Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan

terrain: A finite element method based approach
Sarada Prasad Pradhan a, Tariq Siddique a, b, *
a
Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, 247667, India
b
Department of Geology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 202002, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Large-scale slope destabilization could be aggravated due to swift urbanization and ever-rising demands
Received 19 October 2018 of geoengineering projects such as dams, tunnels, bridges and widening roads. National Highway-58
Received in revised form connects Delhi to Badrinath in India, which passes through complex geomorphological and geological
11 December 2018
terrain and often encounters cut slopes susceptible to slope failures. In the present investigation, a
Accepted 28 December 2018
Available online xxx
detailed geotechnical appraisal is conducted along the road cut slopes from Rishikesh to Devprayag in the
Himalayas. Twenty vulnerable road cut slopes were demarcated for detailed slope stability analysis using
Phase2D finite element modeling simulator. Nonlinear generalized Hoek-Brown (GHB) criterion was
Keywords:
Landslides
adopted for stability analyses. Out of 20 slopes, five slopes (S6, S7, S18, S19 and S20) are unstable with
Numerical modeling factor of safety (FoS) less than or equals to 1, and thus needs immediate attention. The FoS of four slopes
Finite element method (FEM) (S2, S9, S13 and S17) lie between 1 and 1.3, i.e. marginally stable and slopes S1, S3, S4, S5, S8, S10, S11,
Slope stability S12, S14, S15 and S16 are stable. Mohr-Coulomb (MC) criterion was also adopted to compare the slope
stability analysis with GHB criterion. The FoS calculated from GHB criterion is close to that using MC
criterion for lower values of FoS whereas for higher values, and the difference is marked. For the jointed
rock in the Himalayan region, the nonlinear GHB criterion gives better results as compared to MC cri-
terion and matches with the prevailing field conditions. Accordingly, some suggestions are proposed to
strengthen the stability of cut slopes.
Ó 2019 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction fundamental for occurrence of large- and small-scale landslides in

Landslide involves downward and outward movements of
slope-forming materials due to gravitational force by a variety of
motions like falling, sliding, flowing and any combination of the
above (Cruden and Varnes, 1996). Frequent slope failure along
natural and engineered slopes is of significance as it threatens the
lives, hampers the socio-economic growth, and deteriorates the
habitat (Leroueil, 2001). Mountainous terrain like Himalayas is
characterized by a variety of landslides. In such precarious regions,
local residents, tourists and pilgrims are under sustained threat of
various natural hazards like seismicity, landslides, floods, cloud-
burst, and forest fires. The anthropogenic intervention to the
extensively fragile and complex behavior of Himalayan terrain is
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tariqsiddiqueiitr@gmail.com, tariq.gl@amu.ac.in (T. Siddique).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
this region. The stability of road cut slopes in the region degraded
notably due to inadequate excavations during road construction
and widening projects (Siddique et al., 2017). Extensive mechanical
excavation and improper blasting generate secondary fractures
within the rock mass. However, it has been recommended that in
such problematic terrain conditions, controlled blasting should be
performed (Mondal et al., 2016).
Enormous researches on the slope stability in precarious Hi-
malayan terrain have been undertaken (e.g. Devkota et al., 2013;
Kundu et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2017; Sah et al., 2018). The con-
sequences of landslides became much hazardous if they occur
along transportation corridors or near townships. Uttarakhand
state of India is well known for its ecological diversity and richness
along with massive tourism and religious activities. Natural hazards
like frequent seismicity, cloudburst, landslides, floods, lightning,
and forest fires are of the major concern among authorities and
stakeholders. The occurrence of any such event is catastrophic and
the impacts are manifold when one event triggers another. Many
such incidences have been reported over the past years, for

