale for how values are assigned to each of the above-listed variables
is explained in the following section. Other factors such as variations in the slope
geometry, groundwater levels and seismic conditions would influence the calculated
FS, but they are not the subject of this paper. Also, a stereomap analysis of the pit
perimeter slopes have been performed using methods described by Hoek and Bray
(1981) but it is not included in this paper.
CONSTRUCTING THE DESIGN VARIABLES
The slope geometry used throughout the analysis is 122 m (400 ft) high, made
up of 1h:2v bench slope faces, 12.2 m (40 ft) bench heights, and 6.1 m (20 ft) bench
widths. This configuration results in an approximate overall slope of 1h: 1v, consistent
with the preliminary mine plan proposed for the project. The haul road was not
included in the gross slope stability analysis. This is a conservative approach since the
overall slope angle would be flatter if the haul road were to be included.
Establishing Subsurface Stratigraphy
For slope stability analysis purposes, subsurface materials at the site have been
divided into three categories: Cenozoic deposits (alluvium, siltstone, and sandstone),
3

GeoFlorida 2010

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

257

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 09/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

weathered bedrock (tonalite), and fresh bedrock (tonalite). Representative conditions

for slope stability analysis were established based on a three dimensional evaluation of
available subsurface data. Five generalized subsurface stratification types (A through
E) were recognized around the pit perimeter as listed in Figure 1, where strata depths
for each case is expressed in percentages of total depth.
Establishing Anisotropic Strength Values
Selected rock core samples were tested to obtain anisotropic strength
parameters. Laboratory tests consisted of direct shear, unconfined compression, and
classification tests. The joint strengths were based on direct shear testing of either
natural joints or saw-cut samples. Generally conservative intact strength values were
assigned after considering unconfined compression tests, Schmidt hammer
correlations, and published values. Table 1 summarizes the shear strength values used
in the slope stability analysis.
Table 1
Shear Strength Values Used in the Slope Stability Analysis
Stratum
Cenozoic Deposits

Weathered Tonalite

Fresh Tonalite

Shear Direction

Cohesion

Friction Angle

Along Joints

216 psf
(1.5 psi)

28.3

Through Intact
Rock

4,000 psf
(27.8 psi)

Along Joints

187 psf
(1.3 psi)

35.8

Through Intact
Rock

16,000 psf
(111.1 psi)

Along Joints

1,051 psf
(7.3 psi)

33.0

Through Intact
Rock

40,000 psf
(277.8 psi)

Establishing Anisotropy Directions

The pit has been categorized into six regions based on slope orientations
around the pit perimeter. These are shown in Figure 1. The slope orientations are noted
in terms of compass angles (North = 0, East = 90, etc.). For example, the slope along
the north side of the pit is a 180 slope because it is facing south (180).
An acoustic televiewer was used to measure the dip angle, dip orientation, and
severity of each discontinuity encountered in the boreholes. This is accomplished by
tracing each discontinuity 360 inside the borehole. The trace of a perfectly horizontal
discontinuity would appear as a horizontal line, but an inclined discontinuity would
have a sinusoidal shape depending on its dip angle and its dip direction. Televiewer
measurements are directional, so the user can relate the measured dip directions of
bedrock discontinuities to true orientations.

GeoFlorida 2010

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

258

The measured discontinuity patterns were compared with visual observations of

core samples. A stereonet representation of the televiewer data at the north and south
ends of the pit are shown in the inserts of Figure 1.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 09/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The validated data sets were processed to derive design data sets of joint
orientations for each stratum (see Table 2, column 2). For example, the fresh rock layer
has one set of joints dipping 35 to 40 in the southwesterly direction (210 to 240);
and a second set dipping 50 to 65 in the southerly direction (188 to 218).
The joint data sets described above are considered to represent regionally
consistent geologic conditions. Localized (apparent) dip directions are then calculated
from these, depending on the slope orientations around the pit perimeter. The apparent
dips in the direction of each proposed slope would govern slope stability. For example,
a regional joint dipping down to the south would be out of slope on the north side of
the pit, but the same joint would be dipping into slope on the south side of the pit.
The calculated apparent dip directions for each slope orientation are provided
in Table 2, columns 3 through 8. These values have been used in the slope stability
analysis, with weaker joint strength values assigned to each apparent dip interval
around the pit perimeter.
Table 2
Apparent Dips for Different Slope Directions (see note below)
Layer