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
1674-7755 Ó 2019 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
2 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx
example the one occurring in Kedarnath valley of Uttarakhand in
2013. The area witnessed extremely heavy rainfall with massive
cloudburst due to the fusion of westerlies with the Indian
monsoonal cloud system (Nair and Singh, 2014) that caused
massive flash floods and consequently large-scale landslides
(Dubey et al., 2013). As per Map the Neighbourhood in Uttarakhand
(MANU) reported by Ahmad et al. (2015), Wadia Institute of Hi-
malayan Geology (WIHG) investigated the damage occurrence
within the Bhagirathi-Ganga-Nayar valley during the disaster. The
result indicates that 1034 landslides were either initiated or re-
activated during the calamity. The study being conducted here is
a part of this valley.
National Highway-58 (NH-58) has exceptional importance due
to tourism and pilgrimage activities and acts as an artery for socio-
economic development of the region. For restoring environment
with sustainable socio-economic development, routine geotech-
nical assessment is prerequisite. Several highways are under
continual threat of a variety of slope failures. From several decades,
frequent mass movement phenomena are the major hindrance to
ongoing traffic. Enormous endeavor has been made by various
geotechnical researchers to assess the stability grade of cut slopes
along NH-58 in Uttarakhand (Siddique et al., 2015; Vishal et al.,
2017). Slope stability analysis along NH-58 has also been per-
formed by finite element (FE) modeling technique (e.g. Kanungo
et al., 2013; Pain et al., 2014; Sarkar et al., 2018). These case
studies highlighted the cause of the problem and some of them also
suggested remedial measures to reinforce the cut slopes but still,
there are certain zones along the highway that require compre-
hensive assessment. Road cut slopes from Rishikesh to Devprayag
along NH-58 are highly vulnerable which were evaluated by rock
mass classification and kinematic tool by Siddique et al. (2017).
They marked many potential zones along the transportation
corridor and also suggested general guidelines to enhance the
stability of slopes. Furthermore, stability analysis of debris cut
slopes in the same stretch has been undertaken by deterministic
and sensitivity approach (Siddique and Pradhan, 2018).
In the present investigation, highly landslide-prone area along
the road section from Rishikesh to Devprayag was taken for
Fig. 1. Investigated road cut slopes on the geological map of study area (modified after Siddique and Pradhan, 2018).
Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
detailed slope stability assessment by an advanced numerical tool
(Fig. 1). Due to highly fractured conditions of the rock mass,
curvilinear generalized Hoek-Brown (GHB) failure criterion has
been adopted for the study. Critical safety factor was calculated for
each slope and accordingly remedial measure is suggested. More-
over, the widely used linear Mohr-Coulomb (MC) criterion was also
used to compare the results.
2. Study area
Uttarakhand comprises hilly terrain with rugged topography
that encompasses 13 districts which are categorized into two units:
Garhwal and Kumaon regions. Differential meteorological phe-
nomena and extreme weather conditions in the state are reported
due to its geographical location and subtle geomorphology. It is also
characterized by extensive glacier ice caps in upper regimes. Along
with some seasonal and perennial rivers, two major rivers, i.e. the
Ganga and the Yamuna, originate from these extensive cover of
glaciers. Beautiful landscapes, unique ecosystem and holy shrines
attract tourists and pilgrims across the globe.
2.1. Geological framework of the area
The Himalayan orogenic belt is the ramification of continente
continent collision of Indian and Eurasian plates (Gansser, 1964;
Dewey and Burke, 1973; Yin, 2006). The Himalayan orogenic belt
is bounded by some major structural features, viz. Indus-Tsangpo
suture zone (ITSZ) in the north, Chaman fault in the west, Sagaing
fault in the east and main frontal thrust (MFT) in the south (LeFort,
1975; Yin, 2006). The Himalayas is subdivided into sub-Himalaya
(Siwaliks), Lesser Himalaya (Himachal), Higher Himalaya (Hima-
dri) and Tethys Himalaya (Gansser, 1964; LeFort, 1975).
According to Geological Survey of India toposheets, the study
area lies in 53J/8 and 53J/12, i.e. in the Lesser Himalaya which is
predominantly comprised of meta-sedimentary sequence (LeFort,
1975) along with some volcanics, meta-volcanics and gneiss
(Frank et al., 1995). The Lesser Himalayan sequence has been
formed due to contraction in multiple phases and structurally
 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx
bounded by main boundary thrust (MBT) in the south and by main
central thrust (MCT) in the north (Valdiya, 1983). Furthermore,
extensive work of certain researchers proposed that the geological
formations of the Lesser Himalayan sequence can be categorized
into two major subdivisions, i.e. Garhwal and Kumaon Lesser
Himalaya (Valdiya, 1980). The study area lies under Garhwal
Himalayas. It comprises Damtha, Tejam, Jaunsar, Mussoorie, Sirmur,
Ramgarh and Almora groups of rocks. This group of rocks can be
further divided into outer and inner Lesser Himalayan sequence
which encompasses different formations (Valdiya, 1980; Yin, 2006).
The investigated slopes lie along NH-58 in Garhwal syncline of the
outer Lesser Himalaya, i.e. running parallel to the holy river the
Ganga (Fig. 1). The area comprises of meta-sedimentary rocks
(shale, siltstone and conglomerates of Blaini Formation; limestone
of Infra-Krol Formation; calcareous rocks including limestones and
dolomites of Krol Formation; argillaceous, arenaceous, siliceous
and calcareous rocks of Tal Formation; quartzite of Nagthat For-
mation; and sandstone of Chakrata Formation) of Proterozoic to
Cambrian in age (Valdiya, 1980; Jiang et al., 2003).
Seismic vulnerability and its ongoing tectonism are important
components to understand the behavior of the rock mass. Such
continuous adverse activities steadily decreased the inherent
strength characteristics of the rock mass and an extreme event may
trigger large-scale landslides in the region. As manifested by
frequent seismic events, the entire Himalayan mountain chain is
inherently fragile. Relatively, greater Himalayan sequence wit-
nessed much frequent seismicity as compared to the Lesser
Himalaya. Interestingly, the Lesser Himalayan sequence is exten-
sively deformed terrain that remained calm and quiet for a long
time in the aspect of higher magnitude earthquake. It is quite
notable that cumulative and progressive nature of stress accumu-
lation within the Lesser Himalayan sequences is due to extensive
horizontal stresses owing to sub-surface Delhi-Haridwar, Faizabad
and Monghr-Saharsa ridges that are underlying extensions of
Delhi-Aravalli, Vindhyan and Satpura rocks, respectively (Valdiya,
1992). This could be one of the major contributors accounting for
extensive seismic events that are capable of triggering substantial
landslides. Valdiya (2002) assessed the major events during the
evolution of the Himalayas and proclaimed that spasmodic rise of
marginal Lesser Himalayan sequence and suggested that extensive
contraction in the Siwaliks range at 1.6 million years ago caused
rampant landslides. Sati et al. (1998) studied the impact of regional
tectonic setting on a variety of landslides and suggested that most
slopes prone to failure are parallel to the regional trend of the
Himalaya, i.e. WNW-ESE. It is due to the factor that the extensive
horizontal stress is perpendicular to the regional trend of the Hi-
malayan orogeny. Consequently, the sections parallel to this trend
would be sheared and shattered for greater distance, thereby
forming a significantly large unstable zone. Mithal (1988) assessed
litho-tectonic landslides in Garhwal-Kumaon region of the Lesser
Himalaya and suggested that dynamic forces due to developmental
activities in the form of excavation are continuously endangering
the geo-environmental conditions, particularly along NH-58,
Rishikesh to Badrinath highway.
According to Kumar and Dhaundiyal (1980), the rocks in the
area had experienced significant crustal stresses that resulted in fan
folding due to which the central portion of Garhwal synform rep-
resents a doubly plunging anticline. Among the major thrust faults
in the Himalayas, MBT is the most proximal to the studied section.
Being the plane of underthrusting of Indian plate under the
extensive Himalayas, MBT is geodynamically active (Valdiya, 1983).
Apart from MBT, there exist few major faults in the Garhwal syn-
form itself. These are Pulinda, Bedasini, Fatehpur, Bonga, Singtali,
Duwadhar and Maidan faults (Kumar and Dhaundiyal, 1980;
Valdiya, 1980; Sati et al., 2011). Among these, Duwadhar and
Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
3
Singtali faults intersect road cut slopes at distinct locations along
the highway. However, care must be taken as Singtali fault is being
named by Garhwal and Binj thrust in the literature. Singtali thrust
often cross-cuts the road section several times due to which slopes
near Kaudiyala are very much fragile. Such adverse geological and
structural conditions are responsible for inherent degradation in
the stability of cut slopes along the highways. Such hazard-prone
zones must be evaluated on a routine basis to ensure better
safety and swift sustainable development of the region.
3. Methodology
The vulnerable slopes along NH-58 from Rishikesh to Devprayag
can be identified in available literature, landslide inventory and
reconnaissance field survey. A detailed field survey was conducted
to record geometrical, geological, structural, geotechnical, and hy-
drological parameters with respect to slope stability analysis.
Furthermore, laboratory experiments were carried out for deter-
mination of geomechanical properties of the intact rock. The data
obtained from the field were integrated with the laboratory results
which were used to perform numerical modeling for stability
analysis.
3.1. Numerical modeling
Numerical modeling technique is widely used in resolving
various issues related to geotechnical engineering projects. Swift
progression in computational efficiency enabled the researchers to
understand the geomechanical response of slope forming material
under static and dynamic loadings. In a broader sense, numerical
methods can be classified as continuum, discontinuum and hybrid
methods. In continuum method, the whole material is treated as
continuous, i.e. uniformly distributed throughout the slope;
whereas in discontinuum modeling, the slope forming material is
treated as heterogeneous mass (Jing and Hudson, 2002; Jing, 2003).
Continuum methods include finite element method (FEM), finite
difference method (FDM), finite volume method (FVM), boundary
element method (BEM) and meshless methods, while dis-
continuum methods include discrete element method (DEM) and
discrete fracture network method (DFM) (Jing and Hudson, 2002;
Jing, 2003). According to Jing (2003), hybrid method is applied to
understanding the flow and stress-related problems. The use of
above-mentioned numerical methods depends upon site-specific
conditions (Jing, 2003). In the present study, continuum modeling
has been used, because it is probably best suited for weak and
jointed rock mass.
3.2. Finite element modeling (FEM)
FEM is an elasto-plastic method widely accepted in geotechnical
research area. It does not require any pre-assumption for the
location of slip surface and the outcomes are nonlinear and itera-
tive in nature (Griffiths and Lane, 1999; Rocscience, 2001). It is
much economic and time-effective with iterative capability which
makes it a much reliable method to make the best possible and
efficient solutions to the problem. In FEM, failure occurs naturally
along the zone where prevailing shear stresses overcomes the
shear strength of the material without any pre-assumption
(Griffiths and Lane, 1999). For slope stability assessment via nu-
merical methods, factor of safety (FoS) is probably the easiest and
quickest way to predict the risk due to failure. Such quantitative
assessment enables user or reader to have a quick overview at a
glance. It may be termed as the ratio of the actual shear strength of
the slope forming material to the minimum shear strength required
to resist failure. In shear strength reduction (SSR), large numbers of
4 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx

simulations are performed for a series of trial of FoS (Matsui and
San, 1992). The shear strength of the material is reduced during
successive iterations until the failure occurs. In each trial, shear
strength parameters, viz. cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction
(4), are reduced as per Eqs. (1) and (2). Thus, critical strength
reduction factor (SRF) is computed which is equivalent to FoS.
1 tempts for modification have been discussed and compiled by Hoek
ctrial ¼ c (1)
f and Marinos (2007). The concept of GHB criterion was introduced.


1 strength index (GSI) system and also the concept of disturbed and
4trial ¼ arctan tan4
f undisturbed rocks was removed that allows the users to reduce the
where c is the cohesion, 4 is the friction angle, and f is the safety
factor.
3.3. Failure criterion of rock mass
In highly fractured rock masses, the failure surface principally
runs along discontinuities and partially through the intact rock. At
low normal stresses, individual fragment or block may move or
rotate due to low cohesion; but at high normal stress levels, friction
is diminished as a response of crushing. As compared to intact rock,
the failure mechanism in the jointed rock mass is very complex. The
failure in such jointed rock slopes may occur by shearing of the rock
mass, sliding of blocks along discontinuities and/or rotational and
translational movement of individual intact rock blocks. The major
and widely used failure criteria for numerical modeling of rock
mass are MC criterion (Coulomb, 1776; Mohr, 1900), Hoek-Brown
(HB) criterion (Hoek and Brown, 1980), Ramamurthy criterion
(Ramamurthy et al., 1993), Ramamurthy-Arora criterion
(Ramamurthy and Arora, 1994), GHB criterion (Hoek et al., 1995),
and modified MC criterion (Singh and Singh, 2012). Coulomb (1776)
assumed that shear strength of rock is the function of cohesion and
angle of internal friction and failure envelope is linear. But the
failure mechanism changes continuously in jointed rock mass and
the shear strength envelope is curvilinear, especially at low range of
normal stresses. Therefore, it is inadequate to directly use geo-
mechanical properties of intact rock for any rock slope design. The
degree of fracturing and properties related to the joint surface must
be taken into consideration. From the numerous experimental data,
it was observed that the failure envelope in jointed rocks is curvi-
linear rather than straight line and the curve shows concavity to-
wards the axis of normal stress (Hoek et al., 2013; Singh, 2019). HB
failure criterion for rock mass is based upon several empirical re-
lationships that characterize the stress conditions related to the
failure of intact rock and rock mass. It has been derived from the
crack theory of Griffith (1920, 1924) in brittle rocks (Hoek, 1968)
and subsequently modified as per the field and laboratory obser-
vations (Marsal, 1967, 1973; Jaeger, 1970). Unlike the MC linear
criterion, HB is an empirically derived criterion which relies on the
nonlinear increase in peak shear stress with confining pressure
(Eberhardt, 2012). In numerical modeling of the jointed rock mass,
nonlinear shear strength envelopes have been ignored for a long
time (Barton, 2013). The original HB failure criterion was intro-
duced by Hoek and Brown (1980) (Eq. (3)) in an attempt to develop
an empirical relationship that could be scaled in relation to
geological data (Hoek and Marinos, 2007).
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 0 ms03
s1 ¼ s3 þ sci þs
sci
where s01 and s03 are the major and minor effective principal
stresses at failure, respectively; sci is the uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS) of the intact rock; and m and s are the material
constants.
The parameter m is equivalent to the friction of the rock while s
is related to the degree of fracturing that relates to the cohesion of
the rock mass (Eberhardt, 2012). Since the development of the HB
criterion, it has been updated and refined several times to reduce
the limitations from the gained experience. Some of the major at-
It involves the replacement of rock mass rating (RMR) by geological
(2)
GSI values by careful judgment of prevailing field conditions. Along
with this, several terms mb, s and a were introduced for good and
poor quality rock masses having GSI values > 25 and < 25,
respectively. The GHB criterion is given as