Cenozoic

Weathered
Rock

Fresh
Rock

Apparent Dips for Different Slope Dip Directions

Televiewer
(Actual) Dip
Angles/ Dip
Directions

20
slope

70
slope

120
slope

180
slope

270
slope

300
slope

0
10/075
to
22/140
50/188
to
65/218
35/210
to
40/240
50/188
to
65/218

0
(-11)
to
6
(-64)
to
(-49)
(-35)
to
(-33)
(-64)
to
(-49)

0
8
to
10
(-61)
to
(-29)
(-40)
to
(-28)
(-61)
to
(-29)

0
7
to
21
(-17)
to
24
(-23)
to
0
(-17)
to
24

0
(-3)
to
17
50
to
59
23
to
31
50
to
59

0
(-15)
to
(-10)
9
to
53
19
to
36
9
to
53

0
(-21)
to
(-7)
(-24)
to
17
0
to
23
(-24)
to
17

Note: Apparent dip values are positive as measured counterclockwise from horizontal in the slope dip
direction. Negative values (clockwise from horizontal in the slope dip direction) indicate dipping into
slope. -24/300 is 24/120 in standard lower hemisphere projection. This notation is preferred for this
table because it readily identifies into- or out-of-slope conditions and is consistent with the anisotropic
angle definition standards used in the slope stability program.

GeoFlorida 2010

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 09/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

259

Figure 2. Typical Cross-Section

Cross-sections were then developed for various sectors around the pit. Each crosssection depicted the corresponding design data (strata thicknesses and anisotropic
strength directions in each stratum). A sample cross-section is shown in Figure 2.
Selecting Slope Stability Search Configurations
Six different search modes have been selected to evaluate gross stability of the
overall slope as well as the local stability of the upper and lower parts of the slope.
Different search models as defined by the number of boxes used to characterize the
failure shape have been selected as follows:

Single Global: A failure shape made up of one continuous plane extending most of
the way between the toe and the top of the slope.

3-Box Global: A failure shape made up of two or three conjoined planes extending
between the toe and the top of the slope.

9-Box Deep Global: A failure shape made up of several conjoined planes, with a
search geometry that extends deeper behind the slope face.

10-Box Shallow Global: A failure shape made up of several conjoined planes, with
a search geometry that is closer to the slope face.

2- or 3-Box Upper Slope: A failure shape made up of two or three conjoined

planes, and confined to the upper part of the slope.
6

GeoFlorida 2010

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

260

6-Box Lower Slope: A failure shape made up of several conjoined planes, and
confined to the lower part of the slope.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 09/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Twelve different geotechnical regions were identified around the pit perimeter
as shown in Figure 1. These are labeled in combinations of slope orientation (180, 270,
etc.) and strata type (A, B, etc.). For example, a pit sector labeled as 180-A
corresponds to a south-facing slope, with a generalized subsurface stratification
condition of type A.
Each pit sector was then analyzed for different failure search configurations (3box, 9-box, etc.). A sample cross section generated from PCSTABL outputs is shown
in Figure 3. This represents a 9-box configuration. As shown in the inset of the figure,
several trials are evaluated for each irregular failure pattern formed by connecting
different points in each box. The program then identifies the path of least resistance,
considering the applicable anisotropic strength conditions.
Results of the slope stability analysis are summarized in Table 3. Column 1 in
this table lists the different sectors in terms of slope stability and columns 2 through 7
provide the calculated FS values for different potential failure configurations in each
sector.
Global analysis pertain to potential failures that extend the full height of the

The insert in upper left

shows a typical search
routine. A point anywhere
in one box is connected to
another point anywhere in
the adjacent box.
For clarity, 40 such trials
are shown in the insert.
Actual search utilizes
several thousand
combinations for each run
to select the lowest FS.
Figure 3. The Step-Path Analysis Model

GeoFlorida 2010

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

261

slope (columns 2 through 5) and local analysis pertains to failures limited to the upper
or lower parts of the slope (columns 6 and 7).
Table 3
Summary of Stability Analysis

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 09/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Slope Analysis Model

Pit
Sector

180-A
180-B
270-A
270-B
300-A
300-B
20-A
20-E
20-D
70-B
70-C
120-A

Single
Global
FS

3-Box
Global
FS

1.20
1.49
0.83
0.81
1.29
1.65
4.06
3.81
3.26
3.35
3.34
3.77

0.94
0.68
0.92
1.02
2.95
1.13
5.37
3.49
4.82
4.92
4.03
3.00

9-Box 10-Box
Deep Shallow
Global Global
FS
FS
4.61
3.87
3.85
3.32
6.09
5.22
7.09
4.98
5.35
6.22
6.19
6.09

4.65
4.05
1.64
1.58
6.56
9.74
12.34
8.02
9.15
10.29
10.12
6.56

2- or
3-Box
Upper
Slope
FS

6-Box
Lower
Slope
FS

2.29
1.30
2.09
1.12
3.07
1.43
11.47
2.36
1.46
5.62
3.39
2.43

5.32
5.10
6.11
4.26
10.50
14.21
11.34
10.21
11.34
10.73
10.73
9.97

The tabulated FS values bracket a range of possible conditions. If the

discontinuities are dipping out of slope and the uninterrupted joint dimensions are of
the order of slope height, then unsafe conditions may exist at the east side of the pit
(270 and 300 slope orientations), and to a lesser extent, at the north side of the pit
(180 slope orientations). However, if more realistic assumptions are used for the joint
lengths, these same slopes would be safe against gross slope failure.
Uninterrupted joint lengths of the order of the full slope height or half the slope
height are considered unlikely. Therefore, considering the more realistic analysis
results of multiple step-path models, the pit is expected to have an adequate FS against
slope failure. FS values would need to be further evaluated based on actual geologic
conditions to be exposed and mapped during mining.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
An evaluation of the numerical analysis results in relation to joint lengths and
directions can be represented in terms of Figure 4. In this figure, the FS values improve
as the joint directions go from out-of-slope to into-slope, and as the joint lengths
decrease.

GeoFlorida 2010

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 09/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

262

Figure 4. Variations in Factor of Safety (FS)

Joint interruptions of the order of one bench height are represented by the 10box values of Table 3 and the lower regions of Figure 4. Under such conditions, all
areas of the pit are considered safe. If the uninterrupted joint dimensions are more in
line with 1- to 3-box values of Table 3 and upper regions of Figure 5, then some
sectors of the pit may be at a higher risk.
Based on the results of this slope stability analysis, an overall slope gradient of
1h: 1v and individual bench gradient of 1h:2v were considered to be reasonable. These
values could be adjusted based on future evaluation of exposed geologic conditions.
This article has provided an approach for modeling rock slopes and for
quantifying how the slope FS varies with geologic and other site conditions of a
proposed open pit mine. There are other more sophisticated models available to
evaluate the complex failure patterns in jointed rock, with probabilistic considerations.
However, the presented method is considered to be an effective alternative, especially
for an initial assessment, when it is desirable to bracket the range of FS values under
various conditions and to make relative comparisons of pit sectors. Generally, slope
stability evaluation for these types of projects cannot be reliably evaluated until the
actual fracture patterns are revealed during excavation.

GeoFlorida 2010

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

263

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank John Benett for project management, Mike
Hoffman for field explorations, Gary Johnpeer for engineering geology, and Anders
Bro for laboratory testing.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 09/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

REFERENCES
Hoek, E., and Bray, J. W., 1981, Rock Slope Engineering, Revised 3rd ed.,
The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, Stephen Austin & Sons Ltd.,
England.
Hustrulid, W. A., McCarter, M. K., and Van Zyl, D. J. A., ed.s, 2000, Slope
Stability in Surface Mining, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc.
(SME), Colorado.
Van Aller, H. W., 2007, STEDWin Editor Documentation (for use with Purdue
Universitys PCSTABL Program), Annapolis Engineering Software, Maryland.

10

GeoFlorida 2010