a
s03
s01 ¼ s03 þ sci mb þs (4)
sci
where mb ¼ mi exp½ðGSI  100Þ=28, s ¼ exp½ðGSI  100Þ=9 and
a ¼ 0:5 for GSI>25 (good quality); s ¼ 0 and a ¼ 0:65  GSI=200
for GSI<25 (poor quality). mi is the material constant that depends
upon the type of rock, mb is the reduced value of mi which accounts
for the strength by reducing effects of jointed rock mass that relies
upon GSI values and disturbance factor, and s and a are the curve
fitting parameters which are being determined by using GSI and D
values.
Several changes were incorporated in the above criterion by
Hoek et al. (2002) and the concept of disturbance factor (D) was
introduced to consider the damage caused due to blasting. Further,
it was conceived by researchers that there exists a hiatus between
good and poor quality rock masses that was proposed in GHB cri-
terion of 1995 edition. By considering this fact, an attempt has been
made for smoother transition among good and poor quality rock
masses and the equations of GHB criterion (1995 edition) were
updated by Hoek et al. (2002). Probably, GHB (2002 edition) is the
most updated version of HB criterion derived. The GHB failure
criterion (2002 edition) for slopes is written as

0:91
s0cm
s03 ¼ 0:72s0cm (5)
gH
where s0cm is the UCS of rock mass, g is the unit weight of the rock
mass, and H is the height of the slope.
Hoek and Diederichs (2006) proposed an empirical relationship
to calculate the deformation modulus of rock mass (Erm). It is
designated as generalized Hoek-Diederichs criterion:
1  D=2
Erm ðMPaÞ ¼ 100; 000 (6)
1 þ eð60þ15DGSIÞ=11
Furthermore, it has been realized that many numerical
modeling tools do not incorporate HB criterion, and they use simple
MC criterion. To overcome this problem, a window based program
called ‘RocLab’ was also developed to calculate equivalent shear
strength parameters (Hoek et al., 2002).
3.4. Failure criterion of joints
In jointed rock mass, stability is greatly influenced by disconti-
(3)
nuities especially at shallow depth or at low stress levels. In such
slopes, failures particularly shear failures tend to occur along the
zone or plane of the least resistance, i.e. discontinuity. The shear
strength along such planes primarily relies upon shape and

Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx
roughness of asperities, degree of alteration, matching along the
fractured surface, type and thickness of infilling material (Hoek,
2006). The well-known model for estimating the shear strength
of discontinuities is the MC criterion:
sf ¼ cj þ sn tan4j
where sf is the shear strength at failure, cj is the cohesion of joint, sn
is the effective normal stress, and 4f is the friction of joint.
However, there are certain limitations in MC criterion. The
failure envelope is linear and also the tests are too expensive to be
conducted on each site, and for shear testing, jointed surface is to
be allowed to fail. Patton (1966) recognized the importance of
roughness and performed a series of direct shear tests on saw-
tooth triangular joints. As a result, he suggested the bilinear
failure criterion. The effective normal stress acting on a particular
discontinuity surface depends upon its orientation, depth, and
weight imposed due to overburden along with density and hy-
drological conditions (Hoek, 2006). According to Barton (1973)
and Barton and Choubey (1977), dilation induced roughness
significantly contributes to the nonlinear behavior among normal
stress (sn) and shear stress (s). Roughness of potential sliding
surface can be termed as first order and second order asperities.
The former are major undulations and measured at large scale and
later are small ripples and bumps at a very small scale. However,
Barton (1973) suggested that the importance of first and second
order asperities largely depends upon the magnitude of the
normal load. At low normal stress levels, second order asperities
are significant while first order asperities play a major role only at
high normal stresses. By considering all the major aspects, the
shear strength of discontinuity surfaces within a jointed rock
mass is the coupled effect of surface irregularities or asperities,
strength, normal stress, and shear displacement along the po-
tential sliding surface (Wyllie and Mah, 2004). Barton (1973)
proposed an extension of MC and Patton’s models by incorpo-
rating sliding and shearing simultaneously. He replaced the con-
stant friction angle by a function of normal stress, roughness, and
strength of sliding surface. The Barton’s shear strength criterion
can be expressed as


JCS
sf ¼ sn tan 4b þ JRC log 10
sn
where 4b is the basic friction angle on unweathered surface; JRC is
the joint roughness coefficient which can be estimated by
comparing measured roughness with standard profiles by Barton
and Choubey (1977) or it can be determined by measuring the
amplitude of roughness by straight edge method (Barton, 1982);
and JCS is the joint wall compressive strength that can be estimated
by Schmidt hammer rebound test by Miller (1965) or by the stan-
dard field method suggested by International Society for Rock
Mechanics (ISRM, 1981).
Some researchers conducted point load test suggested by Broch
and Franklin (1972), but it may mislead the results as often strength
is slightly lower along the joint surface particularly in weathered
joints. Thus it was recommended to conduct Schmidt hammer test
in the field to obtain much more realistic results. While performing
Schmidt hammer test, the care must be given to the orientation of
hammer during rebound measurements, and corrections suggested
by Barton and Choubey (1977) must be applied.
Furthermore, the stiffness of rock joints defines the deformation
under both normal and tangential loads. The normal stiffness may
be defined as the normal stress per unit closure of the joint while
shear stiffness of a joint is the ratio of peak shear stress to the shear
displacement (Barton, 1972).
Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
5
The normal stiffness of joint is represented as (Barton, 1972):
Ei  Em
Kn ¼ (9)
L ðEi  Em Þ
(7) where Kn is the normal stiffness of joints, Em is the modulus of rock
mass, Ei is the modulus of intact rock, and L is the mean spacing of
joint.
The shear stiffness of joint is represented as (Barton, 1972):
Gi  Gm
Ks ¼ (10)
L ðGi  Gm Þ
where Ks is the shear stiffness of joints, Gm is the shear modulus of
rock mass, and Gi is the shear modulus of intact rock.
3.5. Geological strength index (GSI)
GSI system is a major input in numerical modeling and has
been used to calculate the deformation and strength parameters
of the rock mass. This classification tells about the rock mass and
does not count the orientation of discontinuities. Nevertheless, it
helps to overcome the restrictions of expensive and time-
consuming laboratory investigations of intact samples only. It
has been widely used for estimating strength characteristics in a
large number of international tunneling projects. GSI values
depend upon the blockiness of the rock mass and existing con-
ditions of discontinuity surfaces. Although GSI values can be
estimated by existing relationships among various rock mass
classification (RMR and Q system), for much accurate results, it
has been recommended to use published GSI chart (Hoek, 2006).
Although Hoek (2006) suggested that single value of GSI should
not be assigned, it is good to consider a range of GSI values, but
as the GSI is directly linked to the empirical equations of GHB
criterion and deformation modulus of rock mass, the subjectivity
of the system ought to be removed. To surmount these limita-
tions, Sonmez and Ulusay (1999, 2002) proposed two parame-
ters, i.e. structure rating (SR) and surface condition rating (SCR).
SR depends upon the degree of fracturing or blockiness of the
rock mass at a particular site. It has been calculated by the
(8) empirical relationship among SR and volumetric joint count (Eq.
(11)) and SCR relies upon roughness, weathering and infilling
material. This parameter is being calculated by the algebraic sum
of ratings (Eq. (12)).
SR ¼  17 lnJv þ 79:8 (11)
SCR ¼ Rr þ Rw þ Rf (12)
where Jv is the volumetric joint count, Rr is the roughness rating, Rw
is the weathering rating, and Rf is the infilling rating.
4. Slope stability assessment along NH-58
In the present study, slope stability assessment of road cut rock
slopes was conducted by coupling various parameters and inte-
grating a variety of information from the geotechnical field and
laboratory investigations. During reconnaissance stages of the
investigation, an initial field survey was conducted along NH-58
from Rishikesh to Devprayag, to demarcate hazardous zones, and
20 vulnerable cut slopes have been identified for detailed
geotechnical assessment (Fig. 2). A variety of meta-sedimentary
rock formations belonging to different geological formations have
been illustrated in Table 1.
6 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. Field photographs depicting the condition of investigated slopes along NH-58.

The investigated road cut rock slopes are heterogeneous and
dissected by 3e4 sets of discontinuities. It was evidenced during
field surveys that failures in such slopes are controlled by un-
favorably oriented discontinuities. Recurrent nature of structur-
ally controlled failure in the form of wedge and planar failure
was observed at Slope S13 (Fig. 3). Pre- and post-failure condi-
tions at Slope S13 have been depicted in Fig. 3a, b and d in 2016,
2017 and 2018, respectively. A massive failed block of 5e6 ft
(1 ft ¼ 30.48 cm) is shown in the inset view (Fig. 3c) and even
much larger block has been witnessed in successive failure
(Fig. 3d). Slope S13 lies in proximity to thrust zone near Kau-
diyala. Massive structurally controlled failures in such slopes
indicate the validity of results obtained by the present numerical
modeling. Among 20 investigated slopes, there are many other
critical slopes which are likely to experience similar mass fail-
ures in the near future. Apart from extensive or mass failures,
small block failures in the form of wedges are significantly
common in the investigated area. It is often noted that even
though the overall stability of any slope is reasonably fair but
such small wedges may form occasional rock falls due to the

Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

Table 1
Lithology and geological formation at corresponding studied slopes.

Slope Lithology Formation

S1 Quartzarenite sandstone Tal

S2 Quartzarenite sandstone Tal
S3 Dolomitic limestone Krol
S4 Ferruginous quartzarenite sandstone and slate Chakrata
S5 Sandstone Chakrata
S6 Slate Blaini
S7 Phyllite Blaini
S8 Sub-arkosic sandstone Tal
S9 Quartzite Tal
S10 Quartzite Tal
S11 Sub-arkosic sandstone Tal
S12 Sub-arkosic sandstone Tal
S13 Sub-arkosic micaceous sandstone Tal
S14 Sub-arkosic micaceous sandstone Krol
S15 Clay and mica bearing sandstone Krol
S16 Sub-arkosic sandstone Krol
S17 Micaceous sandstone Krol
S18 Micaceous sandstone Chakrata
S19 Micaceous sandstone Chakrata
S20 Micaceous sandstone Chakrata

Fig. 4. Impact of occasional wedges on road at Slope S15 near Kaudiyala: (a) Encircled
portion highlighting the zone of wedge initiation; (b) Damaged roadside garders and
presence of multiple sets of discontinuities. Such issue was walls; and (c) Inset view showing the damage to the road and associated structures.

propounded at Slope S15, where the overall slope is stable but

small-sized wedges have often destroyed the road, roadside
garders and wall (Fig. 4). The site for wedge initiation (encircled)
at S15 is depicted in Fig. 4a and the impact of such small block
failures is illustrated in Fig. 4b,c.
The geological and geotechnical field data were collected for
characterizing identified slopes via GSI system. The GSI values of 20
slopes are calculated (Table 2) and also illustrated in GSI chart
(Fig. 5).
Geomechanical properties required for numerical modeling
were determined during field and laboratory investigations
(Table 3). From each slope, undisturbed and representative rock
chunks were collected and NX-size (54.7 mm in diameter) core
samples were prepared to determine the UCS as per the
guidelines suggested by International Society for Rock Mechanics
(Bieniawski and Bernede, 1979). The laboratory investigation also
incorporates determination of unit weight of intact samples as
per the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards codes (IS 1122,
1974). The rock constant (mi value) for each slope was deter-
mined by identifying rock type and thin section under a petro-
logical microscope. Disturbance factor was determined in the
field as per the guidelines suggested in the GHB criterion. Pois-
son’s ratio plays a significant role in elastic deformation of rocks
and rock masses subjected to static or dynamic loading. Among
many widely used mechanical properties of rocks in rock engi-
neering practices, the importance of Poisson’s ratio has not been

Fig. 3. Field photographs depicting recurrent failure at Slope S13 near Kaudiyala: (a) Pre-failure condition of slope with encircled probable zone observed during initial field surveys
and measurement in 2016; (b) Structurally controlled mass failure observed during successive field survey in 2017; (c) Inset view showing the massive failed blocks; and (d) Much
larger failure occurred in 2018.

Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
8 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2 joints offer least shear strength and are susceptible to sliding.
Quantification of GSI for studied cut slopes. The roughness of rock joints plays a more important role
Slope Rr Rw Rf Jv SCR SR GSI particularly at low-stress levels, while at higher stresses, as-
S1 2 3 6 19.7 11 27.58 40
perities are sheared posing smooth surface. The measurement of
S2 5 5 6 20 16 27.36 52 surface roughness in the laboratory is amenable, and it can be
S3 3 4 2 12.5 9 35.59 39 measured in field using different sized plates (Hencher and
S4 2 5 6 12.9 13 35 48 Richards, 2015). Barton comb was used during field survey to
S5 3 1 6 12.6 10 35.37 41
record the roughness profile of prevailing discontinuities at each
S6 1 5 2 23.5 8 24.5 33
S7 1 5 6 28.1 12 21.38 40 slope in the study area (Fig. 6a). Later, to determine JRC values
S8 2 5 6 10.9 13 37.9 50 (Table 5), the recorded profiles have been compared with
S9 4 5 6 12.7 15 35.21 53 standard profiles proposed by Barton and Choubey (1977).
S10 2 4 6 24.1 12 24.08 42
Similarly, roughness friction also plays a significant role in
S11 3 5 4 16.3 12 30.86 44
S12 1 3 2 16.9 6 30.24 30
guiding shear strength of joints in rocks. Tilt test has been
S13 1 1 6 12.5 8 35.58 37 conducted to measure the residual friction of rock joints
S14 2 5 6 14.3 13 33.15 47 (Table 5) for numerical modeling by BB failure criterion. The
S15 1 5 6 12.3 12 35.78 46 degree of fracturing in the rock mass was determined by the
S16 3 1 6 14.6 10 32.81 40
spacing of joints. Joint spacing is the perpendicular distance
S17 2 1 6 16.1 9 31.08 37
S18 3 4 6 15.1 13 32.28 47 between two joints in a particular set. For each joint set, joint
S19 4 3 6 17.4 13 29.75 46 spacing (Table 6) has been measured carefully during the field
S20 3 5 6 21.3 14 26.23 47 survey by meter scale. Further, modulus of rock mass (Table 6)
Note: SR ¼ 17.5 lnJv þ 79.8. has been determined by an empirical relationship (Eq. (6))
proposed by Hoek and Diederichs (2006). Joint stiffness is the
one of the fundamental properties that is widely used in nu-
appreciated much due to very narrow range among different merical modeling of the jointed rock mass. It was measured by
rock materials (Gercek, 2007). Laboratory experiments on the direct shear field testing in field (Barton and Choubey, 1977;
Poisson’s ratio of rocks are rarely conducted (Vásárhelyi and Bandis et al., 1983). The measurement of in situ joint stiffness
Kovács, 2017). There are several indirect methods available in is expensive and time-consuming. Barton (1972) and Rocscience
the literature to estimate the Poisson’s ratio of rocks by using (2001) recommended a method for determination of normal
UCS values and RMR classification system. Furthermore, on the and shear stiffnesses of joints based upon the deformation
basis of GSI values and rock material constant (mi), Vásárhelyi properties of the rock mass and intact rock (Eqs. (9) and (10)).
(2009) proposed a chart to calculate Poisson’s ratio of rock The normal stiffness for each joint set was calculated by Eq. (9)
mass (nrm). This chart based approach has been used in the (Table 6). According to Singh and Goel (2002), the normal
present study to determine the Poisson’s ratio of rock mass (see stiffness may vary from 10 to 30 times its shear stiffness. In the
Table 3). Schmidt hammer hardness test is a non-destructive and Himalayan region, the shear stiffness has been estimated as one-
in situ technique which is often employed in many rock me- tenth of the normal stiffness (Pain et al., 2014). As the shear
chanics and rock engineering practices. It has been widely used modulus is not available, a similar approach has been followed
to determine several properties such as elastic modulus, hard- here to estimate the shear stiffness of joints.
ness, surface smoothness and strength of rocks. In the literature, In rock slope engineering projects, FEM has been widely
there are many empirical relationships between UCS and applied under diverse slope conditions. SSR analysis by FEM has
Schmidt hammer rebound values (Hr). Schmidt hammer rebound been significantly employed to determine the FoS. As discussed
values for each joint set have been measured during field survey earlier, the shear strength failure envelope is reduced system-
(Fig. 6b) as per the guidelines suggested by International Society atically until the deformations are unacceptably large or solu-
for Rock Mechanics (ISRM, 1981). From each slope, ten Schmidt tion does not converge. Due to its popularity and applicability
hammer rebound values for each joint set were taken and the under a variety of diverse conditions, SSR method has been
median Hr value was used to determine joint wall strength. Then, adopted in the present study. A two-dimensional (2D) plane
the equation proposed (Eq. (13)) by Katz et al. (2000) was used strain simulator ‘Phase 2D’ has been used for modeling. The
to calculate UCS (Table 4) of each joint wall, because the equa- models have been generated for all 20 slopes. A variety of in-
tion was proposed on more or less similar lithology with an formation related to slope stability has been collected and
appreciably good regression of 0.92. Moreover, Hr and UCS of Eq. synthesized from extensive field investigations, rigorous calcu-
(13) are 24e73 and 11e259 MPa, respectively. The calculated UCS lations and laboratory experiments. From the investigated cut
or JCS was used as input in simulating jointed rock mass by slopes, the input parameters obtained from rock mass and intact
Barton-Bandis (BB) failure criterion. rocks are showing widespread data across a range. The geom-
etry of the model of each slope was generated by coupling the
UCSðMPaÞ ¼ 2:208e0:067Hr (13) data obtained from laser inclinometer and Brunton compass.
The plane strain analysis is being performed with metric units
Furthermore, modulus of elasticity (Table 4) was determined by
and Gaussian elimination solver. Stress analysis is conducted by
following empirical relationship proposed by Yagiz (2009):
500 maximum iterations with a tolerance of 0.001. The
modeling is being performed under gravity loading by dis-
EðGPaÞ ¼ 0:0987H1:5545
r (14) cretization with a 6-noded graded triangle. For each slope, the
Shear strength of discontinuities is largely influenced by the bottom of the model has been fixed and the cut slope has been
roughness or asperities of the joint wall. Planar and smooth made free in both x- and y-directions, while for y-axis of the

Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx 9

Fig. 5. GSI of investigated slopes along NH-58 from Rishikesh to Devprayag.

Table 3
Geomechanical inputs used for numerical modeling.

Slope Height (m) UCS (MPa) GSI mi Disturbance factor, D Unit weight (MN/m3) Poisson’s ratio

S1 30 46.33 40 17 0.8 0.027 0.33

S2 60 46.67 52 17 0.8 0.027 0.295
S3 42 41.67 39 10 0.9 0.0255 0.375
S4 42 43.66, 20a 48 17, 7a 0.9 0.027, 0.027a 0.3, 0.365a
S5 33 45.67 41 17 0.9 0.027 0.32
S6 19 20.67 33 7 0.8 0.0265 0.365
S7 18 20.33 40 7 0.8 0.0265 0.37
S8 18 45.67 50 16 0.9 0.027 0.3
S9 17 79.33 53 20 0.9 0.0275 0.28
S10 45 74 42 20 0.8 0.0275 0.31
S11 30 47 44 16 0.8 0.027 0.315
S12 40 45.33 30 16 0.8 0.027 0.34
S13 34 40 37 15 0.8 0.027 0.33
S14 42 40.33 47 15 0.8 0.027 0.315
S15 33 36.67 46 14 0.8 0.027 0.32
S16 33 44.33 40 16 0.8 0.027 0.32
S17 35 35.67 37 15 0.9 0.0265 0.33
S18 30 44.33 47 15 0.8 0.027 0.315
S19 38 43.67 46 15 0.8 0.027 0.315
S20 23 40 47 15 0.9 0.027 0.315
a
Two values for each input pertain to sandstone and slate, respectively.

Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
10 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx

Furthermore, for comparative analysis, MC criterion was also

Fig. 6. Measurement of geotechnical parameters during field survey: (a) Roughness
profile of joint wall by using Barton comb; and (b) Schmidt hammer hardness of the
jointed surface.
model, displacements and stresses have been restricted in the x-
direction. An example of the generated model has been shown
in Fig. 7.
After successful generation of the model, selection of an
appropriate failure criterion is the utmost to have reasonably
fair outcomes. The nonlinear GHB criterion has been employed
for rock mass, while BB criterion has been followed for joints.
applied to the same slopes by using equivalent MC parameters.
Few decades ago, certain numerical techniques do involve input
parameters of nonlinear GHB criterion. Later, Hoek et al. (2002)
derived empirical relationship from hundreds of case studies of
slopes and underground projects and also introduced a window
based program called ‘RocLab’ to calculate equivalent shear
strength parameters (cohesion and friction) from GHB parame-
ters (Hoek and Marinos, 2007). The equivalent shear strength
parameters were determined by using RocLab program
(Table 7). Shear strain contours by GHB and MC criteria of each
slope were represented in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. These
strain contours are significant in identification of the most
prominent mode of failure.
The critical SRFs have been determined by using GHB and MC
criteria, respectively (Table 8). The outcomes obtained by GHB and
MC criteria have been compared and represented in Fig. 10. It can be
evidenced from the comparison that for slopes having SRF close to
1, the results are nearly identical; while SRF determined by GHB is
sufficiently greater than 1, and SRF determined by MC increases by
approximately 1.5e2 times. Thus it can be inferred that for fair
heterogeneous rocks, MC criterion gives higher stability. Therefore,
linear MC criterion can only be applied for extensively fractured or
jointed rock mass, which can be assumed homogeneous. As
nonlinear GHB criterion is available, MC criterion should be avoided
in the jointed rock mass. Furthermore, a linear relationship

Table 4
Schmidt hammer hardness, Young’s modulus and joint wall compressive strength of different joint sets at each investigated slope.

Slope Joint Schmidt hardness value Young’s modulus, E (GPa) JCS Slope Joint Schmidt hardness value Young’s modulus, E (GPa) JCS

S1 J1 43 34.16 43 S11 J1 51 44.54 75.4

J2 38 28.19 30.3 J2 56 51.51 106.9
J3 46.5 38.58 55 J3 55 50.09 99.7
S2 J1 39.5 29.94 33.7 S12 J1 53.5 47.98 89.8
J2 44 35.4 46.2 J2 54.5 49.38 96.3
J3 43.5 34.78 44.6 J3 55.5 50.79 103.3
J4 48 40.53 61.1 J4 53 47.28 86.7
S3 J1 43.5 34.78 44.6 S13 J1 55.5 50.79 103.3
J2 42.5 33.55 41.6 J2 54 48.68 93
J3 46 37.94 53.1 J3 55 50.09 99.7
S4 J1 54 48.68 93 S14 J1 54 48.68 93
J2 53.5 47.98 89.8 J2 51.5 45.22 78
J3 49.5 42.52 67.8 J3 53 47.28 86.7
S5 J1 47.5 39.88 59 S15 J1 53.5 47.98 89.8
J2 49.5 42.52 67.8 J2 55.5 50.79 103.3
J3 45.5 37.3 51.3 J3 55.5 50.79 103.3
S6 J1 25 14.7 12.2 S16 J1 54.5 49.38 96.3
J2 21.5 11.63 9.6 J2 55 50.09 99.7
J3 25.5 15.16 12.6 J3 54 48.68 93
J4 25 14.7 12.2 S17 J1 52 45.9 80.8
S7 J1 18.5 9.21 7.7 J2 51 44.54 75.4
J2 16.5 7.71 6.7 J3 53 47.28 86.7
J3 18.5 9.21 7.7 S18 J1 53.5 47.98 89.8
S8 J1 48 40.53 61.1 J2 56 51.51 106.9
J2 37.5 27.62 29.3 J3 54 48.68 93.0
J3 45.5 37.3 51.3 S19 J1 54 48.68 93
S9 J1 60.5 58.08 146.5 J2 53.5 47.98 89.8
J2 58.5 55.13 127.4 J3 53.5 47.98 89.8
J3 54 48.68 93 J4 53 47.28 86.7
S10 J1 55.5 50.79 103.3 S20 J1 56 51.51 106.9
J2 58.5 55.13 127.4 J2 55 50.09 99.7
J3 59.5 56.6 136.6 J3 54.5 49.38 96.3

Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx 11

Table 5
Residual friction angle and joint roughness coefficient at different joint sets in
investigated road cut slopes along NH-58.

Slope Joint Residual friction ( ) JRC Slope Joint Residual friction ( ) JRC

S1 J1 27 6 S11 J1 25 7
J2 29 11 J2 26 11
J3 28 8 J3 26 10
S2 J1 29 15 S12 J1 23 8
J2 29 14 J2 22 5
J3 27 9 J3 24 9
J4 26 6 J4 22 6
S3 J1 29 7 S13 J1 23 7
J2 31 12 J2 23 8
J3 30 10 J3 22 3
S4 J1 27 10 S14 J1 24 10
J2 26 7 J2 23 7
J3 24 4 J3 24 9
S5 J1 24 11 S15 J1 22 4
J2 26 13 J2 24 9
J3 24 9 J3 23 7
S6 J1 21 3 S16 J1 26 8
J2 25 9 J2 27 9
J3 24 5 J3 29 12
J4 23 6 S17 J1 27 6
S7 J1 22 4 J2 29 11
J2 24 7 J3 28 8
J3 24 8 S18 J1 28 6
S8 J1 26 7 J2 31 14 Fig. 7. The input model of Slope S17 along NH-58.
J2 26 6 J3 29 8
J3 28 12 S19 J1 27 9
S9 J1 23 9 J2 29 15 between SRFs determined by GHB and MC criteria has been sug-
J2 25 13 J3 28 12 gested by this study (Fig. 11).
J3 26 15 J4 28 13
S10 J1 25 6 S20 J1 29 13
The zig-zag and planar distribution of shear strain contours
J2 28 13 J2 26 7 indicates that structurally controlled failures are prominent in most
J3 26 9 J3 27 9 of the slopes. It is also quite notable that the locations of shear

Table 6
Intact rock and rock mass moduli along with spacing and normal and shear stiffnesses at different joint sets.

Slope Joint Ei (MPa) Erm (MPa) L (m) Kn (MPa/m) Ks (MPa/m) Slope Joint Ei (MPa) Erm (MPa) L (m) Kn (MPa/m) Ks (MPa/m)

S1 J1 34162.05 650.2 0.15 4418.77 441.88 S11 J1 44538.44 822.5 0.13 6703.8 670.38
J2 28189.72 0.25 2662.2 266.22 J2 51508.09 0.16 5224.04 522.4
J3 38580.94 0.12 5750.83 575.08 J3 50085.38 0.65 1286.51 128.65
S2 J1 29938.31 1332.1 0.25 5576.53 557.65 S12 J1 47978.11 410.1 0.15 2757.57 275.76
J2 35404.98 0.28 5033.38 503.34 J2 49379.37 0.25 1654.14 165.41
J3 34781.53 0.15 9234.33 923.43 J3 50794.96 0.18 2362.5 236.25
J4 40532.8 0.18 7870.67 787.07 J4 47282.89 0.1 4136.88 413.69
S3 J1 34781.53 759.7 0.18 4438.08 443.81 S13 J1 50794.96 483 0.15 3250.91 325.09
J2 33546.54 0.3 2591.01 259.1 J2 48676.94 0.23 2168.18 216.82
J3 37937.98 0.35 2214.92 221.49 J3 50085.38 0.1 4877.03 487.7
S4 J1 48676.94 832.2 0.25 3386.7 338.67 S14 J1 48676.94 843.4 0.4 2145.68 214.57
J2 47978.11 0.2 4234.45 423.44 J2 45219.06 0.1 8594.3 859.43
J3 42518.79 0.3 2829.38 282.94 J3 47282.89 0.68 1272.17 127.22
S5 J1 39878.37 593.3 0.21 2867.91 286.79 S15 J1 47978.11 722 0.25 2932.12 293.21
J2 42518.79 0.23 2674.2 267.42 J2 50794.96 0.25 2929.64 292.96
J3 37298.89 0.35 1722.54 172.25 J3 50794.96 0.27 2763.81 276.38
S6 J1 14703.3 380.6 0.08 5209.52 520.95 S16 J1 49379.37 622 0.19 3315.45 331.54
J2 11630.35 0.25 1573.91 157.39 J2 50085.38 0.2 3149.11 314.91
J3 15162.96 0.4 976 97.6 J3 48676.94 0.25 2520.2 252.02
J4 14703.3 0.3 1302.38 130.24 S17 J1 45903.35 384.8 0.16 2503.57 250.36
S7 J1 9207.37 570.5 0.07 9356.67 935.67 J2 44538.44 0.2 1990.53 199.05
J2 7707.19 0.15 4107.37 410.74 J3 47282.89 0.25 1551.83 155.18
J3 9207.37 0.18 3475.34 347.53 S18 J1 47978.11 927 0.25 3781.05 378.11
S8 J1 40532.8 980.7 0.24 4276.67 427.67 J2 51508.09 0.15 6293.26 629.33
J2 27615.24 0.45 2259.58 225.96 J3 48676.94 0.23 4199.98 420
J3 37298.89 0.25 4110.95 411.09 S19 J1 48676.94 859.8 0.35 2500.74 250.07
S9 J1 58083.92 1577 0.23 7204.49 720.45 J2 47978.11 0.15 5836.6 583.66
J2 55126.57 0.45 3607.65 360.76 J3 47978.11 0.18 5002.8 500.28
J3 48676.94 0.18 9313.15 931.31 J4 47282.89 0.45 1946.05 194.61
S10 J1 50794.96 2792 0.15 19695.94 1969.59 S20 J1 51508.09 719 0.2 3645.89 364.59
J2 55126.57 0.09 34599.42 3459.94 J2 50085.38 0.15 4863.15 486.31
J3 56598.35 0.18 16782.15 1678.22 J3 49379.37 0.11 6632.94 663.29

Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
12 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 7 strain by GHB and MC criteria are nearly matching with each other,
MC shear strength parameters calculated by GHB parameters. but the thickness of slip surfaces by MC criterion is slightly less and
Slope Lithology Cohesion (MPa) Friction ( ) thinner in contrast to the slip surfaces by GHB criterion. There are
S1 Quartzarenite sandstone 0.215 43.22
certain slopes in the investigated area, having critical SRF less than
S2 Quartzarenite sandstone 0.46 44.16 1. Such slopes require immediate treatment by coupling rock
S3 Dolomitic limestone 0.178 32.52 bolting, grouting, and shotcreting. Retaining walls along with
S4 Ferruginous quartzarenite sandstone 0.293 42.07 proper drainage system is also required for improving the
Slate 0.163 28.77
geotechnical grounds of such slopes. The slopes having SRF of 1e1.3
S5 Sandstone 0.208 40.28
S6 Slate 0.071 29.3 are marginally stable and needs an implementation of proper
S7 Phyllite 0.088 33.42 remedial measures. In most of the investigated slopes, structurally
S8 Sub-arkosic sandstone 0.201 49.05 controlled failures have been evidenced from prevailing field con-
S9 Quartzite 0.31 55.95
ditions and shear strain pattern observed from simulation work.
S10 Quartzite 0.371 45.95
S11 Sub-arkosic sandstone 0.241 44.89
The sealing of discontinuities by employing grouting will increase
S12 Sub-arkosic sandstone 0.182 34.66 shear strength along the discontinuities. For further safety, nets can
S13 Sub-arkosic micaceous sandstone 0.192 38.48 be installed at particular slope facets to reduce the threat such as
S14 Sub-arkosic micaceous sandstone 0.295 42.22 any occasional block failures or rock fall. The overall stability of the
S15 Clay and mica bearing sandstone 0.235 42.23
slopes having SRF greater than 1.3 is acceptable in terms of mass
S16 Sub-arkosic sandstone 0.22 41.67
S17 Micaceous sandstone 0.163 34.67 failure. But, in the case of jointed rock mass, such slopes are under
S18 Micaceous sandstone 0.254 45.4 continual threat of generating occasional wedges. Such adverse
S19 Micaceous sandstone 0.28 43.06 conditions were evidenced from Slope S15, where free-falling
S20 Micaceous sandstone 0.189 44.28 wedges destroyed the roadside garders and walls on either side
of the road. To overcome such rock fall, nets of the desired mesh

Fig. 8. Shear strain contours and SRFs by GHB criterion of investigated slopes along NH-58.

Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx 13

Fig. 9. Shear strain contours and SRFs by MC criterion of investigated slopes along NH-58.

Table 8
Stability grade and critical SRF determined by GHB and MC criteria.

Slope SRF by GHB SRF by MC

Value Stability grade Value Stability grade

S1 1.39 Stable 2.09 Stable

S2 1.2 Marginally stable 1.49 Stable
S3 1.39 Stable 1.97 Stable
S4 2.37 Stable 3.13 Stable
S5 2.06 Stable 2.93 Stable
S6 0.67 Unstable 0.61 Unstable
S7 1 Unstable 1 Unstable
S8 3.42 Stable 4.16 Stable
S9 1.2 Marginally stable 1.32 Stable
S10 1.42 Stable 1.7 Stable
S11 2.22 Stable 3.09 Stable
S12 1.33 Stable 1.93 Stable
S13 1.22 Marginally stable 1.79 Stable
S14 2.02 Stable 2.73 Stable
S15 2.14 Stable 3 Stable
S16 1.95 Stable 2.19 Stable
S17 1.16 Marginally stable 1.96 Stable
S18 0.99 Unstable 0.99 Unstable
S19 1 Unstable 1.01 Unstable
S20 0.99 Unstable 0.99 Unstable

Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
14 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 10. Graphical representation of outcomes determined by GHB and MC criteria.
Fig. 11. Linear relationship between SRF determined by GHB and MC criteria.
should be installed. The slope stabilization process is being done by
considering several factors such as stability grade, capital to be
invested, availability of raw material, availability of dumping sites.
5. Conclusions
Slope stability assessment by numerical modeling technique is a
significant part in formulating or achieving the safe and sound
design in various rock slope engineering practices. The vulnerable
slopes in the study area have been evaluated and stability grade has
been quantified by means of critical SRF. Due to the adverse
orientation of discontinuities, structurally controlled failures are
prominent in the region. Moreover, meteorological, geological and
geotechnical factors are the major factors accounting for frequent
failures along the highway. Extensive rainfall during monsoon
season also reduces the stability of cut slopes to great extent. The
investigated patch has been dissected by major thrust faults. Most
of the investigated slopes lie proximal to such sections. Due to such
reasons, slopes near Kaudiyala and Shivpuri are very prone to
failure. One of the slopes near Kaudiyala (Slope S13) had experi-
enced mass failure during the period of the study. The slope was
evaluated as unstable (critical SRF ¼ 1.22). The outcomes, viz. crit-
ical SRF and shear strain contour distribution within the slopes, are
being supported by existing field conditions. On the basis of SRF,
road cut rock slopes in the investigated patch is categorized and
demarcated as unstable, marginally stable and stable in terms of
mass failure. Furthermore, some general guidelines for prevention
and stabilization of critical slopes are also suggested to reduce the
continual threat of landslides along the highway. As some
Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
occasional block failures have been reported even from stable
slopes and mitigation for such rock fall should be adopted. MC
criterion is more suitable for homogenous rock or debris/soil
slopes. However, extensively jointed rock mass can be treated as
homogeneous and the criterion can be adopted for stability study.
In case of moderately heterogeneous jointed rock mass, nonlinear
GHB criterion is well applicable.
Conflicts of interest
The authors confirm that there are no known conflicts of in-
terest associated with this publication and there has been no sig-
nificant financial support for this work that could have influenced
its outcome.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to NRDMS Division, Department of
Science and Technology, Government of India for providing finan-
cial assistance for field investigations. The authors are also thankful
to Rock Sciences and Engineering Laboratory, Indian Institute of
Technology Bombay for simulation work.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018.
References
Ahmad T, Ramshoo SA, Singh B. Map the neighbourhood in Uttarakhand (MANU),
Uttarakhand disaster 2013. Department of Science and Technology, Govern-
ment of India; 2015.
Bandis SC, Lumsden AC, Barton NR. Fundamentals of rock joint deformation. In-
ternational Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts 1983;20(6):249e68.
Barton NR. A model study of rock-joint deformation. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 1972;9(5):579e602.
Barton NR. Review of a new shear-strength criterion for rock joints. Engineering
Geology 1973;7(4):287e332.
Barton NR, Choubey V. The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock
Mechanics 1977;10(1e2):1e54.
Barton NR. Modelling rock joint behavior from in situ block tests: implications for
nuclear waste repository design. Columbus, OH, USA: Office of Nuclear Waste
Isolation; 1982.
Barton NR. Shear strength criterion for rock, rock joints, rockfill and rock masses:
problems and some solutions. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering 2013;5(4):249e61.
Bieniawski ZT, Bernede MJ. Suggested methods for determining the uniaxial
compressive strength and deformability of rock materials. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics, Mining Science & Geomechanical Abstracts 1979;16(2):
138e40.
 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx
Broch E, Franklin JA. The point-load strength test. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 1972;9(6):
669e97.
Coulomb CA. Sur une application des regles maximis et minimis a quelques prob-
lems de statique, relatives a l’architecture. Mémoires présentés par divers sa-
vants à l’Académie des Sciences, Paris 1776;7:343e82 [in French].
Cruden DM, Varnes DJ. Landslide types and processes. Special Report 247. Wash-
ington, D.C., USA: National Research Council, Transportation Research Board;
1996. p. 36e75.
Devkota KC, Regmi A, Pourghasemi HR, Yoshida K, Pradhan B, Ryu IN, Dhital MR,
Althuwaynee OF. Landslide susceptibility mapping using certainty factor, index
of entropy and logistic regression models in GIS and their comparison at
MuglingeNarayanghat road section in Nepal Himalaya. Natural Hazards
2013;65:135e65.
Dewey JF, Burke K. Tibetan, Variscan and Precambrian basement reactivation:
products of continental collision. Journal of Geology 1973;81:683e92.
Dubey CS, Shukla DP, Ningreichon AS, Usham AL. Orographic control of the
Kedarnath disaster. Current Science 2013;105(11):1474e6.
Eberhardt E. The Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engi-
neering 2012;45:981e8.
Frank W, Grasemann B, Guntli P, Miller C. Geological map of the Kishtwar Chamba-
Kulu region (NW Himalayas, India). Jahrbuch der Geologischen Bundesanstalt
1995;138:299e308.
Gansser A. The geology of the Himalayas. New York, USA: Wiley; 1964.
Gercek H. Poisson’s ratio values for rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences 2007;44(1):1e13.
Griffith AA. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philosophical Trans-
actions of the Royal Society A 1920;221:163e98.
Griffith AA. The theory of rupture. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Congress
of applied mechanics, Delft; 1924. p. 55e63.
Griffiths DV, Lane PA. Slope stability analysis by finite element. Géotechnique
1999;49(3):387e403.
Hencher SR, Richards LR. Assessing the shear strength of rock discontinuities at
laboratory and field scales. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 2015;48(3):
883e905.
Hoek E. Brittle failure of rock. In: Stagg KG, Zienkiewicz OC, editors. Rock mechanics
in engineering practice. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 1968. p. 99e124.
Hoek E. Practical rock engineering. 2006. http://www.rocscience.com.
Hoek E, Brown ET. Underground excavations in rock. London, UK: Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy; 1980.
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B. Hoek-Brown criterion e 2002 edition. In:
Proceedings of NARMS-TAC conference, Toronto; 2002. p. 267e73.
Hoek E, Carter TG, Diederichs MS. Quantification of the geological strength index
chart. In: Proceedings of the 47th US rock mechanics/geomechanics sympo-
sium, San Francisco, CA, USA; 2013.
Hoek E, Diederichs MS. Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2006;43(2):203e15.
Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF. Support of underground excavations in hard rock.
Rotterdam, the Netherlands: A.A. Balkema; 1995.
Hoek E, Marinos P. A brief history of the development of the HoekeBrown failure
criterion. Soils and Rocks 2007;2:1e8.
IS 1122. Method of test for determination of true specific gravity of natural building
stones. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS); 1974.
ISRM. Suggested methods for determining hardness and abrasiveness of rocks. In:
Brown ET, editor. Rock characterization, testing and monitoring: ISRM sug-
gested methods. Oxford, UK: Pergamon; 1981. p. 95e6.
Jaeger JC. The behaviour of closely jointed rock. In: Proceedings of the 11th sym-
posium on rock mechanics, Berkeley; 1970. p. 57e68.
Jiang G, Blick NC, Kaufman AJ, Banerjee DM, Rai V. Carbonate platform growth and
cyclicity at a terminal proterozoic passive margin, Infra Krol Formation and Krol
group, lesser Himalaya, India. Sedimentology 2003;50(5):921e52.
Jing L, Hudson JA. Numerical methods in rock mechanics. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2002;39(4):409e27.
Jing L. A review of techniques, advances and outstanding issues in numerical
modelling for rock mechanics and rock engineering. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2003;40(3):283e353.
Kanungo DP, Pain A, Sharma S. Finite element modeling approach to assess the
stability of debris and rock slopes: a case study from the Indian Himalayas.
Natural Hazards 2013;69(1):1e24.
Katz O, Reches Z, Roegiers JC. Evaluation of mechanical rock properties using a
Schmidt Hammer. International Journal of Rock Mechanics Mining Sciences
2000;37(4):723e8.
Kumar G, Dhaundiyal JN. On the stratigraphic position of the Tal Formation,
Garhwal synform, Garhwal and Tehri Garhwal districts, Uttar Pradesh. Journal
of the Paleontological Society of India 1980;23e24:58e66.
Kumar M, Rana S, Pant PD, Patel RC. Slope stability analysis of Balia Nala landslide,
Kumaun Lesser Himalaya, Nanital, Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Rock Me-
chanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2017;9:150e8.
Kundu J, Sarkar K, Singh AK. Integrating structural and numerical solutions for road
cut slope stability analysis e a case study, India. In: Rock dynamics: from
research to engineering. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group; 2016.
LeFort P. Himalayas: the collided range, present knowledge of continental arc.
American Journal of Science 1975;275(A):1e44.
Leroueil S. Natural slopes and cuts: movement and failure mechanisms. Géo-
technique 2001;51(3):197e243.
Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018
15
Marsal RJ. Large scale testing of rockfill materials. Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division 1967;93(2):27e44.
Marsal RJ. Mechanical properties of rockfill. In: Embankment dam engineering,
Casagrande. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1973. p. 109e200.
Matsui T, San KC. Finite element slope stability analysis by shear strength reduction
technique. Soils and Foundations 1992;32(1):59e70.
Miller RP. Engineering classification and index properties of intact rocks [PhD
Thesis]. University of Illinois; 1965.
Mithal RS. Lithotectonic landslides and hazards in parts of Garhwal-Kumaon
Himalayas. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International conference on case his-
tories in geotechnical engineering, Rolla, Missouri; 1988.
Mohr O. Welche Umstande bedingen die Elastizitatsgrenze und den Bruch eines
Materials? Zeitschrift des Vereins Deutscher Ingenieure 1900;44:1524e30 [in
German].
Mondal MEA, Siddique T, Mondal B, Alam MM. SMR geomechanics and kinematic
analysis near Rasulpur, Fatehpur Sikri, Uttar Pradesh. Journal Geological Society
of India 2016;87(5):623e7.
Nair AS, Singh SK. Understanding the causes of Uttarakhand disaster of June 2013: a
scientific review. In: Proceedings of the 2nd disaster, risk and vulnerability
conference, Trivandrum, India; 2014. p. 57e64.
Pain A, Kanungo DP, Sarkar S. Rock slope stability assessment using finite element
based modelling - examples from the Indian Himalayas. Geomechanics and
Geoengineering 2014;9(3):215e30.
Patton FD. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock. In: Proceedings of the 1st
Congress of the International society for rock mechanics (ISRM). Lisbon,
Portugal: ISRM; 1966.
Ramamurthy T, Rao GV, Singh J. Engineering behaviour of phyllites. Engineering
Geology 1993;33(3):209e25.
Ramamurthy T, Arora VK. Strength prediction for jointed rocks in confined and
unconfined states. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
& Geomechanics Abstracts 1994;31(1):9e22.
Rocscience. Phase2 2D finite element program for calculating stresses and esti-
mating support around underground excavations. Toronto, Canada: Rocscience
Inc.; 2001.
Sah N, Kumar M, Upadhyay R, Dutt S. Hill slope stability of Nanital city, Kumaun
lesser Himalaya, Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotech-
nical Engineering 2018;10(2):280e9.
Sarkar S, Pandit K, Shamra M, Pippal A. Risk assessment and stability analysis of a
recent landslide at Vishnuprayag on the RishikesheBadrinath highway, Uttar-
akhand, India. Current Science 2018;114(7):1527e33.
Sati SP, Naithani A, Rawat GS. Landslides in the Garhwal lesser Himalaya, UP, India.
The Environmentalist 1998;18(3):149e55.
Sati SP, Sunderiyal YP, Rana N, Dangwal S. Recent landslides in Uttarakhand: na-
ture’s furry or human folly. Current Science 2011;100(11):1617e20.
Siddique T, Alam MM, Mondal MEA, Vishal V. Slope mass rating and kinematic
analysis of slopes along National Highway-58, near Jonk, Rishikesh, India.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2015;7(5):600e6.
Siddique T, Pradhan SP, Vishal V, Mondal MEA, Singh TN. Stability assessment of
Himalayan road cut slopes along National Highway 58, India. Environmental
Earth Sciences 2017;76:759.
Siddique T, Pradhan SP. Stability and sensitivity analysis of Himalayan road cut
debris slopes: an investigation along NH-58, India. Natural Hazards 2018;93(2):
577e600.
Singh B, Goel RK. Software for engineering control of landslide and tunnelling
hazards. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: A.A. Balkema; 2002.
Singh M, Singh B. Modified Mohr-Coulomb criterion for non-linear triaxial and
polyaxial strength of jointed rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences 2012;51:43e52.
Singh M. Shear strength behaviour of jointed rock mass. In: Pradhan SP, Vishal V,
Singh TN, editors. Landslides: Theory, Practice and Modelling, vol. 50. Springer;
2019. p. 41e60.
Sonmez H, Ulusay R. Modifications to the geological strength index (GSI) and their
applicability to the stability of slopes. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences 1999;36(6):743e60.
Sonmez H, Ulusay R. A discussion on the HoekeBrown failure criterion and sug-
gested modification to the criterion verified by slope stability case studies.
Yerbilimleri 2002;26:77e99.
Valdiya KS. Geology of Kumaun lesser Himalaya. Dehradun, India: Wadia Institute
of Himalayan Geology; 1980.
Valdiya KS. Lesser Himalayan geology: crucial problems and controversies. Current
Science 1983;52(18):839e57.
Valdiya KS. Must we have high dams in geodynamically active Himalayan domain.
Current Science 1992;63(4):289e96.
Valdiya KS. Emergence and evolution of Himalaya: reconstructing history in the
light of recent studies. Progress in Physical Geography 2002;26(3):360e99.
Vásárhelyi B. A possible method for estimating the Poisson’s rate values of rock
mass. Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica 2009;44(3):313e22.
Vásárhelyi B, Kovács D. Empirical methods of calculating the mechanical parame-
ters of the rock mass. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering 2017;61(1):39e
50.
Vishal V, Siddique T, Purohit R, Phophliya MK, Pradhan SP. Hazard assessment in
rockfall-prone Himalayan slopes National highway-58, India: rating and
simulation. Natural Hazards 2017;85(1):487e503.
Wyllie DC, Mah CW. Rock slope engineering. 4th ed. Taylor and Francis Group;
2004.
16 S.P. Pradhan, T. Siddique / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx

Yagiz S. Predicting uniaxial compressive strength, modulus of elasticity and index
properties of rocks using the Schmidt hammer. Bulletin of Engineering Geology
and the Environment 2009;68(1):55e63.
Yin A. Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the Himalayan orogen as constrained by
along-strike variation of structural geometry, exhumation history, and foreland
sedimentation. Earth Science Reviews 2006;76(1e2):1e131.
Dr. Tariq Siddique is an Assistant Professor in Department
of Geology, Aligarh Muslim University, India. He earned the
degrees of BSc (Hons. Geology) and MSc (Applied Geology)
from Department of Geology, Aligarh Muslim University. He
obtained his PhD from Department of Earth Sciences, Indian
Institute of Technology Roorkee, India. The topic of his PhD
thesis is “Slope stability investigations of road cut slopes:
NH-58, Rishikesh to Devprayag”. He has been awarded two
gold medals for outstanding performance and securing
highest grades during his post-graduation at Aligarh
Muslim University, India. He is life member of Indian
G e ot e c h n i c a l S o c i e t y, D e l h i C h a p t e r, I n d i a . H e h a s
supervised three post-graduate dissertation candidates. Presently, he is working
on slope stability assessment of road cut slopes in the Himalayan terrain. He has
seven publications in International and National Journals of repute. He has also
published two book chapters. He had presented many research papers in interna-
tional and national conferences. He worked on project entitled “Reservoir Charac-
terization of Sandstone” during summer internship at Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation, Dehradun, India. He has attended three outreach programs on
different aspects of Remote Sensing and its Applications conducted by Indian Space
Research Organization (ISRO) under the Department of Space, Government of India.
He has participated in Industry-Academia workshop on “Recent trends and chal-
lenges in Oil and Gas drilling technology” conducted by Oil and Natural Gas Corpo-
ration Dehradun, India.

Please cite this article as: Pradhan SP, Siddique T, Stability assessment of landslide-prone road cut rock slopes in Himalayan terrain: A finite
element method based approach, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.018